Gardner v. Johnson ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-11014
DAVID ALLEN GARDNER
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
- - - - - - - - - -
April 4, 2001
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
WIENER, Circuit Judge:
Petitioner-Appellant David Allen Gardner appeals the district
court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted of capital murder in the
course of a kidnaping and was sentenced to death. After exhausting
his remedies at the state level, Gardner applied for a writ of
habeas corpus which the district court denied. We granted a
Certificate of Appealability (COA) limited to determining whether
the State’s psychiatrists’ pre-examination warnings to Gardner were
sufficient to ensure that his consent to be examined was
"informed," thereby negating any potential violation of his Fifth
Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination that might
otherwise have resulted from the punishment phase admission —— over
timely objection —— of the assertedly prejudicial testimony of the
psychiatrist who conducted that exam. As we conclude that this
constitutional right was violated by the sentencing-phase admission
of the testimony of the psychiatrist who examined Gardner on behalf
of the State of Texas and that Gardner suffered prejudice from that
violation, we reverse the decision of the district court, grant
Gardner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and remand for
entry of an appropriate judgment vacating his sentence and allowing
the State a reasonable time within which to conduct a new,
constitutionally valid sentencing proceeding or, alternatively, to
resentence Gardner to life imprisonment in conformity with Texas
law.
I. Facts and Proceedings
The facts of Gardner’s crime of conviction are set forth in
the opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) disposing
of Gardner’s direct appeal.1 Gardner stopped and picked up a pair
of fourteen-year old runaway hitchhikers, turned down a gravel
road, and pulled off beside a bridge. After he told the teenagers
1
Gardner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 195, 197-98 (Tex. Crim. App.
1987).
2
to get out of the car, the three walked down an embankment where
Gardner stabbed the male numerous times and left him for dead, then
took the female to a nearby lake where he stabbed her numerous
times, hit her in the head with a rock, and abandoned her as well.
The male lived but the female died.
The state procedural history of Gardner’s case is highly
significant to our consideration today, so we review it in detail.
During the sentencing phase of Gardner’s murder trial, the State
introduced only two evidentiary matters: (1) evidence that, some
years prior to committing the instant crime, Gardner had fled the
state of Kentucky after being released on bond while awaiting trial
on two charges of theft and (2) testimony of Dr. Clay Griffith, who
had, pursuant to a court order, conducted a pre-trial psychiatric
evaluation of Gardner. After telling the jury that he had
testified in “[p]robably three thousand” criminal trials,2 Dr.
Griffith stated with “one hundred percent certainty” that, in his
professional opinion, Gardner would “commit violent acts in the
future,” he was “super dangerous, and [he would] kill [again] given
any chance at all.” Dr. Griffith’s testimony also included his
professional opinion that Gardner would “continue to be violent
even if placed in incarceration; and this would not prevent his
2
Recently, a “brief search of the cases” revealed that, “in
those cases which have produced published opinions, Dr. Griffith
has testified ‘yes’ to the . . . special issue [of future
dangerousness] on twenty-two occasions, and ‘no’ on zero
occasions.” Flores v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 456, 461 n. 6 (5th Cir.
2000) (Emilio M. Garza, J., concurring).
3
violence and his brutality.” And, added Dr. Griffith, Gardner
“showed absolutely no remorse through the interview” and his
tearful in-court confession of the murder was not credible because
Gardner could “turn tears on and off” at will.
After his objection to the admission of Dr. Griffith’s
testimony was overruled and the psychiatrist was allowed to
testify, defense counsel cross-examined Dr. Griffith extensively
and also presented three favorable character witnesses on Gardner’s
behalf. Two of Gardner’s former co-workers testified that he was
a good employee and that they had never seen him exhibit any
improper or violent conduct. The chief jailer of the Parker County
Sheriff’s Office, where Gardner was held while awaiting trial,
testified that Gardner was a model prisoner who had never caused
any problems.
The record shows that, even though Gardner was already
represented by defense counsel, his attorney was not present either
when Gardner consented to the psychiatric examination or at any
time during the course of the examination itself. In fact, it is
clear from the record that defense counsel had no knowledge that
his client was to be examined and that the State made little or no
effort to inform counsel in advance.3
3
In its opinion regarding Gardner’s direct appeal, the CCA
stated that:
On September 29, 1980, pursuant to a motion by the
State, the trial court signed an order for appellant to
be examined by Dr. Griffith and Dr. Grigson. [Gardner’s
defense counsel, Ed] Todd received a copy of this order
4
During his testimony at the punishment phase of Gardner’s
trial, Dr. Griffith stated that he informed
the Defendant . . . what he was coming for, for a
psychiatric examination; that this was ordered by Judge
Hopkins. We informed him that [1] a report would have to
be sent to the Court stating our findings so far as
whether he was competent to stand trial, whether he, in
our opinion, was sane or insane at the time of the
alleged offense; [2] that in the State of Texas, there is
no confidentiality so that anything that he might say
could be used against him, or could be used for him at
some later date in the courtroom (emphasis added).
Counsel for Gardner timely objected to the admission of Dr.
Griffith’s testimony at the punishment phase. In Gardner’s direct
appeal, counsel contested the admission of Dr. Griffith’s testimony
on the grounds that he had unlawfully induced Gardner’s consent by
telling him that the examination “could be used against him or
could be used for him at some later date in the courtroom.”
Unpersuaded, the CCA affirmed Gardner’s conviction and death
sentence.
Gardner petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in state court.
He reiterated his objection to the admission of Dr. Griffith’s
testimony, this time emphasizing that the warnings given prior to
the examination were constitutionally deficient under Estelle v.
around 10 a.m. on September 30, 1980. He immediately
called the Parker County Jail and was informed that
appellant had already left for Dallas. Gardner v.
State, 733 S.W.2d at 198-99.
Todd was thus not able to be present at the time of the
psychiatric examinations or at the time when Drs. Griffith and
Grigson made their warnings to Gardner.
5
Smith4 because he was not adequately informed that the results of
the exam could be used against him (1) during the punishment phase
of the trial (2) to secure the death penalty.5 The state trial
court, after entering its findings of fact and conclusions of law,
recommended that habeas relief be denied. The CCA denied relief,
stating that Gardner had already raised his Estelle v. Smith claim
on direct appeal.
Gardner filed a second state habeas petition, stressing that
he had not raised his Estelle v. Smith claim on direct appeal and
that the earlier decision of the CCA was therefore erroneous. As
a result, the CCA ordered a state trial court to conduct an
evidentiary hearing to clarify the content of the warnings given to
Gardner by Dr. Griffith prior to the psychiatric examination. At
the hearing (held in 1995, fifteen years after Dr. Griffith’s
4
451 U.S. 454 (1981).
5
Dr. Griffith’s warning to Gardner can reasonably be
interpreted as having a bifurcated meaning. He first told
Gardner that “a report would have to be sent to the Court”
regarding whether Gardner was “competent to stand trial.” That
statement is reasonably susceptible of advising Gardner that the
trial judge alone could use the examination report and then only
to determine competency to stand trial. Dr. Griffith then went
on to tell Gardner that “anything he might say could be used
against him . . . at some later date in the courtroom.” That
statement is reasonably susceptible of advising Gardner that his
statements only —— and not the examination results or Dr.
Griffith’s testimony —— could be used for or against Gardner in
court. Nowhere in Dr. Griffith’s warnings is it even implied
that the results of the psychiatric examination or the
psychiatrist’s testimony could be used against Gardner at trial,
let alone (1) at the sentencing phase (2) to secure the death
penalty.
6
psychiatric examination of Gardner), Dr. James P. Grigson,6 who had
aided Dr. Griffith in conducting the examination of Gardner,
testified to what he (Grigson) had told Gardner before the
examination:
Prior to the beginning of the examination I
introduced myself, my name, explained that I
was a medical doctor, a psychiatrist.
Introduced Dr. Griffith. Also explained that
he was a medical doctor, also a psychiatrist.
I did read him the court order signed by Judge
Hopkins. And then I explained to him that it
was not confidential because we would be
sending back a report discussing it. I
explained to him that the motion had been
filed by the district attorney . . . to have
the examination. And the purpose was to
examine him in three areas, competency,
sanity, and dangerousness. And I explained to
him at that time that competency did mean
6
Dr. Grigson's extensive participation in capital
punishment cases has earned him notoriety, including the titles
"Dr. Death” and “the hanging psychiatrist." See, generally, Ron
Rosenbaum, Travels With Dr. Death, Vanity Fair, May 1990, at 206
(recounting the author’s travels with Dr. Grigson over the course
of three days during which Dr. Grigson testified at three
sentencing phase hearings; all three men were sentenced to
death). “Grigson's fame began with his testimony in the trial of
Randall Dale Adams, where Grigson testified that he was one
hundred percent certain Adams would kill again, and after it was
revealed that the evidence against Adams was falsified by the
police, Adams was released as innocent. (Emphasis added). After
Grigson testified in hundreds of capital sentencing hearings, the
[American Psychiatric Association] and the Texas Society of
Psychiatric Physicians ousted him from their organizations for
‘arriving at a psychiatric diagnosis without examining the
individuals in question and for indicating, while testifying as
an expert witness, that he could predict with 100 percent
certainty that the individuals would engage in future violent
acts.’" Flores, 210 F.3d at 467 n. 16 (citing Laura Beil, Groups
Expel Psychiatrist Known for Murder Cases, The Dallas Morning
News, July 26, 1995, at 21A; Dr. Death Loses 2 Memberships Over
Ethics Accusations, The Fort- Worth Star-Telegram, July 27, 1995,
at A25).
7
whether or not he had sufficient present
mental ability to consult with his attorney
with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding, and whether he had a factual as
well as a rational understanding regarding the
proceedings against him. He told me he
understood that. And then I explained sanity
or insanity was defined as whether or not he
was suffering from a severe mental disease or
defect that prevented him from knowing the
difference between right and wrong. And he
understood that. I told him dangerousness
meant whether or not he represented a
continuing threat to society (emphasis added).
In denying Gardner’s habeas petition for a second time, the
CCA ruled that his Estelle v. Smith claim was procedurally barred
and, in the alternative, that it was without merit.7 Gardner filed
a motion for rehearing, pointing out that the CCA had again
incorrectly recounted the procedural history to come up with the
conclusion of procedural bar. In apparent recognition of its
mistake, the CCA granted Gardner’s motion and issued a new opinion
which corrected the factual errors of the previous opinion; the
court did not, however, formally withdraw its earlier opinion,
instead leaving it “on the books.”
The CCA’s new opinion reaffirmed its prior ruling that
Gardner’s Estelle v. Smith claim was procedurally barred, but the
court failed to address the merits of his constitutional claim at
all. Inasmuch as (1) all parties to the case agree that the
procedural bar rule used by the CCA was novel and thus inapplicable
on federal habeas review, and (2) the perfunctory discussion of the
7
Ex parte Gardner, 959 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
8
merits of Gardner’s Estelle v. Smith complaint was never withdrawn,
the CCA’s scant reasoning and ruling on the merits is what is
before us today.
Having exhausted the remedies available at the state level,
Gardner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal
district court, which was denied. He appealed that decision to
this court, and we granted Gardner’s application for a COA on his
Fifth Amendment Estelle v. Smith claim.
II. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
As Gardner filed his federal petition for habeas review in
1998, well after the effective date of the 1996 Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), we review his petition under
the standards specified in that act.8 The AEDPA forbids us to
issue a writ of habeas corpus with respect to “any claim that was
adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings” unless the
state court’s adjudication of that claim resulted in “a decision
that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
8
Gardner contends that the second CCA opinion addressing
his habeas petition superceded the first opinion and withdrew
that earlier opinion. Thus, as the second opinion did not
address the merits of his Estelle v. Smith claim, we should
review that claim de novo. We disagree. The second opinion
supplemented and did not replace the first opinion, leaving in
place that opinion’s merits ruling. Thus, that portion of the
first opinion that addresses Gardner’s Estelle v. Smith claim
remains a valid “decision on the merits” issued by a state court
for the purposes of AEDPA. As such, we must review Gardner’s
claim under the standard set forth in that statute.
9
of the United States . . . ; or resulted in a decision that was
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”9 A decision is
contrary to clearly established federal law “if the state court
arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme
Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case
differently than [the] Court has on a set of materially
indistinguishable facts.”10 A decision is an unreasonable
application of federal law “if the state court identifies the
correct governing legal principle . . . but unreasonably applies
that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.”11 Factual
findings of the state court are presumed to be correct, so we defer
to them “unless they were ‘based on an unreasonable determination
of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court
proceeding.’”12
B. The Estelle v. Smith Claim
Gardner claims that his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Estelle v.
Smith, was violated by the introduction of Dr. Griffith’s testimony
at the punishment phase of his trial. In Smith, the Supreme Court
9
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
10
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000).
11
Id.12
Chambers v. Johnson, 218 F.3d 360, 363 (5th Cir. 2000)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)).
10
“held that a capital defendant’s right against compelled self-
incrimination precludes the state from subjecting him to a
psychiatric examination concerning future dangerousness without
first informing the defendant that he has a right to remain silent
and that anything he says can be used against him at the sentencing
proceeding.”13 The warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona,14 ——
“including that [the defendant] has ‘a right to remain silent’ and
that ‘anything said can and will be used against the individual in
court’”15 —— are not sufficient to satisfy the more stringent
requirements set forth in Estelle.16 To apprise a capital defendant
fully of his Fifth Amendment rights before subjecting him to a
court-ordered psychiatric examination, the defendant must be told
that it will “be used to gather evidence necessary to decide
whether, if convicted, he should be sentenced to death.”17 We
conclude that the warnings provided by Drs. Griffith and Grigson,
whether viewed separately or in combination, were insufficient
fully to apprise Gardner of his constitutional rights; moreover, we
conclude that the CCA decision that held those warnings to be
13
Powell v. Texas, 492 U.S. 680, 681 (1989) (citing
Estelle, 451 U.S. at 461-469) (emphasis added).
14
384 U.S. 436 (1966).
15
Estelle, 451 U.S. at 467 (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436, 467-469 (1966)).
16
Id. at 466-67.
17
Id.11
sufficient was an “unreasonable application of existing federal
law.”
The CCA made a factual determination that Dr. Griffith had
made the warning in 1980 that he testified to during Gardner’s 1981
trial, and that Dr. Grigson had made his warning in 1980 that he
testified at the 1995 evidentiary hearing to having made.
Although, given the vast number of trials at which Dr. Grigson
testified, we find remarkable his ability to remember his specific
warning to Gardner some fifteen years after the fact, we are
constrained by the AEDPA to conclude that the CCA’s factual
findings that the doctors “said what they said they said” are not
unreasonable and thus must be accorded the specified deference.
On the strength of these factual findings, the CCA made two
rulings on the merits of Gardner’s Smith claim. In the first, the
CCA held that Dr. Griffith’s warnings to Gardner that statements he
would make in the course of the examination “could be used against
him . . . at some later date in the courtroom” “sufficiently
informed [Gardner] that his statements could be used against him at
the punishment stage of his capital murder trial since that went on
‘in the courtroom’” and that “a warning that a statement ‘may be
used against’ a defendant conveys that the statement could be used
at the punishment stage of a capital murder trial.”18 The CCA’s
second ruling added that Dr. Grigson’s warnings, in combination
with those given by Dr. Griffith, were clearly sufficient under
18
Ex parte Gardner, 959 S.W.2d at 192.
12
Estelle v. Smith.19 At the 1995 evidentiary hearing, Dr. Grigson
testified that in 1980 he had informed Gardner that he was being
examined for “dangerousness” which, Grigson explained to Gardner,
meant “whether or not he represented a continuing threat to
society.” The CCA concluded that, in conjunction with Dr.
Griffith’s statement, “this more than complies with Estelle v.
Smith.”20
As noted, the AEDPA mandates that habeas petitions be granted
only if the State court adjudication of the claim either “resulted
in a decision that [1] was contrary to, or [2] involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”21 Being
disjunctive, each of these two prongs is to be accorded independent
meaning, so habeas relief can be granted if the prisoner prevails
on either prong.22 Although we cannot say that the decision of the
CCA was “contrary to” the law as established in Estelle v. Smith
because the CCA clearly did apply the correct legal rule to the
pertinent facts, the CCA’s application of that rule obviously
produced an incorrect result. Thus our relevant inquiry is whether
the CCA’s application “of clearly established Federal law, as
19
The CCA did not evaluate Dr. Grigson’s warning for its
stand-alone sufficiency; only what it added in combination with
Dr. Griffith’s warning.
20
Id.
21
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
22
Williams, 529 U.S. at 404-05.
13
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”23 produced a
result that is not merely wrong but is so wrong that it is
“unreasonable.” We conclude that it did.
The Supreme Court, in the recent case of Williams v. Taylor,24
clarified the standard of review of habeas petitions under the
AEDPA. In her majority opinion, Justice O’Connor does not purport
to define the term “reasonable” but does offer useful guidance.
Her opinion first makes clear that the standard is an objective
one, specifically rejecting25 our previously employed, subjective
“all reasonable jurists” standard.26 She then describes a
relatively broad range along the “reasonableness” continuum at any
point on which a state court decision might be held to be an
“unreasonable application of Federal law”: To be unreasonable, the
state decision must be more than merely incorrect but can be
something less than the stringent “all reasonable jurists” standard
(under which the mere fact that reasonable jurists may disagree
about the result requires the state court decision to be upheld).27
Although we have addressed Williams’s “unreasonable
application” rule on several occasions, we have done little to
23
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
24
529 U.S. 362 (2000)
25
Williams, 529 U.S. at 409-10.
26
We expressed this standard in Drinkard v. Johnson, 97
F.3d 751, 769 (5th Cir. 1996).
27
Id.14
clarify the Supreme Court’s standard in that case.28 Other circuits
have addressed the issue too and in several instances have offered
helpful clarifications of the Williams standard. For instance, the
Tenth Circuit, after noting the importance of the objective nature
of the standard, held that “the fact that one court or even a few
courts have applied the precedent in the same manner to close facts
does not make the state court decision ‘reasonable.’”29
The Ninth Circuit in Van Tran v. Lindsey,30 held that the
Williams “unreasonable application” standard “generally allows for
reversals only where the court of appeals is left with a ‘definite
and firm conviction’ that an error has been committed.”31 As the
Van Tran court went on to explain,
we must reverse a state court’s decision as
involving an ‘unreasonable application’ of
clearly established federal law when our
independent review of the legal question does
not merely allow us ultimately to conclude
that the petitioner has the better of two
reasonable legal arguments, but rather leaves
us with a ‘firm conviction’ that one answer,
the one rejected by the [state] court, was
correct and the other, the application of the
28
See, e.g., Chambers, 218 F.3d at 362; Perry v. Johnson,
215 F.3d 504, 507 (2000); Hill v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 485
(2000).
29
Valdez v. Ward, 219 F.3d 1222, 1230 (10th Cir. 2000).
30
212 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2000)
31
Id. at 1153 (citation omitted). We note that this 9th
Circuit language is identical to our definition of clear error ——
next to de novo, our least deferential standard of review. Adams
v. Unione Mediterranea Di Sicurta, 220 F.3d 659, 670 (5th Cir.
2000) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564,
573-74 (1985)).
15
federal law that the court adopted, was
erroneous.32
We also note another insightful observation made in Van Tran:
The Ninth Circuit emphasized that in Williams the Supreme Court
rejected the interpretation, adopted in
various forms by the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh,
and Eleventh Circuits, that defines
reasonableness on the basis of whether
‘reasonable jurists’ could disagree about the
result reached by the state court. Instead,
the Court adopted an ‘objectively
unreasonable’ standard, employing language
used in decisions by the Third and Eight
Circuits.33
This is doubly significant when viewed in the context of the Third
and Eighth Circuits’ adoption of the same test as Williams because
both circuits found the “reasonable jurists” standard to be too
deferential to state courts, clearly implying that the Supreme
Court preferred a more stringent habeas review of state court
decisions.
Although Williams teaches that state court decisions should
not be reversed merely because they are incorrect —— i.e., just
because we would have reached a different conclusion —— Justice
O’Connor‘s opinion makes equally clear that neither should such
decisions be upheld when we conclude that the state court has not
just misapplied the law to the facts but has done so in an
objectively unreasonable manner. Stated another way, even though
the AEDPA requires the federal courts to show more deference to
32
Van Tran, 212 F.3d at 1153-54 (citation omitted).
33
Id. at 1150-51 (citations omitted).
16
state court decisions than they would in a de novo review, this
cannot be interpreted to mean that an “objectively unreasonable”
application of federal law should be allowed to stand. Even though
we cannot reverse a decision merely because we would reach a
different outcome, we must reverse when we conclude that the state
court decision applies the correct legal rule to a given set of
facts in a manner that is so patently incorrect as to be
“unreasonable.”
That is clearly the case here. The CCA first held that Dr.
Griffith’s warning to Gardner that his statements during the
examination “could be used against him . . . at some later date in
the courtroom” “sufficiently informed [Gardner] that his statements
could be used against him at the punishment stage of his capital
murder trial since that went on ‘in the courtroom.’”34 This warning
—— given well in advance of trial, to a layman with no legal
training, out of the presence of his counsel —— simply cannot be
stretched to the point of having “apprise[d] [Gardner] of his
rights” and allowed him “knowingly [to] decide to waive them.”35
Not, at least, when the rights in question are those recognized in
Estelle v. Smith as clearly requiring warnings to the defendant
that the adverse use in question means use (1) at the punishment
stage (2) to accomplish the state’s goal of obtaining the death
penalty.
34
Ex parte Gardner, 959 S.W.2d at 192.
35
Estelle, 451 U.S. at 469.
17
Many events take place in a courtroom during the protracted
course of a criminal proceeding —— the arraignment, various
evidentiary hearings, the guilt/innocence phase of the trial ——
before and in addition to the sentencing phase of the trial. Such
a vague reference —— “in the courtroom” —— cannot possibly suffice
to fulfill Estelle v. Smith’s strict requirement that the defendant
be informed that his words and the results of the psychiatric
examination can and will be used against him at the sentencing
phase to secure the death penalty. In like manner, the general
phrase “may be used against him” in no way narrows or identifies
the point in the criminal proceeding at which Gardner’s statements
and the results of the examination could and would be used against
him or for what specific purpose.
We repeat for emphasis that Dr. Griffith’s vague and ambiguous
words could reasonably be interpreted by an uninitiated layman to
mean that (1) the results of the examination could be used (a) by
the court (no mention of the prosecution) (b) to determine mental
competency to stand trial; and (2) the defendant’s own statements
(no mention of the test results or the examining psychiatrist’s
opinions) could be used against him in court.36 The CCA then
supplemented its holding with an alternative conclusion: When
taken together, the warnings given by Drs. Griffith and Grigson
gave Gardner adequate notice of his rights under Estelle v. Smith.
Although Dr. Grigson’s warnings —— specifically his reference to
36
See supra note 4.
18
determining Gardner’s “dangerousness,” as explained to mean
whether Gardner “represented a continuing threat to society” ——
might be viewed by some as slightly more informative than those
given by Dr. Griffith, it is patently unreasonable to say that they
meet the standards of Estelle v. Smith. As Dr. Grigson testified,
his warnings were gleaned from the language of opinions authored by
a Texas state court judge and this court. An experienced defense
counsel or even, perhaps, a career criminal well-versed in
“jailhouse legalese,” might recognize this language as a reference,
however oblique, to the arcane terms of art in the Texas special
issue of “future dangerousness” which in turn signal reference to
the penalty phase of a capital trial. To most laymen, however,
particularly unsophisticated and undereducated members of society
with no legal training or experience,37 and unaccompanied by
counsel, this language cannot reasonably be read to satisfy even
minimally the strictures of Estelle v. Smith. Indeed, if layman
such as Gardner could be expected to grasp the hidden significance
of such legal “buzz words” and thus be deemed to have been
adequately informed of their constitutional rights in such
settings, then prophylactic warnings such as that mandated by
Estelle v. Smith would be wholly unnecessary. We can only
speculate that the CCA’s extensive treatment of procedural bar,
coupled with the relatively short shrift that it gave the Estelle
37
There is no indication in the record that Gardner
possessed even a minimal jailhouse grasp of criminal or
constitutional law.
19
v. Smith issue, might account for that court’s otherwise
inexplicable conclusion that the “warnings” given by Drs. Griffith
and Grigson, long before the commencement of even the
guilt/innocence phase of Gardner’s trial, were sufficient under
Estelle v. Smith even though neither doctor mentioned or even
hinted at the possibility of the introduction of the results of the
examination at the punishment phase of the trial to secure a
sentence of death. Those elements are so clearly required by the
Supreme Court in Estelle v. Smith and its progeny that they are
indispensable elements to a conclusion of informed consent, itself
an indispensable requisite for the waiver of such a basic
constitutional right.
C. Prejudice
The State nevertheless contends that, even if the warnings
given by Drs. Griffith and Grigson were inadequate to meet the
Estelle v. Smith standard, Gardner was not prejudiced by the
admission of Dr. Griffith’s testimony at sentencing. We are well
aware that we cannot grant habeas relief to a petitioner unless he
can show that he suffered “actual prejudice” from the trial error
at issue.38 Actual prejudice results when “the error had
substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the
jury’s verdict.”39 Texas argues that Gardner was not prejudiced by
38
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993); Woods v.
Johnson, 75 F.3d 1017, 1019 (5th Cir. 1996) (applying the Brecht
standard for harmless error to an Estelle v. Smith claim).
39
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946).
20
the introduction of Dr. Griffith’s testimony because (1) Dr.
Griffith was thoroughly cross-examined at the sentencing phase of
the trial, and (2) the evidence demonstrated that Gardner’s crime
was such a heinous and brutal one that the jury undoubtedly would
have sentenced him to death, even if they had not been exposed to
the testimony of Dr. Griffith. We disagree entirely.
Dr. Griffith’s testimony was the centerpiece of the evidence
presented by the State during the punishment phase of Gardner’s
trial. After being introduced to the jury as a medical expert with
extensive experience in evaluating the future dangerousness of
criminal defendants, Dr. Griffith testified, with “one hundred
percent certainty,” that Gardner would “commit violent acts in the
future”; that he was “super dangerous, and [would] kill [again]
given any chance at all”; and that he would be a danger to others
even if incarcerated. “Would”: not “might,” not likely “would,”
but absolutely “would.” Dr. Griffith further testified that
Gardner exhibited no remorse for his crimes and that any behavior
to the contrary should not to be believed.
Those words, spoken by a highly credentialed and experienced
expert bearing the imprimatur of the State, constitute as great if
not greater prejudice to Gardner than that suffered by the criminal
defendants in Satterwhite v. Texas40 and Vanderbilt v. Collins,41
40
486 U.S. 249 (1988). Dr. Grigson was the state’s
psychiatric expert in that case and his testimony, found by the
Supreme Court to have actually prejudiced the defendant, was
remarkably similar to that of Dr. Griffith in this case, both in
its content and in its prejudicial effect on the jury. He
21
both cases in which Estelle v. Smith violations were found to have
actually prejudiced the habeas petitioner. In each of those cases,
the State bolstered the testimony of the psychiatric examiner by
presenting many witnesses who testified to the bad character of the
defendant. Here, Dr. Griffith was the one and only character
witness presented by the State at the punishment phase. In
addition, the substance of Dr. Griffith’s testimony and the
vehemence with which he presented it were at least as damaging, if
not more so, than that of the psychiatric examiners in Satterwhite
and Vanderbilt. In the words of our opinion in Vanderbilt, “it
would strain credulity to conclude that Dr. [Griffith]’s testimony,
which was quite lengthy and bore the imprimatur of an expert’s
opinion, did not have substantial, injurious effect on the outcome
of [Gardner’s] penalty phase.”42 We are satisfied that this
prejudice was in no way diminished, much less eliminated, by the
valiant efforts of Gardner’s trial counsel to mitigate through
cross-examination the devastating effects of the expert testimony
of the experienced and clearly biased psychiatrist for the State.
testified that “in his expert opinion, Satterwhite ‘will present
a continuing threat to society by continuing acts of violence.’
He [further] explained that Satterwhite has ‘a lack of a
conscience.’” In like manner, Dr. Griffith testified that Gardner
would “commit violent acts in the future;” that he was “super
dangerous, and [would] kill [again] given any chance at all”;
that he would be a danger to others even if incarcerated; that he
exhibited no remorse for his crimes; and that any behavior
indicating to the contrary should not to be believed.
41
994 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1993).
42
Id. at 199.
22
Likewise, the State’s stereotypical fall-back argument —— that
the heinous and egregious nature of the crime would have ensured
assessment of the death penalty even absent the psychiatric
testimony about future dangerousness —— cannot carry the day here.
First, that argument cannot prevail without eviscerating the
Supreme Court-approved Texas “special issues” scheme. To permit a
jury to impose the death sentence solely because the facts are
heinous and egregious would be to return to the days of inflicting
capital punishment based on emotion and revenge, supplanting
altogether the questions of deliberateness and future dangerousness
which make the Texas scheme constitutional. Second, in this
particular case, the details of the crime, as horrific as they are
on an absolute scale, are not significantly more egregious than
those in, for example, Vanderbilt.43 Except for there being a
second teenage victim here (who survived), the crimes are amazingly
parallel; yet the equally heinous facts in Vanderbilt were
insufficient to negate prejudice. Finally, our decades of
experience with scores of § 2254 habeas cases from the death row of
Texas teach an obvious lesson that is frequently overlooked:
Almost without exception, the cases we see in which conviction of
a capital crime has produced a death sentence arise from extremely
egregious, heinous, and shocking facts. But, if that were all that
is required to offset prejudicial legal error and convert it to
harmless error, habeas relief based on evidentiary error in the
43
Vanderbilt, 994 F.2d at 191.
23
punishment phase would virtually never be available, so testing for
it would amount to a hollow judicial act. We are satisfied that
here, Dr. Griffith’s testimony cannot conceivably be said to have
had no substantial, injurious effect on the outcome of the penalty
phase of this case: There was Estelle v. Smith error and it was
legally prejudicial.
III. Conclusion
As Estelle v. Smith teaches, the Fifth Amendment requires that
the defendant in a capital trial who is subjected to a court-
ordered psychiatric examination be informed that he is free to
refuse to participate in that examination because its results can
be used against him at the sentencing phase of the trial to secure
the death penalty. Even though no magic words are required to be
incanted talismanically, we nevertheless conclude that the
“warnings” given here were so vague and ambiguous that it would not
merely be erroneous but indisputably would be unreasonable to
conclude that they could possibly have informed Gardner adequately,
for purposes of satisfying Estelle v. Smith, that the psychiatric
examination to be conducted by Dr. Griffith could and would be so
used. We are thus satisfied that the CCA’s conclusion —— that the
warnings given by Drs. Griffith and Grigson were sufficient under
Estelle v. Smith —— constitutes an “unreasonable application of
federal law” to the facts that out of deference we are constrained
to accept. We therefore reverse the decision of the district court
and grant Gardner’s petition for the writ of habeas corpus.
24
Inherent in this holding is our conclusion that Gardner was
actually prejudiced by this violation of his Fifth Amendment
rights. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the
case remanded for that court to enter an appropriate judgment
directing the State of Texas either to (1) conduct a new sentencing
proceeding within a reasonable time specified by the district court
on remand, or (2) vacate Gardner’s death sentence and impose the
automatic life sentence specified by Texas law for a defendant who
is convicted of capital murder but not sentenced to death.
REVERSED; Petition GRANTED; Case REMANDED with instructions.
ENDRECORD
25
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge, Concurring:
I concur in the conclusion reached by the majority.
Respectfully, however, I am unable to subscribe to its reasoning.
I believe that ultimately the correct result in this case can be
reached swiftly, without a prolix effort to further define
“unreasonable.”
Succinctly stated, this is the way I see this case: Estelle
v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981), requires that, before undergoing a
psychiatric examination concerning future dangerousness, a
defendant must be “informed. . .that he has a right to remain
silent and that anything he says can be used against him at the
sentencing proceeding.” Powell v. Texas, 492 U.S. 680, 681 (1989).
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals applied this legal principle in
Gardner’s case. The record shows that Gardner was advised of his
right to remain silent and told that his statements during the
psychiatric exam could be used for or against him in the courtroom
to determine dangerousness.44 These statements constitute the
undisputed facts to which the court of criminal appeals applied the
Estelle legal principle. The court of criminal appeals determined
that the warnings given Gardner were sufficient to comply with the
requirements of Estelle.
Under Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523
(2000), we are to grant the habeas writ only if the court of
criminal appeals’ determination was “an unreasonable application”
44
This characterization of the warnings given Gardner is
extracted from a combination of the testimonies of both Dr.
Griffith and Dr. Grigson.
of the Estelle principle. While Estelle requires that a defendant
be warned that his statements could be used against him in a
sentencing proceeding, Gardner was only told that his statements
could be used “in the courtroom” to determine his dangerousness.
As a matter of law, I believe the warnings given Gardner failed to
convey the express message specifically required by Estelle as
applied in death cases —— that any statement a defendant makes
could be used against him for the purposes of sentencing. The
warning given Gardner only conveys that the statements could be
used during the course of the trial, at whatever point in the trial
dangerousness may become relevant. This broad warning does not
convey the admonition that specifically addresses the sentencing
phase so as to inform a reasonably minded defendant that what he
says can be used against him to put him to death. Such specificity
is required, as a matter of law, under Estelle. The court of
criminal appeals, therefore, unreasonably applied the law when it
determined that Gardner’s warnings complied with Estelle.
Thus, I fail to see the relevance of the majority’s repeated
reference to Gardner’s alleged status as an “uninitiated layman”
and “unsophisticated and undereducated member[] of society.” Is
the majority saying that at some point a defendant’s education
renders a warning under Estelle unnecessary, or that the law
applies differently to defendants based on their socio-economic and
intellectual status? Or is the majority’s emphasis on the fact
that Gardner was not “experienced defense counsel” or “well-versed
27
in jailhouse legalese” suggesting that the failure to give proper
warnings under Estelle is subject to a harmless error exception if
the defendant is an experienced attorney? In my view, the socio-
economic and intellectual status of the defendant is irrelevant in
a case like this, where the express statements fail, as a matter of
law, to convey the warnings required under Estelle.
In sum, deciding the case in the way I suggest obviates the
need to try further to define “unreasonable application” —— a task
undertaken by the majority with little success when it suggests
that “we must reverse when we conclude that the state court
decision applies the correct legal rule to a given set of facts in
a manner that is so patently incorrect as to be ‘unreasonable.’”
The majority’s analysis here is a tautology —— it simply
substitutes one protean phrase (patently incorrect application) for
another (unreasonable application). In the end, the majority’s
lengthy journey to define “unreasonable” is a circular one, and we
are left at the point at which we started. In my opinion, here we
are better off not wandering down this road, especially when the
excursion is unnecessary. Although I cannot subscribe to the
majority’s “unreasonable application” analysis, I respectfully
concur in the conclusion reached by the majority.