Cargill, Kimberly

JJ\
'ff\). ... ,.
try
,~,
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
~I From Smith County
~ Ex Parte: KIMBERLY CARGILL
(Name of ,A.pplicant)
241stoistnctcourt JudiceOOFfift 8fuftEIVEO IN
OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
TRIAL COURT WRIT NO. 241-1510-10-A
JUN 06 2016
CLERK'S SUMMARY SHEET
VOLUME 1
Abel Acosta, Clerk
Applicant's Name : KIMBERLY CARGILL
(As reflected on the Judgment)
Offense: CAPITAL MURDER BY TERROR THREAT/OTHER FELONY
(As reflected on the Judgment)
Cause No: 241-1510-10
(As reflected on Judgment)
Plea: Not Guilty
(As reflected on Judgment)
Sentence: DEATH PENALTY/ Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(As described on the Judgment)
Trial Date: 05/3112012
(Date upon which sentence was imposed)
Judge's Name: Jack Skeen, Jr.
(Judge presiding at trial)
Appeal No: AP-76,819
(If applicable)
Citation to Opinion: S.W.3d
(If applicable)
Hearing Held: No
(Pertaining to the application for writ)
Findings and Conclusions Filed:
05/20/16
Recommendation: Denied
(Trial court's recommendation regarding application)
Judge's Name: Jack Skeen, Jr.
(Judge presiding over habeas proceedings)
• •
Smith County Courthouse
100 N. Broadway, Room 204
Lois Rogers (903) 590-1660
Fax(903)590-1661
Tyler, Texas 75702 Smith County District Clerk
In the 241 st District Court of Smith County,
Texas, the Honorable, JACK SKEEN, JR. Judge
Presiding, the following proceedings were held and the following
Instruments and other papers were filed in this cause, to wit:
Trial Court Cause No. 241-1510-10-A
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant
vs.
KIMBERLY CARGILL, Appellee
• •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
KIMBERLY CARGILL
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 241-1510-10
WRIT NO. 241-1510-10-A
INDEX
Document Title File Date Page
VOLUME I
1. Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 08/19/14 1-193
VOLUME II .
2. Exhibits 1-38 To Initial Application 08/19/14 194-474
VOLUME Ill
3. Indictment 09/22/11 475-476
4. Judgment 06/01/12 477-481
5. Motion to Seal Exhibits 08/19/16 482-485
6. Letter from Brad Levenson 08/25/14 486-489
7. State's Preliminary Answer 09/12/14 490-494
8. Response to State'sPreliminary Answer 09/19/14 495-501
9. Memorandum Order 09/26/14 502-503
10. Order-Request to Seal Exhibits 09/26/14 504
11. Request for Live Status Conference 09/30/14 505-507
12. Affidavit of Douglas Parks 12/29/14 508-510
13. Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 01/08/15 511-512
14. Order-Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 01/08/15 513
15. Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 03/09/15 514-516
16. Order-Motion for Extension of Time 03/09/15 517
17. Third Motion for Extension of Time to File Affidavit 05/06/15 518-519
• •
18. Order-Motion for Extension of Time 05/08/15 520
19. Affidavit of J. Brett Harrison 05/22/15 521-551
20. Affidavit of Jeff Haas 05/22/15 552-569
21. Motion to Order Live Evidentiary Hearing 06/10/15 570-578
22. State's Response to Motion to Evidentiary Hearing 06/16/15 579-593
VOLUME IV
23. State's Supplemental Answer 07/31/15 594-918
VOLUMEV
24. Order 08/19/15 919
25. Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed FFCL 09/09/15 920-925
26. Order-Motion for Extension of Time 09/09/15 926-927
27. Response to State's Supplemental Answer 11/30/15 928-939
28. Objection to Court Making Findings of Fact 11/30/15 940-1079
29. Order from Court of Criminal Appeals 12/16/15 1080-1082
30. Order Denying Motion for Live Evidentiary Hearing 05/20/16 1083
31. Findings of Fact 05/23/16 1084-1156
32. Docket Sheet 1157-1164
• .
.
•
FtLiiD
LOIS ·ROGERS
IN THE 24lST JUDICIAL DIS~S6VftERK
SMJrll COUNTY, n,..A(IG-19 1'11-1~·42
r
&M~
ev. . . ·-..
.-.
) Trial C!iluse No.
EX PARTE ) 241-151 0-10
Kimberly Cargill )
APPLICANT )
)
)
INITIAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF'HABEAS CORPUS
(FILED PURSUANT TO tEX. CODE ·cRIM. PROC. ART. 11.07i)
BRAD D.. LEVENSON (No. 24073411)
Pi.:rect()r, Ofli.ce ofC~piW Writs
(Email: Brad.Leve·nson@ocw.texas.gov)
JANET GILGER-VANDERZANDEN
(No.24079978)
(Email:· Janet.Qilg~r-V an4~rZanden@9CW.~t~as_;gov)
DEREK VERHAGEN (No. 24090535) .
(Ema1k Derek. VerHagen@ocw.texas.gov)
Po~-C~mvi~ion AUomeys
Office of capital Writs
1700 N. Congress Ave., Su1te.46.0
AUstin; Texa.s 787Ql
(512) 463,;8.600
(5)2) 4()3-8~9Q (fax)
Attorneys for· Applicant
1
• •
TAJILE OF CONTENTS
. . . . . - ..
TABLE OF CQ'NTE:NTS ...................................................................... ``····-··-··~-···.··-·····-··.·-·tl.
..
. . . . -. '
TABLE OF At.ITH.ORITIES
. ...........-..-.-.-......-...-•. .-.-..··-·····
·-··--· ................ -.-.-•.-.-.-.....................
....... .-........ . .-.........--........-... -...............
,., ... .. -...-.-. .-.-....
. . ..-.- . . ~ ......... tx
PR.OCE~D~ IDSTORY ...-..-......................... ~··········································-···-·.-.···-····-···-···~-····2
A. Trial Coutt P.roceedlngs·•..•....••...••••••••.•••••_•._.._ ..•. ~.~-~-~-·!,'!'."·''·'·-·-··-~·-·-·:-:·~··-··:-:··· 2
STATEI\IiE.NT OF FACTS.-.-.....
. ... - ................................
. .. .. . -.......-..-....................-.......-........................................ 4
' ~.
a~ Gu.ilt Pha:s·e Presentation by the Defense ..........:·.··.·-=··-··=~··:·-=~··:·•.·:~·:.. •:••. ·:····-·:· 8
C. Guflt Ph:a:s¢- Rebuttal by the S~ .....:;:.....:~ ...~:···~:~···•:••··•·•·····•··•·•········''· 11
D. Punishment Phase Pn;~lalion by· the S~ ·:····:-:.•·:·:··:·.•·•:·:····:~··:-:··~:~.. ·:•·•.1 i
E. ~hrtleht Phase Presentation by the Defense ........ - .................. 13
F. Punishment Phase Reblittal by theSta~ .....................~·-·.··.···....~··...:·....··:~... 13
B. Ineffective AssiStaiice of Appellate Counsel.. ....................... ~ ....... 18
C. Sc:ope of tbe Wai v.er of At;tol'I).~-CU~nt Privi.h;_ge ·:·····~········.....!':.. •••·• .. 19
AAG~ ···:``···~:·•··:·················•· . ····i··············································································2i
CLAIM ONE TRIAL COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR, FAiLING TO
PRESEN.T EVIPENCE THAT CHERRY WALKER DIED OF SUDDEN
UNE:xPEctan Pf:ATH IN EJ>U.,ESPY RAll{E.R THAN f.IOMlClPAL
'VIOLEN'CE ...........................................................'!··.··-~··.··-~·-···.·····~:··.··.·~·-·.·~:~·-··!i.·•,•:•···-:.:•·•·-..•·•·•................ 2·2
A. . SUDE.P Eviden~e ~e1.1``4 Q~_l)g tb~ OWIVJ.nrwc~nce Ph~ qf
Tri·at ••·•:·•······· .-.-.-....-..-.......... ~········· .....................................................................22
..
11
2
• •
I. ~xp.l``Qn of SUDEP-......~..-..._.-..•_-..:•.··-·-•··~····-•·••···-•··:·_··:·:·.··-·-··:·:....._~····:·:··:·:~·~:·:,. ~7
2.·. Waiker-'s Medical 'Hlsto.ry Reveals .Milltiple Risk Factors for
.s'Ul>2.P- •~-:~ ·~:•:Ill! ·~:~ ••:•:• • •:•.·~:.;_...:.·.... ~:•:• • •:••.•-.:.; •.•:•:••-•:•:4 • -.:4.•p,'••.• ~):a •:•:•:•.' •. ~:• !':~ •:•.·~=··~·•:•:• •• n • ~·· •:•• •••• 28
1 ···.•.• 1 1 .•. • :•:• •:• 1 ·;·
3. Tb~·C.i.``s ofW~er's ~afh ~ ````ve o.fSU.:O~.P33
4. The .AutOpsy of Cherry Walker is Consistent with.SUDEP ......... 34
5. Waiker's Death Is Likely to Have Been a s·UDEP Death.•...._
....._
.. 36
C. Ineffective ,AssiStance ofTI:il$1 C.o~l.-.:..... ~:•··:·:·.·:·:•·.·:·:·....;.. _.;.-.:.-·x·"f.~······=~· 37
l. Trial C.ounsePs· Failure tQ Call an Exp~ l.i.ke Or. Sttmt9pph DlJ,ring th~Testimoriy o.fCh.erry Wal.ker's Hairdte$ser:.....~...._, ......... 70
B.
The Autop&y Pho.to Used by the State During the· TestP:nony of
W~er'·s ``ser W~ F~ More ~judicial Than Probative and ThUs
Inadmissible....................................................................................................·.... -.:........... 71
C. Co~c.hision ..............................................-.·.·.·-.··.·.·····.··:.<··.··~··.·K•·.··:-:·.•···:-:·:··~:•·:o·•:•·."-·~=·····•:•··73
CLAJM SIX THE STATE tbMMrttEfi MISCONDUCT WHEN IT
ENGAGED IN IMPROPER ARGuMENT TIIROVGHOUT CARGILL'S TRIAL,
ANP l'RJAL COUNSEL WS.RE INEFFECTIVE FOR FA~ING to OJ)JEct TO
tHE OREAT MAJORITY OF 11-IESE IMPROPRIETIES .................................... 74
B~. The:: State'.s ~.onduct ....................................... ~·~-··-········~-··-····-··-··.``:·····--·-·.··:··~.··.:.:·· 77
iv
4
• •
L Prosec"Ution TesnfYing to Facts and AsSertions Not in Evidence 77
~.
3. ReligioUs Imageey .......................................................................... :``····-·.·:·~:·:·:~.. 8.5
4. $ieath•Eilgible: b.efen~ts·................................................ 148
' .
CLAIM TWELVE CMGIT.L '.S RIGHTs UNDER THE SK_XTH, ijJGI:ITH, ~NO
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO 1lJE UNITED STATES CONStiTUTION'
WE~ VIOLAn.o WHEN THE tRIAL COURt WAS PROHIBtrED FROM
INSTRUCTlNG 1HE JURY 1HAT A VOTE BY ON'S JURO~ WOULO
RESULT IN A LIFE, SENTENCE ····:-:··:•·•:..:•-:-:·•·••·•··••· ............................................~ .......... }51
A. ne Cargill Jucy was initially Unable to Agree on the Flrst Speeial
Is~ . . _._.._. _...•.ill:• ·-·-. ·-·-· ·-·-· ··-·····-~-·· ...•. ·-··· .•.•• ·-·-· ••• ·-·. ·-· ~-·- ·-·-·-·-· ·-·-••_._........·~-·-·-· _._.. ·-·-·~:·.•.• ....:-~:·.·:·:· _._·. ·"£'·--~··· :·:• ·:·:·• 1-53
B~ the S-upreme Co\U't. Has Invalidated Jury Instructions· That Place
an Undue BUrden on the Seritencer B.efore Finding Mitigating CirCiirnStan<:es
C. Texas's 10-12 Senten~i,ng Scheme, Impairs the Ability of a
MaJority of J\J.roi'S to Reach a Life Sentertce.................................................... lSS
b. Tb.~ 10-l ~- _R,;We .Cor::t~iJ.ltes ·@ ~S.sible Ou.tsi120 F.R.D.
68·7 (C. D. Cal. 198:8).:._~--~·~=·:····:····~··:·~··:.:·:..:-:··~:·:·.··:•··~·:~··:·:·.:.-.,.:•.·•:•··~··.·:•.·•·:--~··.···;:. ·``·.·.•-:··:;:••··<.:····•:·•·-·• 20
Jo~on v. Ala:bq·m.a., 2;56 F.,3d, 1156 (l.lth Cir. 2001) ..............:..•···:...:......._.:•··:·:~·:·:·:··:·:..:·:~ ~0
~ghnerv. United Stqtes, 373 F.2d 3-26 (Sth Cir. 1967) .........................._ ..~ ....._._ .._.._._20
L_evin v. R_ipp(e Tw.w MUls,l~c.~, 416 f. $\qlp_; 876 (E.D~ P~. 1976).-......................... .-... 20
Miller v..Dretke, 420 F.:3:d 35.6 (Sth Cir. 2005):•.._..........:···:···:•· ..:··•:•··:·:··:·:•··:..·:·:.. •·:.._·:~..:·:··:·:• 16
Padilla v.. Kentuclcjl, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) .._..,.....................~·-··~:......~ ..:-~:~·:·-:-:·•··~··•..:•... ·~:····:·•• ..-... 15
Paynev_, Te''''":Js~e_, ~01 u.s:~ ~0$ (199lh.-..-. .................-.....-....................................45, 48
Por.ter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009) ......................-:......_......:........:.:•.·-·-·14, l5, 17, 18
Ri~ v. Qt!artennan; 522 F.3d 517 (5th Cir~ ·2008) .....:~· ..!:··...:~···•:··:··:~···•:-••·•"•· 18, 69,-10
Romp#Ia v. Be4.rd., $.4 5·u.s. 374 (2005) . . _._............... •:•••·:·· •:·.·· ._..:·:• ··:····:·:..:-:..:-:•..:...,:~.....-.:•·-1-5, 16
Smith v. RobbinS, 528 U.S. 259 (2000)..............................._....._...._..,.._.._..._..,_.._..,_.._,. 18, 69
Strickl~v. Wa.s:h.ingttm, 466 p.s. 668 (1984}•.-...................................-..-.-. .-................. passim
United States v. Ba.s:hdfn, 20.12 WI.. 1130657 (O.S.C. Apr_. 4,. Z012) (unpublished)
.................. •••••••••·••• •• ··-·~· . ····~·-··-·-··-··-~··-·~··.••.4!•.•.•·-~ ·--~--:~.--.·-·:~·-···.·:•. ···:~·:· ~············~·······-···``~ ... · -~ ••~·-· ........._-._ 2.0
Uni,tedS,~tes v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 912 (lOth Cit. 2009) ............................- ......19, 20
V(rg1.1-v. Dretke, 446 F3d 598 (5th Cir. 2006).:.:.. ···•:•·-·:·:..:-:··-·:-...:-:-.•:•.•.•:-:...~...•:·.••:•.••o:••.••-,.·•·••·:•·•·• 14
W.igg/ns -v. Sm(th, S39 u~s. s-t o(2003) .....:~·····:·····:·········..·· .....................-........_........_..·.~..··passim
Williams v, Taylor, 529 U.S. 362.(20.00) .. ;.................................. ~.................. 18, 114·
Ylck Wo 'V. Hopk:ms-, 118 U.S_.l56 (l886).:·:·!..:...•:·:~·:-:..:·:o.·.·:·:..:·:•. . ·:·:·•:.i·:·:••:··:•·:·:..:·:·:~o:·:..:•••·•:•·:·:~·:• ... 168
State
Alabamcz'v. LeWiS, 36 So~ 3d 72 (Ala. Crun•. App. 2008) ........................~............._.,_. ZO
A.m.is v. $tate, 910 S.W.24 511 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1995; pet-. rerci) ...-...-...-.-..-..... 85, 94
Borj~ v. Sk!_te, ·t81 S ..W.2ci:`` (Tex.. Cthn. App. 1990) ..-.-.._
....-..... .-............ .-.-.-.-.-...-....:. 75'
B_ruwn v. S.tt!WJ, 270 S.W~3'd 564 (Te.Xc. Crlm. App. 200$) .:..:•.·•·:•··:•·:-:..-..-~:··:·: ..:•...··:·:..:·:•··:••·.':· 76
Campbelfv. State, 610 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. Criin. App .. l980) .................................:. 76
Cannon v. State, 668 S ..W. 2.d 401 (Tex. Crim.. App_._ 1984) ·:~ ...........~.•.• ;.:~·-•··:ot· ..·!:~·.•··:..-•·•:• 76
C~y. S~a_t~; 488 $.W. _24 110 (Te~-. C.nm:. App. 1972) .•_.:..:•..:-:..:·:·•:-:..:·:·:·•:·~·:·:·...:-:..:·:·.·~:· 87
Coble v. State, 330 S.W..3d 253 (Tex. Crim~App. 2010) ....- ................................ ~ 38
Cortez v. St_ate, 683 S.. W. 2~ 419 (Te~. Criro_. App. 1984) ·:·.·:·:•.·-·:·:~·'f..•~:-:·.·-~:~-:·:·:·:~._.:.~:~··•·:-:•·:-:·.o:~ 75'
Crf:!Wford v. State, 412 S. W.-2d 5:7 (Tex. Crim. App.. 1961) ........................·--···"· 87
Dayb ·v: S.'cztt., 31_3 S_. W:-:3d 317 (Te~ Cnm~. App. 201 0);.:..:·:•-:·:•··:·.··:•·:·:•..:•...:·:·~:·:~··-·:..•:-:..:.-..:.- 53
ix
9
• ••
/)ef CQtmet; H~ v. State, 273 S.• W.-3:d 68.S (Tex. Ciim.. Ap.p. ZQPS).:·:•·•:•·•:• 142
Dickinson V~ State~ 6'85 s. W.2d 3.20 (Tex.. cmn. App. 1984).....:..:••:0:••:..:~..:·•:·:·.·:·~:•···~·:0•.-:-:··· 7S·
Drf!JJgho.n v; Stqle, 831 S-;W.2d 331 (Tex'- Crim. App. 1992) .. ~....................... 89, 93
Drew;v; State, 16 S_. W~Jcl436 (I'e)_{._ Ai'P.·``o~t~ [14th DiSt_.] 2002) ......:·.··-·-·=~··:··~ 72
bruery v. State, 22.S. s·.W..3d 491 (Tex. Cri.nl.:.: App. 200.7) ~-:~············..·..:····-····:·.···-··.-,:-:··~ i 49
~nl#in v. $t¢e, 194 ~-W.-:jd 14 (TeJ;C:. -App.--Tyier 2oo6.) .................................... 72
Ex parte Fli:ii'eii, -3-87 S.W.J.d 626 (Tex.. Crim. App. 2012)............._.._._.,_._.:.. _.;.._-.\•.•·:.:·:-!·:•.·•:·:..:·:·:·14
~ PQ.rte Gon;_a_l~; ~'94. $_. W;:~4 391 (Tel't:• trim. App. 20Q6) .•-.............-....... .1 6, 17, 18
Ex parte Jimen~. 364 S. W3d 866 (t~.. Com•. App_;. 20 l.Z) .-._.:-:.. ·~···:~..·:··•:·:· ..-·.. •:.- pass_im
'Ex parte Miirtmez, 195' s.W~3d 7 f3 crex..-cnm. App ..2006).-.:.-.....-.- ..-..': ..........._..•._.-•. :-:····.·--· 17
Ex parte Martinez, 3~0 S.W.3.d 891 ,('tex. Cnin. App .. 20i 1).......- ................. passim
EX parte .Sa_~, 2!}.7 S:-.:W~3d 700 (T``· C~. App._ 2007)._........··:~.....,.:••.•~:·•· l-8, 69, 70
Faitow· v. St41..e, 943 S. W--:24 895 (Tex-.- Crim:._ AI)i). .I991}:.:..:._..:.:•··:... o:.:•·:·:•·•:·:~·...:.;_-~:·:..:••..:·:~ S~
Fordv. $tate; 919 S.W.2d 107 (tex .. Crim.App. '!996). .......... ~ ................. ~ .._...._.._.. 45, 48
GiidtJis-y. State, 75_3- s··:W-:2d 396 (T~:)!::. Cri.n:t.~ App.: l9S8f...:--····:•••·:O······--··············..-..··•• 84
Gaffneji·v.. Stq.J~, 937 ·S.W-.,4d.540 (Tex..App·;-Texarkana 1996).. ~......._••.._...:.:····:· ..:~ 8'3
s.
Gr'!frV~l v_. St4.~e;- 552 W~ci t07 (Tex. Cnm. App. 1976)._.._ .•_.._.._._.._.~_..._-~-·····~ ..'"·~...· 149
Guidry v. State, 9 S.W~3d 133 (Te~. Cri.m . .App. 1999)..;.:..``··:·:•·•:.;_··:•.•·:-:..:·:••·:·..~··:·:·:··:·:•..:·:..~:-16
Henley v. Stme-, ·s16 S.W.-2d 66- (Tex... Ctim. App. i 978)......................................., 59
!l.ot1k.! v. S.t(!!e, 44 S.. W.:3d 607 (Tex. App;-··Texwkan~ 200 I )'..:..;.:..:..:~---·~·······.:..•..... 72
ffowardv. Sl4.te, 2-39 s_.w:~d 359 (Tex. App.=-"Sai;t ``o ~007) .•:.-..~:·: .. ·:•.··~:· ...-•. .175
in re Dean, 71 I A.2d.257 (N.H. 1998).................................................. ~ ·~···· ! ... ... ........... 21
J_a_qksgn V.: $.tq_~e_, 7~6 S.W.~d ~17 (Tex. App.•~all~ 1987, pet;. ref d) ..-;.-.-......-...... 8.5
Jose.pl, v. $tQ.re,_3 ~.W.~d 61.7 (Tex. App.-.H:ous_tQn [14th Dist.] 1999)..._.:~ ..~:···•:··:-~ 19
JUteic v. State, .522. S..W..2d 934 (Tex. Cr4n. App. 1975),_,.,..._............ _._.,...~ ..:..... : ..::.149, 159
f<~1J.4.riq_~ V.: SJ4tl#.; 942 ~-W-.2d lZO cr``-· App... ·Beaumont 1991) ......................... 72.
Krey~sigv. Sta~e, 935 s.• w.2d 8.86 (Tex.-. App.-Tex`` 1996) _.-;.:.:..::·~-:--..:-.• ~:-:•-.-..-•...·:·=~ 12
Mt:n'~a.'ff!i AP.J. Ge.n.. I.ru; v. BlQ.c/qnon, 639 S.W.2d 4S5 (Tex. 198_2) ......., .•. ,_..._._..._._. 19
Mathew31i. State~ 635 S.W..2&532 (Tex. Ctim..App. 1982).._..,.._.._~·-··· .....~·-~·-·..... ~:..:.:.1.74-
Met!.if!4 v. St4_tf#, 2004 WL 764444, .6 Ct~ App.-TeXarkana 2004) .•-..... .-........-.. 175
Meza V·State, 206 .S.W.3.d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. ·2006) ........_....... ~ ...................._, .....~ 18
M#le_r..£1 v.: S!P:f.~, 1a·~- s. W:._Zd 894 (Tex. Cii~:· App. l_990) ·:·:·•:····--:·~···•.-..-.... .-.-....... 46, 48.
Mo~avi v. $(ate, 711 S~W.2d 53 (Tex:. Crim. App~ i 986) .;..._... :~"-'·"-':··~-· .. :~..._.:..•:·:..:·:... 174-
Mose/y \1•.State, 9'8-3 S.W.2d ·249 (Tex. Cri.nl:._.App. 1998) ..;~·:..::· .. ·:·:•....:~--···:~ ..····:•·••..4~, 48
Oakley v. State, 68 S.W-.2d 204 (Tex. Cnm. App. i 934) ................ _. ...................... 85'
Pardeev;.St4tl4.').fJ12 WL_35164-8_5 (Te~. App~,.....;T``-a.20.1~, ~· ~e492 S.W.2d 548 (tex..Crim.App. i9t3) .............._•..._..._•...:...~:-:···:···:·:•·-·:· 8.~
Stunliien- v. State, 182 S.W.2d 7.20 ('teX:. Criin. App. 1944) .•:..:..);···-··~·-'··•:..···•:••.. •·• ·:· ..·•·:· 94
Tangzp!I!J v. S.t.a_te, 41 -$.-W•:3d 6~3 (Tex-. App.-Corpus Chtisti20.0i). ................ 174
Thompson v. State, 9 S. W~3d 808 (Tex.. Crim.. App. 1-999) ·.·:``·:·:...~·._...,:...·:·'·'·:··-·:··_.·:·:· pas$i~
Wa_ldrl.p v. Head, S32 s·.E.2d 380 (Ga. 2000) ...•.... ,:...··f.~·-··:.. ···:~.-..·:·•·•:•·•·•••····,.·........-•. .-....... 21
West v. So/ito, ·S6J S:.W-.2d 240 (Te~:· t 978) ·:··•:... .-.-...-............................................ ,.. 19
StatUtes
Tex._ Cod~ CrlJD..•. Pro<:;.:.Art. 371071 § 2(b)( I) .•.....•:....;...._...:•..•_.•_.:··•:·:·•:·:..-.:·:··:·:···:·:··•:·:···:•··:·:~· 147
Tex. Code-Crlm. Proc. Art. 37.071 § 2(b)-(e) ....................._....._.........•.·.··~-··-··~....·.·~-··....·:· 149
Tex. C.od~ Crin;l. Proc. a,rt_. 37.()71, § ~(1l)(t) -:·:··-··•=···•:{.. •·:·:·····:~····:..···:o· .. •·••·•·····..·••••• .... lS-2
T~x.. Code CriJn.. Prac:.-•art. 37.071, § 2(b)(l)-(2), (eX 1) ;.:• ..:•··~:·•·:·:..:·:··"-"~:··•·:•-,:·:•·•• .. :·:•· 151
tex. Code Crim.. Proc: •. art.. 3:7.011, § 2(b)(l), (e)( I) .................~ ................. ·.;.._........ !~=··:··~:·.···~:· 169
Te~:· C~ Cri.t.n. Proc!.-~:- 37 . 071, § 2(d){2), (f)(2) .. .-..-.- ..-..-..-•. -.- ..-............ ;... ~............ 1:52
. Tex. Code·Crliii. Ptoc. art 37.071, § 2(f)(4).:.-..:. ;.•,_._ ..:·:•··:·:··:·:•··:·:··•:····:.. ·:·:···:.-··:·:· .. -:· ..:·-· 1()9, 172
Tex. Code Crhn... Proc._ a;rt.. 3.7,071, § 2(g).~:·•··:·:..:..·.:.. ··ii·•..:••····..···:•..:..·.:.:.. •:·_ ....-...~·-·····:···-·-···:~· 152
T``:-. CQde Cr~:-. Prec.-, § 2(a)(l).-•.-.-,;,.-.. -.- ................... ~ ............................................ l5-2
TeX. Criril. Pro.~ .art. 37.011 § 2(h)...~···~·:··•:·...:·~·:·~:·:··~:·:'!·~·:·.·-·:•.·:··:·~·-·-··:·.··:i·.·:··-~··:·-.~-·:··.·:·•.·:·:-: ..:-·:~·····:.:•·:.--:~· 1·74
Tex .. R. EVid.-40 1,..••.••.•.••.•·;'l!~.··.~·-·.•·.··-~.••.••.•:••.•.•i:·•~·:-:·•··1t:••··:·:·•··:•····-··•······· .....-•••:••-•.-... -._••-•• .- ••:•.•••~·-··•:'! .. :·``··· 71
Tc;x:.- R. Ev.ld. 403 ..... .-.-..-.••...•....•....•.........~ ........._.........- ................................................... 71
~--~ EVIP.•. 503 ·=·:··:·:·:·'!'.•:·.··~·:..:-:·:··!···.·:·:•·.•:•.·-·~·~··-·~··-·``·---:••-·-·.··.··-·····.·(·:··:•·:·.···~:·.·.·-·:~·;':••:·····~:······:·····:~·····..;•.-•• -.-••-. 19
T~ .R.. Evid. 611 (CJ.) .•.· -:··:·:·~ •·:··:···:·:· •·.·•:·•··~·--···-·····-· .-._.-. •.·:·· .-_._•··:~· ·~·-·.·~·-··:·:···~---··:··•-·:··~:~· ·:·:···.·=···~=~--~-:-. ··~:·:~ .. .53.
Tex. R. Evld. 7.02 ........................................-............- ..........................._..........."'..... ~ ~ ~ SS !' ••.•• ••. ••• ••
Tex. ~ EVict 80 l(a)(2).:._·.. :•~:·•:·~·.·~··.··!:··:-~·-·:·``·~:··:·``:-·:···:·~····· ..······:·········:-:·······························•················· .. ··· 145 .
Texas RUle of Evid~ce 404(b) ··~:···:---·~:._ .._._ .._-.:·:··-·~----~·~···=·:·-~=--··~=· ..:·:~ . :·:·•~:•...:·:··:·:···:·~··:·:···:·:·:·...~·~···.·····"i 144
Other·Authorli:ies
ABA ·Deaih ·Penalty Due Prece~ Review Project; Evaluating Fairness- and
Accuracy in State tJeaih Peniilry Syitemsi the· texaa Ctipttiil .Puni$hme.nt
Asse$ament Report, at viH, xxxix: (September 20l3).:.....,:..··:~ ...·!:··:··;.:··..:~····:~···..·.. .-•••• 147
ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Petfotmailce of Defense Counsel i'n
DeQt,h P~n_IJ].cy·C~s 2003, 31_ HOt$i'RA L.. ~-~ 91~ (:~003) ·:•·:•·:~·:•··:~;.-.-..... 16-; 17-, 21
ABA Standa_rds.for· Cri.TJJi11!11J~tjce (3d e4. 1993 )...:...:._..:·:~·,··-··``·····~-:··:·-··•:·:; ..:.. ·•:-:~·· p8$si_m ·
ABA Standards for Cr{m.inal Justice; Prost~tjo"' FtP~C#.()11 (3.4 ed. · 1993)
(S~.~4 l:~.s``~)~·····.·)l!····-·:······.:.~·····;.:·•·····························•·•·············•·············•·········. ··-·····-···76
ABA S~dirtg Com:tn:; 011 E~cs &.: Prof! Respon5ibilizy, For;mal Op_it;rl~ 1.()..456
(20 10)..................................4!•.•·········-.. ·-·-··-··-·-·•.••.":• "·-·'·"····~··.••.••.-............·.·~.··-·--:-:•-.•,;•:•.•.••:·:····:.·····::.-··· 2.1
Xl
.
11-
• •
J\d·am.· Gersnowit,z, StQ(e¥ii<;Je C!ipitai Punishm~t: The CC$e For ~Ominaflng
Ccm.!Ji(e~· R.9!f! _in the Death Penalty, http·:Jtworks..bep``~-c;Qm/
adam_gershoWitz/5'{2009) i.• :·:~..-.. ~:.~:-:·;:·:·:··~:~····.···:·:•·•:•••·:•····; •·:•; ....................................--.:.. 163.
c·h#.~.n.a StUdebaker & Steven Penrod, Pr~tr.ial Publicity: The Me4.ig; ~ L,qw.,_
and Co~ ~f#, .3 PsycboJ.Pub.Pol'y & L!. 428 (1997)~.-........................... 65, 68
. . . pher Slobo
Chrlstcf · Cap
. gm, ~- ita/
. Punishment.. .. dnd .. - Dan·· . .:g.erousness
. -·· . -.. '. .in. MENTAL. .
pts<)RDER. AND CruMlNAL i..Aw·:, REsPONSmnnv AND COMJI:EnN.c~ I 19 (Ro~
;F .. S~chQpp et·'al. eds.,. 2009.) ·:·:•.·.·:·:·:-;.:~·.-:·:;:·:·:·:•.·:·:·:-:·····x········ ..·••·•••••••·..........................- ......... 149
DaVi4Sa.1,4~ ~-al;o, Race and ProportiQna/ity SinpeMcCle.~ey·v. l{~p (!987):
/)i.ff.en?zt Actots with Mixed Strategie~ of /NfiU:zl m,4 AV.oii/4.1JC~, .39 CoUJM.
:HlJM. RTS . L:. R.E\' . 1'4~ (2007) •:•:•.•:~··:~·:···:·:.:••:·``-·-i:·:•(•:•~·.•.•:~ ..:~··r·~·:~·•:••·~·~••n•••···•n••u••••••••••••••••• 165'
E:llen Bnckmaii, et. al., How .litroi' liitemet Use Has Changed the Ame.rJcg, Jury
X.r.lf!J. l Jo~ of'C.outt l@ova(ion 287 (2008) ....-.•.·•.~............................................... ! .. 6.8
Gl$S¢ri ~ al.·; Possibility o/Di!¢.h· $etl.``f!Pe f!_as f)fvergent Effect on Vet.diCtsfot
B~k and .White Defendants 5-6 (June 24, 2009).•:.-:.."i··:·:·:~·..--•:••·:-:.o:·:~·:·:•.-·.•:•.···:~···•:·:·•·:.. •:• 167
ls.~c '()'``' Ch~s.mg those Who Will Die:~- The Effect of Ractt, Gender, and Law
in P.rose.cuto.ria/ 1Jecls.i:P.n to Sef!~ (h.e ~th Pe_nal_ty (n Durh¢n Co'fijlty,_ North
Carolina, i-5 Mica,LRACE & 4 1"35 (2009)...~: ..:•.·:·:•·:~·:-c..:-:··:o:.. o:•···:·:..:·:~·:·:··.o:·:·:·;:·:••.•:•••.•:..:•· 165
Jeffrey ~l)mei~t\ .Aggravating and Mitigatlhg Factors: The Paradox ofT04ay's
Atbitl"l.ary and Mandatory_ap · C' .. ttal Pun&hment ........ Scheme ·-····'·6 WM. . .&. MARY . .. BitL
RTS. i . .j4S· (199'8) •.•. •.• . . . . . . ``'!·.· ··~· ·-··``-.~·:-:••.~!! ...:-:,••:··:-=······· ···~·. ·• .......~. ···············:· ···:·.··· .•.•-: •.•.•.'!' ·-·-··.•.1.• ·:·:· 1(;3•
!'... •.•"
J``fer L.~ EJ.;Jet:l;l_~c(t, ~taL, Lookjng Deathwotti;y, 17 P.svcH. Sci. 38:3 (2006) ~- 167
Jules Epstein, ..Death-W.ort.liin.~s t11fli Pr()Sec¢otit# ~qr~iion in CtgJital Case
C~g, 1"9 ilMPtE PoL. -&·crv~.Rn. L. REv. 38.9 (2010)........................... ~. l€i3
l(atb,``~ jl``~' ~t ·aJ,-. P[J#e Matters (MQs.t)~· An EmpiricqJ Study :of
.Proseeu(orial Deci$ion-Ma.king in /Jeg(h-Eli'gible ~e.s, ·Sl ~; L. REv. 305
(20:09). :•·~--:~···· :-:···· -~ ..... .-....... ~······ •. .-:. ...... ·-·~· ........................ ~ .... I ••• II ......... ••• •••.1. •.•.• "-'-"·" •.·~··.•:• .•.•:.:-~-``-:-~--~: 16·3
Laura. S. Guy, et a}., Asa.es.sing Rislc· of Viotenee Using $trl!ctw"ed Pro/easlonal
J.'!!Jgf!.l.en.t Ch!.id.eJin~·;J. fQ``IG PSYCiiQI,.•. P,R,Ac., Ma:y 201-2 ...................~·····~ 150.
Mi_cl-mel Ca~a,n.Q, ~ng ap_4 ~g t;b~· R~rd .- Objections, 6 Am. J'lit.
Tri.als 60S ( l967) •X•.•:•• .;.........-••:·.··········:•....•.•••:•.".o.•.••.•.~•!:•:•·-····•:.; ••:.:..;.:.:••:.:••:·:····-··``·-:·:·-:·:•-:·:.-·:·:.-..-:-.:•:··:·:~··:·:·•·:• r74
Michael L.. Ra:d~Iet &. James W. MarqU:art, AJs~Sing Nond!J_ngerousness br¢.i!Jg
Pen/ilty Phaies- ofCapital Trials, 54 ALa~.L.. R.Ev .. 845 ( 1989-fg90)................. 150
N. Kerr, Severity of Pres.crthe4 Pe"!Z.Ity (Did .Uoc/f Jurors·· Verdicts, . .36 J.
PE~.SONALrtv ~Sot-. PsYcH._. l.4)l (i97SJ.:.;_.:·:..:·:··•.·:·~;·:..··:·~·:·.··:·:··:~.. .-......-................... t67
NJ. Death Penalty Study Comm., New Jets.~ Death Penalty C()mm~ston &epo.rt
43 (ZOO!) ··~··~-:. . •·:i.!•:·~· ``-:...~:~·.•:1. -``-``-:-:•••:-..• ·.·.-·:·.·-•:-: .:. :•.·-·-~·-·:I.•:-.~>·:i.•. ·~·:· ·:·:.-:l_(•~t! •.-~-·``·:1~1 •:-: I-:·~:~··:···~ 1.·.~:11!· •.• ···:• .,·, ..... ,., ••-••·•• •.• 164
Norbert t.. Kerr et al"! On iii# Effectjveness of Voit Dire in Criminal Caaea with
PreJili#ciai /'r~trial Pu/j.liqity~· 4_n Empir'i~al S4/.dy, 40 AM:. tJ. L. REV~ 665
( 1991 )................ ••.• ..............,........... '·'''·'·'·"·'·" '·''·'·'1.•.•.·.··:~··:~·:·.·· .,:;-...:~· ·:··:~····.-;· ... ·~····:···· .............. ····:· ......... "67
xrr
12
• •
Scol:t Phill.i~, Continued Racial iMparities iii- the Cq.pital of Capital Puiiishine.nt.:
so
The_ R``.l Er~, Hous_. L_. REv. 131 (20t2) ················-··--·~·-·-·············166'
Scott Phillips; Racilil Disparities in th!1 Ct!pi(a_l qf Cqpi,al f'wlishmem, .45 Hous.
~. ~\l. 807 (~008) ......:-:·····:~····``····~·····~..............-.~-........ -....-...._..._._.. _
...~.·-··-•.••.·.--·~:·~··:·:~-!'~:···~·:••.•:·:~·!'~···:~ 166 .
.Sh~ Di~ond & N¢il Vi~, Jury .Room Ruminations on Forbidden Topi~, 87
Va.L.R.ev. 1857 · (2.·oo 1) ........._..•........:·~···:··.·:-;:-~:-.-:·:~-:-·:~··:-:-:.;,:.:--;:.-:.·-······:•················...........................68
Sh.ari Di~n4,. Beyoill/ Fantasy and .Nightmare:· A PO.rlltl.it of the Jury, 54
Buff:.L·.Rev. 717 (2()06) •···:·:···:•-·:·:·-••......................................"'·"'·"~--.-,.··.--:·:--.··=~··..:~·····:~····••···· 68
State Bar of Texas, Guidelines and S~d,ards fw·T~ CaP.i~ Counsel (Aprit 2i,
2006)~:-·:•·:·:·:·~···) ····:.:····:~····· ............ ··········ii············· .............................._._.. _,._.. ·-· ··-·~···---··~=··•!'. :·--·:-:••.• l6, z1
i
Steven Go.ode, ~ al._, Texas Pr~tice Serle~: Courtrooljl Ha~llbook on Texm
EYide~e § 6.11 CIJ'lt•. l-2 (20'1·2).... -~·-··· .:....:..:•.·-•··~·· ..!'_·········~-·-...~·:• ·~):•·:·:· ~:-:~·:.:·:·~:·~···~···!~····-··········.. -...... 53
Tex·; Dep't Crim·. JUst., Offenders on DedthRo>tli .......................·.········.~·..:·.-.. :-:~·-·.·:·:t·:-:-:-:·-·:·:·:-:•.· 162
Willi3nl J. B.owers & Wan$ D~ Fogl.i~ S#(i Singularly Agonizing:. T..aW's Failure
to ff!!'g, .Ar.b#r~riness from Capit_~l S¢.~ing, 39 CI_UM. L. ·BULL. 51 (2003)
...................................... ·················-·· .......... ••.• •••• ••.•.•!'.•.•.•. -~---·.······ ···~:-:.. !':·:· ~:~·~:-:-. ·:-:·~·=··.·~· -~:-: •·•:.:··-·~·-·~·-·· ...... 1-56
xiij
13
• •
APPUCATION FOR A 'WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
This is a Capital Case
Cherey Walker d.led from Sudden UneXpected Death in Epilepsy
("SUDEP"). Howev~, the· jUry s_itti.ng il) j~dpu~nt Q{ ``rJy Dianne Cargill
. .
("CqfU") n~v~ h~ spedfic evi·`` ~g SUJ)~P ~ },tpw W~k~ was
~ pa:rtjcular· ri• fc)r··jt. A$ a ~lt, C_argill was ``gfully COJlyi~ of ~Pi.u.J.l
iniltd~ and .S;eliten~ to death_.
SUDEP is· ~ very ~ `` of c;t-.b wt_Uch tak~ tho~&J:ld.s Qf iives ~b
, yw. I~ i:s· tbe $Ubject of e~tmSive· ·st.u4;Y oo,d cl_lnj_~ re~b. Yet m``d Qf
pre$~thlg ·ap. `` tQ the Jtlr)' tQ. explain What SUDEP is and whY i~ was ~e
likely ~\lSe ofWa~$ de~ trial CO)lltSeJ a~c~ tbe ~any of the Sta~'$
general n@I'()logi~, who 4id not ·fuily lilider$ta'nd SUDEP and its implicatiQnS, and
`` that W``e:r;- d_i<;l ·not di~ ftom th.~ con:d:.ition.. Thi_s faiJure ~llQWed tlte- S~te
.·
to ~tt4lgly ~.isl ~l C~ll':s ~O:~Y ~ W``·djed foll_owing a ~i-~
was i.iilplaUs.lble, rid1c\llous, ar:t4 .p.ndy 4.lse.
Ha4 th~ jury beEm, presep.t_ed evi_t;J~ce ~a' Wa)J`` W3$, i:g, (``.viet``(,)(
SUl)E.P, Ca,rgijl wo~ld not hav-e been c<>nvi~ of ~api~ murd_er and wo.uld n(>l
fi.n.ci b~rself tod4y langp_i$hing on death row~ This Court mu.st reverse· Cargill's
~pital convicP~n. ~-e
yery least, ~l~ QlST(>I~Y
..
C~ll i.s CQt:ltit)ed und~r ~ ~t:ttence ofd~!b PllfSWll.ll to the j'!.ld~ent oft;he
241 st District Court, Sniith. County, Te::w, case: nUm.ber .241~ 151.()..1 o., which was
re~ered ~d ent~d o~ J~e 1,,2012-. (S' CR:at 9a2~86; 69 RR~t 132-.-)'J
A. Trial. Court. Proctedmgs
on" Jui..~· .3.0
. .• 2010
. , H:dnorable
. . -· iack
- · · - Jt.. ' of
Sk. eeJ1 ..e 241 $"t. DistriCt
- .:loll . Co·.,....
""·~
signed a Certificate of Maglstrate charging Ca:rgfU With the offense of capital
murder. (CR at 14.~)
AlSo on JUly 3(), 2010, the court appointed Jeff Haas and
Brett ~son to represent:Cqiil on the cb.atae·With an ®-indict!!d ca)Jse number,.
(CR.at 1·2.)
em. OctAber 21~ 2010, $ gnmd. jury indic:t;men_t. VIS$ tiled charging Cargill
Wi);h the capital mutder of'Chel'l'\Y Walker by means tinkna.Wn, coniin:itted during
``offense pfr.e:tal·iation. (CR ~ &.-7.) On .J1,111e 16, 1011, Cargill was ~gned
~:4 e.nt~ ~ pJ~ of n:ot guilty. (2· RR at·4-8.. ) On July Q·, 20ll, Smith County
I)i~ct AttQi'.rl.tD' ~tt 8i)1gham tile_d the Stat¢' s Ele¢tion to S.eek the Death
P``I.ty. {~_& al. 36!.) On Fe_b.ru_;;rr:y 29, 2012, ~ court denied Cargitrs MQtion to
~h and ~c·``!l~ ~ tb¢ Fo~ oflt.t4ictn1.en~. (7 AA ~ 44.-4.Q.)
Voir dire commenced q~ M~b 2,2; 20 1_~, `` CQ~l!Jd_~ QlJ f\pr.il 2:5, 20 l.~:.
(9 RR at 25·.:4.() RR at l"S~) The· gJ,iiltfmnocence ph~e of Cargiii's· trial be~ on
M~y 7, 20 1_2:.:. Ail~ tbe re:~ding of the ·indi'c:trnen~ Cargill pled n·ot guilty. The
State gave its opening .statemc=rtt ili)Q th~ d~f~n,se res~r\iec:}. tb.e ti~t tO t_nake an
openlrig statement., (42 AA at 5·3-1 04.) The State: b~gan its case.,.ir:t~hief$e ``-e
clay. (42 RRat 109.)
1
A_ll re_fenmces to "CR" are to the· Clerk's Record filed, on June 18, 201.2:.
All references· to "RR" ate tO the Reparter'.s Recoftl filed o~ I;>eeem.he.t 15, ~0 J·2.:~
2.
15
• ••
Th~ S~e te$i~d i~ ~on May l·S·, 201.2-. (51 RR. 136.) On ~y 16;
2012, ~e d~fen.~:$$Ve an opening sm.,tem.en~ :m4 presen~ i_ts·case. (53 RR a.t 8.;.54
RR. at ..162.) on May the- defense rested and the State ~led tWo
17, .201-2,
w.itn.~-~s i~ reb-y~J:. ($~ RR -~ 7..53.•) n n~@$ li.tl~on, pQJ's\u,lnt to CQd~ Qf
Criminal Proced·ure Article 11.071 .. (CR at 992.) This Application follows.
3
16
• •
u.
STATEMENTOFFACfS
A. Gll:ilt Ph.• P..-``tj`` ·by ~e S~te
The State's gUilt ph~ case-iii-chief e-72; .so R.R
a:t 143--6.0.)
June 18,·.2010
on Friday, June 18, 2010, Cargill work~:d over twe_lve-ho.nt:s as ~ l.ir;ensed
vocational n1ii'Se ·at-a ho!lpital in Athens, Texas. She started her shift at 6~45 a.m.
and ~n4~ it ·~l7:.30 p,m... ~spite it being agaii\S• h0$pital policy, thitit,aghoti~ ~
day Cargill made mUltiple phone calls. and sent teXt me5sage8 to varioU.s people,
inci.:.d.i~g W1.1.lk.er. (43 RR, at 119•29; 43 RR at 20l:...02; 46 RR a~ 88-97~· 49 RR ~t
1i 9-25; 50 RR.. at 115-16.) Cargl.JI was eii;J.otjonal and upset that moriling and also
4
17
• •
m`` ~ ph911~ ~.aUs t9 tbe ·clinic 1J.1AA~$~ a~ Luke'$ ~i~ci!m'S ()ffice. (43
R.R -~t- 30-3~.)
ArQ~4 10:_00 a_.IIL, W``-w~ ~e_d_ Wi~ ~-S`` tQ t_e~9fy at th~ J11ge
2:3· a.J:$t()Q.y b.e~a~ (`` ~at 40-46,;) Wa.Uc;er c_all~ (;_qUI wh_o t9.ld Wa,l_lc~ ~he
did not hav~ to testify at tl'te hearing ~d ofJ"ered to ~de Walker ~til th~ ``
pas_se4. c;argl_n tol~ Walk~ tb.a~ sh.e (~11) would l~se her ~.ild if th~ coijrt
le:arned she had a mentally retarded babysitter. (44- AA -at 53-58.) Wii~ler -was
with Walker •-the `` sl;l_e received tlte·s~bpoe~,t~ ~d spoke twice wi$ Cargi)_I 011
the phone_. Cargill also told Wheeler that Walker did no.t have t~ go to court and
other people just wanted to confuse- 'walker and make her look bad or Incompetent
on the st,a;rul. (# .M at 5~1.)
Walker and Wheeler dis.cuss.ed the subpo.ena with a supervisor from the
cotrimmnty program where· Waiker received serv!ces. (4.4 RR at 62--63.) Cargill
calle.d a friend and exp~ hoW upset she was that Walker--was SUbp~ to
teSfify·at the c'ustody hearing-•. (43 RR-at 1-35-3.6.)
. W~_er w«mt to tb.~ be`` p~or·to ~ve her h:air d~me aro:l)nd noon.~ (43 RR.
at 107.) ~ h~ ~ l:lome; W`` tall.te.d several times 1:0 both Wheeler and
Whee.let's superviSor· and expressed her z:~ervousness ~d `` a~ rece.ivlt)g tb~·
sl)bpoerta. (44 RR at 65'..66; 45 RR at 28-29.) At about 8:00 p.,n:1_,., WaJker ~J'(Jke to
Wheeler and said Cargill was coming ovet to take Walker to dinner.. Walker also
sai go wi~ Cargill
an_)'W'~Y· (44 RR.:at 66-68.)
The hospita,I where, Cargill worked called Cargi1i several times that evening
t9 ask if a zned.i~on bad. been given to a patient, but Cargill did no~ ~er.:
Cargill finally teturrted the-hospital-'s ca.Ii In th~ e_~ly mo_mi.IJg hoqrs ·o_f S``y,
J~_e 19. (43 RR al62;;.7J..)
5
18
• •
:``~':-~9``d,Jun~-~O._.l0~0.
Atolmcf7:.30 ~m, o"-J~ 19, C~il.l spoke to •iJ,e)ghbor ~4 sajd she~
going to get. her cat washed. (43 RR. at 167.) Early that afternoon," Cargill went tO
the Whitehouse Police Department and asked how· bu.sy they had been that day.
~fi ai® aSked if'thei'e was any n~s about her dog that l1ad been missing fot
months. (49 RR at 9i•93.) L.ater t}:lat t:~ight Cargill was $een at the drlve-thnl of a
B.urgert: a``~ ~hw-cl:t. W.alk~r's· family C31led Wall,cer s¢Vei'al times and
c.heclc.ed h;er hqx:n:e, f.incJmg 'jt m~s:si:~r than us_ual.. (49 RR at. 142-43 ..) SUriil~y,.
Wheeler c·alled Walker several tj_m~.s over~ week~nd b\lt d14 not get an answer;
(44 RR at 69-:'70.) 1l:im evenipg, Walker'·s s~ep-mother s~w a t~levised 11ews s~9ry
that a body matching the descnpt.i'on of Walket had been fou:nd and cailed the
number ptovidecJ. (5() AA `` 9-.) Waiker's st``Il).o``r tpJ.4 a:t~r:borili~s tb`` sh~ h.a.4
gone to Walker's apart.meJ)~- ``- d~y ~xpe-cting to find that Walke~ suffered a
seim('e. (5.0 RR a~ 20-24.)
6
19
• •
.The Day.s.:r.ollowiag Walker.'s.Death.
On Jl,U,le. ~-7:' 2'()1 0, C.&r$ill Wa$ $tpJ)ped by PQllee come tc;> a
fc)r ti#lute to
complete ~op at a ~p sign. (49 RR.at.38.) Pumiarit to.a s·e·a:rch warrant, Catgill's
car· was searched and lmpeunde4. (49 RR at. 78.) }be car. was processed by crlme
.s®ne techniCians. and a single- bJ·ack hair was teecivered from the passenger side
headrest. (48 RR. at 66.) the ·hair was subm1tted for mitochon~al test:iz:tg.
WQJlc.¢1. ~y.14. IJ,ot. be exclUded as th~ contilbutor of tJ'l.e hajr~ (49 ~ ·• l ``Q.)
.AdditiOilally,. the coffee creamer container found with Walk_er's body on th~ nu:m.
road was submitted for DNA ~eStipg. 'Ii:t~ DNA proijle o,t$in_e4 w~ (ron:! ~
mixtlU'e of two different ihdlVidu.als. Waiker was exelude. a IQC_al 'bar·attd becaine `` wh$.
C.a®.U re&~. (53 RR EJ~ lJS-36:.)
While stopped at a red light"in a left~hand only tum lane, Walker began to
have a seiZUre. Traffic· was o~coml.ng so Cargill had te wa1t in order to tum.. As
she was ~i.zin:g, WaJker· repeatedly hea4 on tb~ gla:ss of the· passenger
$UU~:k .b;er
side window. B~ on her
medlca1 training; Cargill kneW the most importailt
thing to do (b;uing a. s.eizure was to protect the head of the person having the
seiZi:ite•. (53 RR at 41-42.)
Cargill drove the few blocks to Walk¢r's ~&!lit co~pleX,.~Stop~ the c:ar
and eXited ~ driver'.s sid~ door, and ran to open the pmisenget dOOr. Waiker fell
to the gro:und, .striking her head. The se-iZUre stopped witlilii a. few secondS of
WaU`` bitting~ gJ;U~c;i. C~ll couJd not call9U _be.Qu:se· bet phone w.a,s ~till
at home in the charger. Cargill yelled. for help and attempted tO help Walker by
performing CPR and qiouth to mouth resusci``o.n. Th¢re was ~o Qne else ~. or
~und th~ apartment c:omplex. (53 RR at 42-47.)
Cargill pulied Walker back into the paSseiiger side of the cat in order to
drjve her tQ the hospital whi~h was a few blocks away. As she was driVing to tbe
hC)Spital Cargill realiz~ Wa.ll~er· h~d ~ ~pq~s.ive (Qr oyer ten minutes and
was clearly dead. Cargill panicked, and wider the n:H.$``1) ~iiJ.ptession that
Waiker striking her head on the· groUil.El m_ight have ca~ h~ d~th, d.i4 I)Ot ``
W~ker :tP tb~ b.~sp~al. It:tste.~d, C~ll drove arounu¢iinati9tl, Ca:tgili te$tltied
events ofJune 18 and-after, (See 53 RR at SS-54 RR at 8S..) Addltionaily~ Cargfll
testified regarding prior b¢ -`` ~e al)~edly C<$iJli~ including putting her
hands around her mo.ther's throat. (54 RR at ~P-·39); biting her son Jamie (54 AA at
39-43); a:ild pushing and choking her son Zach} (54 RR at 43-47.)
The def«;nse a.l89 presen1ed the following; the d_e_te¢tiv.e who searched
W~er's apartment (()lP:ld pWs d_e:Signate_cl far June· 18 mWal.ket'.s pill organizer
(54 RR at- 86-91 ); a case w~er fi:\;)1;11 ~e ~ckew.s Cen~ ~fle4 ~t she knew
Walker was b~bysitting ar)d W8:$ doj~g S9 w.i~9~t problero_s (54 AA a~ 108,.18); an~
Cat&i1l'.s neighbor verified that CargilYs dog (ij_d m{act. go nussmg and she saw
signs \ij) i~ th.e.:IJ~tgbboibood ``\It 1;he-d.9g.6 (,4 RR ~t 145-48.)
~ Th~se priQr b_ad acts· were admitted ·in error. (See Appellant's Op:enihg
Brief, Point ·or'Error No.5.)
6
C~rglll llad a tali of duet tape in the back of her SUV at the tiJ;De it w~
searched. (47 RR at 85'.) There was no ~vic,l~.t:tce ~t~d tb~ ijl~ d`` • w~
used In any way the ~igh~ of Wal_ker~s death or had any connection whatsoever to
the ins~Mt c~_e. However, the State· alleged ~ the duct tape. mUst have be¢n m
Cargifl's car for a nefarious reaSon. (431Ut at 290-91.) C~giJI e.xpl~ dunng
cro~XBJ11.ina(ion tb~t sbe had duct ta:pe in her car bec·ause 8ev~ months priot
sne h~d h.®g ~P .sjgns
``
areund
the neighborhood regardj!)g }J~ n.liS$4:lg 4og~ (54 RR
. .
10
23
• ••
c. GuUt P~-~eba.~l bY tile S~te
T:be State presented two witriesses in rebuttal. Fir$t, Walker's form~r
neurole~.Dr. ~chard l)lrich,. testi'fled thatwhile Walker had a s¢iZure.diserdert
it. was well ctinttOlled by medication .and the tQXi®logy scr~ning done at the
aUtOpsy demonstrated that Walker had a therapeutic lev·el of ·medication in her
s~jjl ~t the ume of het dea,th. Dr~ Ulrich wsufied that th«ne 'was no mdicatjon
Walker had recently suffered a seiZure, deSpite selfo.reports to the. cOntrarY to her
c\lrrent. n~J~ J;)r. UJ,rlch ~ nev~ seeQ a p~ertt die from a se.ltUre. (54 Rll
at 11-18.. ) On cro.ss-eX.a'nilila~h>n, Dt. lilrich tt$tified that·while h~ had b~ of
Sudden Utt.e:icpected.Death in Epilepsy ("StJDEP,.;).It Is exceedlngly tate and even
more f&rely do¢5 it occur absen~ an l,Uld,erl;ying health is$\Je.•. (54 R.R atZ0·24.)
Paula Wbeeiet was re-called and teStified regarding the phone, calls betWeen
Walker ~d aqi.U on Jlu)e 18, ~d rei~ ~ W~l_{er ~-upset an4 rtervo~
about the s'r.lbpoena. qnd did not want tO go out to eat With Cargill. (54 RR. at 38.-
46.)
D. Pun.isiUneot.PbQe P...ea.'-.ti~n ~ tbe:Sta~
At the punishment phase; ¢~ Sta~ pre`` ~ wide vari,e_ty Qf wjt.rJ``
who ws:tlfied t9 a multi:tude of' bad ~ alleg~_ly CQnmtjl:ted by CargiU:• Tb.is
included neighborS who found Cargill to be difficUlt, aggre~ive, and verbally
abUS:i've to h~r children (58 RR. at i ll-46; 62 R.R at 61·10); teachers who WitneSSed
Cargtll's.~jye SJ)tJ lrratjOil~ I;Jeh_avjor to bctlllhem IP'.ld Carg\ll's c.b.i:ldren (58
RR a~ 245•56; 59 RR at 19-32, 43-50;- 6~ RR at 108-:17, 1.26-~0); a f~rrner·friend of
Cargill's ·who experienced cargllJ's manipulative and voia~ile beJ,.~viQt (62 AA a;
72~106)~ fanner i!)-~w~ Wbo C~i_H aH.e&edlY. -~s.s~V..lteQ d4r{ng. em.oti.o``
altercations (59 RR at :53·58; 60 RR :at 3247, .5()..S7); and Cargi.l~'s sister w~o
ftequently·saw Cargill be·unpredic``ble ~d ir@~i9rm..Uy ~W>'· (58 RR at Z.l2~37.)
11
24
• •
The State ars~ `` CargilPs moth~, Rachel Wilson, ~h.o ~fied that·
Cargill h~ ~ good U.fe gtdW~ ·UJ? ~4 tile SUPPQl't of b~l' ra:mu.y. Wilso~ further
t¢s~Ji.e4 t_o C~II's vol_``i)e beb.ayi~r -`` tb~ faa.`` sh~ was e~ily ptQvo``·
Wilson w.: alleg~_dly ``It~ by· C~U in l994, Wilson al$9 t~tifi~ as tq t;b~
circumstances ·sUttOundlng het 3sSt'iinlng c.uStody of Cargill's S()il in June 2010.
(58 RR at 149-210_,)
The State presented C~ll' s. three ex-husbands ·and one ex-boyfriend. They
recounted their alleged mistreatment at the bands of Cargill and various inddents
ofviolenc:~_; emotional abus.e, and volatility. (5.9 RR at 76-1 i'2; 60 RR at lOl-4.2;
61 RR at· 51-91; 63 RR at 6S-121.) Three of Cargill's four children also testified
``g ~leg~ i.nci(Jents of phy,ical and e.ll.10tlO~ @,buse tb.ey smfe:red l;Jy
Cargill. (60 RR a:t 10-30,157-93; 61 RR at 7-33, 101-5 L) Cargill's former in~Iaws
testified to alieged bad acts c.ommitted by Cargi.H against b()th. them and their son.
(61 RR at 7--&t)
The State presented a psychological report from 1993 where the evaluator
dia.po8ed Cargill wj.t;b ~ ``tNe personality wiUt ~--5.5i_sti.c an4 J;ijst_rionic
featut¢8. (58 .RR at 40~) Also ~tifyibg were jailer! and depUties from Smith
County ja.ll who bad negative experiences with Ca:rgi:ll (63 RR at224-03, 233.4.0,
244-49, 252-59;· 64 RR a~: 7-12, 18--33, 45-58, 64-79, 8_5-90~ 93-99), and· twl)
~QrreaionaJ officers who t~titi~q .regardih$ cl~sjfjcaqQg. @d tl;le di_ff~rence.
between death row and life in general popwatlQn With. a li.fe wj_t})~ pato~
'7 . . . -.
s.eilten·ce. (63 RR at 16&204, 261::-77.)
7
Th~- officers provid~ inconsistent infonnatio:n regardin·g classific:ation
policy· and proCedures. ($ee Appeil_1lllfs Open(ng Brief~ Poin~ ofE_rror Nt)s. 7 l!l)d
8.) .
12.
25
• •
~ Punj$b_me~Jt·P~ase Pr~_ntation by·th, Def~n$e
The defense presented the dry cleaner and law firm runner who hap.dled the
cl.oth~ Ca.rgill wore ~U trial to ad~ the allegation she had c(urttaband in the
fmm of a stntigb.t pin in her c.ell (65 RR .at 18,.19, 23-25), a,s well -~ fo~
co~o11~ offi=:s from S!Pitb C(J.unty jail w.ho testified that Cargill was not a
prQbl~ tnro~e.• (66 AA ~ 9.4.•97., 102·.,()4, 112-16; 68 RR -at 9-1 L) Addi'tio~aily,
an h:ln.ta~ bQ~ wi~ Cargill t``ifi'ed that C.a:rgill was kind to her and Cargill was
tre``d po<:>.rlY by tbe Other i.l1mat9.. ( 68 RR. 21-16-.)
Ad:diti.Qnally, the d.ef~se pl"esented. two expert witnesses·. Dr. AntQinette
McGattahan, a fOreJ1s.ic psycl:;tologlst, ``tied that she intervi¢\llled Cargill and
admmistered to her ~ battery of neuropsychol~gic:al tests• Vl~m``ely, Dr~
MeG~ di~os~ CargiU With horoetlme personality diSQrder wit:b,
narcisSistic and amisocia.l pemoilality traits. Dt. McGamhan indicated that the.
av~abl~ J.it¢.f$tpre s``stS th• person.~jty dl8orcle.ts· develop as -~ resu.l~ of
environ.ment.. Dt. McOarrahaft acknowledged that there is no cute for personality
dl'sorders btit medicati9n such ·a:s mood stab(}~ can help to cQritrol the
~ptQills_. (65 RR at 2·7-56.) Dr. Jonathan Lipman, a neliropharmacole)giSt,
te~$.fjec;l ~ Cargill bad taken prednisone, a corticosteroid a:t different times in her
Hfe, aJ)d ~l th~ tjme of~e al.leged crimeha4 ~bruptly ~tin~.ei;f the psychj._~c
d.n:lgs Klonopm and Cel~x.a .. Dr. LiPm~ t~fif3d t~ th~ effect th.attb.ese drugs can
ha:ve on a pe!'S91i, c()nSiderlrtg-a nu:m.bet of di'ffetent variables;8 (66 RRat 6-44.)
F. Ponish~ent Pb:ase Rebuttal by U.e S~te
In re~, the.S_tate presented Dr. timothy Proctor, a forem1c psychologist,
who agreed with ~. ·,McCJarrahaP.;$ d)~gn_Qsjs ()f borderline per8onality d'isorder.
J)r. Proctor di'd ~Qt agree ~itb Dr~. ,M:cG.arrahan's assessment that. Cargill eXhibited
The trial court erroneously limited the $COpe of Dr~ Lipman' s· testimony.
8
(See App~IJ~IDfs Ope.t:ain$ Brief, Point ofE,nQl' No.9.) ·
13
26 ....
• •
t:riji~ of n.~is5isdc person``~ di.sOtder· but. believed Cargill, s diagnosis t,o include
narcissistic p·~onality disord.er filll"-scale. Dr. Proct()r alSQ betiev~ C~ill
eXhibited every criteria of antisocial personali~ disorder but :a(:kno'Wledged t;here
~ QO inq.jcl¢jo~ tb.~ beh.aViQ~ c~cteristi:cs ``an priQI,' t9 Cargill's ~nage
years. Additionally, while not. di~osable, Dr. Proctor believed Cargill ~ ~e
characteristics: eon:sistent With psychopathy. (68· RR. at 43-7.8.) Dr. Eclward
Gr:iPQ~ ~ psyeb.i@'.ist, t¢Sptied con:u.y to Dr. I,.ipm:an and `` ~J m.osi
people on Klonopiil and/or Celexa do not have .side effects.. i>r. Gripon asserted
that Cargill rook prednisone intenrtit~gly and he would not ex~ h tc;» l;u.ive -~
effect on her cognitive fUnctioning. ln his opinion, the drugs Cargill was taking
had no relevance to the: case. (60 ·RR at 8_().:. i 14.)
IlL
StANDARD OF CARE
A. Ineffective AssiS.tance of Trial Cou~l
A ~rnin.al defendap~ is ``~ed `` ri$ht to :tr:i.$:1 represeJ;~tatio~:· This
Sixth ~dn:t~- righ~ to ~ounsel "pre·serv~ the tairn~ss, consistency, and
reiiabiiity ·of crln1inai pft)ceedings by ensuring that the proceSs 1s an advmanal
one." Ex-parte Flores, 387 S•W. ld 626, 63-3 (Tex. Crim. App.• 2012).
An ineff~ctive ~sistan`` Qf court_sel claiin has two components: Carg1ll In:uSt
show that counsel's performance was deficient; and that the deficiency prejudiced
the d~fen,se. S~Jdan4 v. Was_hirtg1o_n,
. 466 U.:S. 668, 687 (1984); ·see
. . also Pqrter
v. McCollUin, ·sss· u.s. 3.0, 38~39 (2009); Wiggins v. Smith, -539 u~s. -51 o, .521
(2003); Vii'gil v, bretke, 446 F.3d 598, 608 (Sth Cit. 20o6); Ex parte Jimenez, 364 ·
S.W.3d 866~ 883 (TeX. Crim. . App_. 20li); Jh.o;;zpson, 9 SJV.3d ·at 812
("(A]ppell.arit must show a reaso``ble probahility tl).at 'but for co~l's·
unprofes:sional errors, th.e·res.ult oftheproceedlngw.ould have b.e:en different.").
14
·27
• •
To eStabliSh defi.Ciency~·C.argill.mu:st show her c~1D1.Sel's rep~sentation fell
beiow an objectiv_e standard of reasonableness. Porter~ :558 'U.s~ at J-8 ..39 (quptfrJ.g
Stt_iC.lrl.an4., 4.6~ u.s. at 688). A defend- n~ Qr.dy·prove ineff~ye as$s.``·of
·co~ ~y a preponderance of the evidence. Th'omps_o,, 9 S~WJd at 813. Thi.~·
standard gQverns the: c~aim as a whole, and qoes ilot repla~ the more leniem:
'-~le·probabjlity" sW1®rd for·~e·prejudic~ prong.
The Supreme Co\lrt has reiterated that. it applies a "case-by-cas~ approach to
dete~g whether an attamey-'s performance was unconstitutionally deficitmt
under.Str.it:ldaru:C' Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U$. 3.74, 393~94 (200.5) .(O'Connor, J:.,
concu.r_ring) (dtiilg- Strickland, 466 U.S. 668).
Deficient P«formance i.s perfQnn~ce tbat is "i,ncoll$istent with tb~ -~
· of professional competence in capltai·cases that preva.il¢d (at the time oftbe trial]."
C~.flm. v. Pi,ho(~.fer, 131 S. C~. 138:8;, 1407 (20.11). The Suprnnecdo~ with
both gUilt ·and penalty, and should Seek to minimize atly inconsi~cies~·; ABA
Guid~#ntJS., Gujd~lin~ 1().1 0. 1. The CCA holds c'J)ital. ~unsel tQ an evtro. b.i~e,r
·standatc;i: "It is n~·sufficient to inquire. genet:ally and leave it up to· the d.~{en4.an.t to
r~se topi~ o.- ~ ~ ope1.1o.en~ ql,les#.@"· LUte a d~to~, [capi®.l deft!~se
coun;sel `` be &J'D'!e4 witb a ~preh,etl,$jve c~ec~'"list of poS:Sibilh1e$; &Jld
forceftiiiy inquire:about each topic~;, Gonmles, 204 S.W.J.d at 400-01 (Coehriin,.J.,
¢Qn~urri.n&>"-
to estabiiSh p~jUdiC:e, cargill "m:ust show that there is a reasonable
probabllity ~ but for counsei's Uri.profes5ional errors, the te5ult of the
proceeding woUld have been ditierent" Stric.k4ind. 466 U..S:. ·at 694. ·A re~onabl~
probability is "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in [the) outcOme.''
Porter, •30 S. Ct... 't:4.55..56"'(Wiggi.ns, 539 U.S. at 534. ft ·Is not
nccess:ary for t.h~ pe``oner· to d~oll:$:ate th`` the· l)¢wly ``ted mitigating
evidence wo.uld necessarily overc(Jm~ the aggravating circ\m.ls``es~ W#(it»M ~·
Taylor., 529 U.S. 362; 394-98 (2000). the. Co``O:JJ. ~:s tba~ ~e post~
conviction ~ ~engage w.i~ w~ [a def~daJ:J.~] ~ly w~t tlirOugh," as
expressed mmitigating evidence.. PQrter, 558 u.s.• a.t 44.~ I~ is DQt only in~
btn "unreasonable to discount to trrelevat:lce [miti$a``l evi~en~ ••.. [Qt] to
con-clude that [~ mitigating evid~ce] w.ould ~ red.uc:ed t9 incQ.JtSe.q``
proportions simply because the jUry would alSQ have learn~ [~f related
~a~g evidence]~, 14. The Tex.as Co~· of C`` app~s "[ha,s] ``
the S\lpr@le C~:urt's prejudic:e ~st-to require that there is a reqscmable probability
that, absen~ the errors; tbe ju_ry wo~ld b,ave :~erect the. Diltigation issue
~ff``y~"- Go.~q.Je.s, 204 s.w~:3d ~r394.
- - AsSistance-
B.. .IneffeetiVe . App
. of ·· · eliate
.. Counsel
.....
lneffe:ctive assistan,ce of appellate C®n.Se.l cl~s ~ ~oveme4 by
Strickland. Smith v. !l-obb'ins, 52.8 u.s. 259.~ 285 (20.00) ("the pt6p:er· s:ta:nda:rd f~r
evalu~tl_ng [a l'etit;ioner's] claim that appellate counsel was 'ineffective . -~ . is tha,t
CJJunci.a~ed Strlc/4.a.~d W~lilngro~ );
70
ii:t v. Evitts v~ Lypey, 469 U.:S.. 3.87, 396:-97
( 1985) (the Fourteenth Arileiu:hnent. requ.lres the assiStance of cou:ns~I to appellBJ;lts
for their fJ.l'St:appeal as of right); accord Riea v~. QUarterman~ 522 F.3d 5i 7, 531-32
(5¢ Cir•. 2008)~ Ex F,fe S4.1J.(t!!J!!., 2~7 S.W. .:J'Q. 700, 7()4...(}5 (T~x. Cz:im. App.
2007).
,Appel~e coJ.Ml.sel has a duty to review the record :and present any potentially
merltoriotts .claims. Meza. v. State; io6 S.W.ld 6.84, 689 (Tex. Crini App . .2006)
18
31
• •
(t:lof:ing appella~ ~iinSel's "constitutional dilty to review the record for any
arg\iable ~).
.C. s~ope of the Waiver of.Attorney-Ciient'PriVilege
Cargill ~Qgftlzes· that rai:~ing .sp¢Cific .i,$8'-le.$ of inefte:ctive ·assiStance of
counsel as developed mthis Application Operates as a lim.ite.d waiver ofpri'Yile``
ln:forn,Iatjon.; how~er, sh~ ~rts her right ta have· all prlyileged mf~Q11 X,9t
. .
ditec~y relevant to said claJ.ins remain privil~ge4_.
Under the texas Rules of Eviderice, tQnfidenual c_ornmunicati_t:tns b`` !1
client and her attorn,.~ are privileged. TEX.. R.. _IMD. 5Q3(b)( l XA} ('-'A clie.(i~ has a
privilege to refuse to disclose and to prev_ent any oth~ ~rson fro~ djselosing ·
~fidel)`` ~unic_&:tlo:t)s ~e fQl" ~ .P`` .of faciiitating the rendition of
profes_SiqJXalle¢. $e;r\iices- to~-~ cli~t . , -. between the; eli`` .- .. and the· cfient's
l.a'INYer.-':t)~ ·tJ?.~
privileged rtature of communications betWeen client arid a®rn~
remains- i`` evcm ~pon the te~on 9f the attorney-Client relationShip.. See
MarylaridAm. mey~s profe:$sional con'dpct i_s ``u``ged by tbe
client, the privilege is waived so far as necessary to d~f¢n:cl. tbe a.¢o``Y '·s
~h.``:-.'' Tifest v. So#t(), 5(;3 S.W-.2d 24,0, 2.45 n.3 (Tex. 1_978). 1_1) the cort~¢xt of
eriminQ,} l.~w. co~ ``ss- the nat.im:t have cm:tsistently "held that a claim of
·ineffe¢t.lve assiStance ·of couns:el by a defendant agmnst a foJ'IJler- anorney waives
the attomey~IIen:t pnvil~g~." Joseph y. S~, 3 S.W~Jd 627, 637 (iex. App_.~
Ho~n [14t:h _Dist.] 1999) (citi_ng Laughner v. United States, 373 F~2d 326, 327
(5th Clr. 196.1))~ see. also United Sta~e_s- v.. Pi~'Q"', 584 F.3d 97Z, 97S (lOth Cir.
2009}.
Howeyer, ai:IY waiv~r· of the a~ey-cl_ient privilege on:ly ~pli~s to
communieatiOI,lS relevant to the claim of lneffectiYe assistan~ of c_ounseL
19
32
• •
Laugh.ner, 313 f.~d ~ 3.27 (wh~ '1tbe ~i``~ ~leg~ a breach of duty to ~ by the
attorney, .•. he thereby waives the priVilege a:s tQ all conun1,111ic~•ons relevant to
~ issile" {emphasis added)). Coutts .have consistently lhriited the .S@pe ofth¢se
waivers, penn:tttmg di:sclos)JR: of only th,oSf: ¢an.fid~nt,i~ comm.``!;ioJ!S t)la! ·~
"necessary to prove or dl!iprove [~e client's] .claims.'' Pinson, s·84 F.3d at 978·
(emph~i.s added). 9
s~
9 c#st;J B((tol!:er· v. Yloodfor4., 331 F.3d 11:5, 720 (9th Cir•. 2003)
("Beca~e ~ \Y3.ive;r .~ te2012 WL 1130657 at
*6 (D.s.c~ Apr-~ 4, 2012) (tirip~bl)Shed) ("the Govemmeiit wlll not.u.se and Will not
make copies· of amy :ro.`` Qr ``f~ti01.1 in t,ri~ co``''s fUes ·~ 1,s 1_10t
relat~d or relevant tQ a cl~ in. Basham'.s .§ 2255 Motion" (empha.$is ~4de4));' I~:~
re Nat'i Morlg, EqUity Corp. Mortg. Pool Certificates Sec. Litig., 120 F.R..b.. 687~
692 {C;D. Cat 19&8) (~which ~e court '·'~j®.t[ed] the ~·ggestion roade by s<>me
parties th~t 'sel«.tive:' disclosure shoul(i not be aiJowed, that if the' exc:epti~n is
p:emiitted to be invoked, iill attorney-client. cOmmurucations .should be diSclosed''
as "directly C<>rittaiy to the reasonable necesSity Standard"); Levin v. Ripple Twist
Milis, Inc., 416 F.. S.upp.. 876, 8:86-87 (E.D.. Pa.. 1976) ("In alino5t.any C.SC·Whert an
attorney ~d a fo~er ~l_ient ·are adv~es ~
the courtro0111,- there will be a
cred.,ibil.icy coJ)~ .be`` them.. Thi_s ~· ilQt eJttitle the a¢Pl1i.ey iQ ~
tbi'®gb eveey fjJe be has on that PWtjcular cJi~l)t (regardl~s of"i~ relat~ess to
the .suf:?je(:t ·matter . of the present case) and to · publicize any confidential
conimu~1caticm he comes `` which ~Y ``nd to im``h his· fort:n~r cU~11~ At
the very lea_st, th~ word 'necessary' {n the disciplinary rule requires that the
pro.bative value of the disci~ material be great enough to outWeigh the potential
d.arnage tbe disdosure will cat~se to tJre client and tbe lepl profe~$ion.j; Ala!xzma
v. Lewis, 36 So. 3d 72, 77-78 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) (noting th~t, by alleging
"ineffective ~i_stai)ce of co~l 4urin~ the trial and dire`` appeal of th~.e, cases,
20
33
• •
Predecessor co~.l '$ 4:u~ ~o li.`` dlscltistire ~ irt(ofinati~n relevant to the
claim of ineff~tive assistance al$0 flows ftorn ®unsel's· continuing ~1,1~ to t;lte
fotm.er client. Both the ABA Guidelines and Texas Giddeli.~ stip`` t_ll`` "'[i]JJ.
accordance. With pofessio~ l')O~, all persoll$ wbo ~ or ~ve been t:n``rs of
the defense team have a continUing dUty tO safeguard th:e ~e~ Qf the cliem_;~
ABA ®.idefi!Jea, G\ddeline 10.-13; Texas Guidelines., Gui~l~e·l i._s. Af}A formal
Opiriion 1()-456 states that in the con~ of an ineffectJve ass~ce of co\msel
c(aim, laWyers may disclose· "information "reasonably n¢~" (Qr ~lut,ion of
the ineffectiveness· claim. ABA S~d.ing C~ m;1 Ethics ~ Profl
&espon:slblfity, Foimal Opinion 10-45.6, s (2010). I:Iowever, ~ opinion :further
s.tat.es that it is "'higbly un.lil5~ly tb$ ~ 4``c;.l.~ in ~sponse· to a prosecution
~itest, priQr to· a colilt-``rvi:se4 response by way of testimony or otherwise,
wi.ll bej~tjfi~le/' /d.
the. defendant waived the benefits of both the. attamey-clieilt privil~e and the Work
product privilege, but only with re:spect to matters re.1evW1t t() hl$· allegatilllls of
i11e.f1ective as_si.s\ailce of counsel" (second ~mphasis added))i Waldrip v. Head, 532
S·..E.2d 380; 387 (G_a•. 200.0) ("[W]e }lold ~at ~ h~ petit\·q~er who ~.s:erts a
cl~m Qf in~ff``ve ~.$sist.~m.c~ Qf ~ourw:l m`` a lilni~ w.~ivq oftb~· ``t:JJ.ey.,
client privilege:and wotk prod:uct doc.trine and the state iS entitl~ onlY tQ c~l's
doCUments .and fi.les re~eva.rr.t to the speci.fic allega~QI)S of ineffectiveness."
(~mpJJ..s1.s ad~ed)); In re Dean, 111 A.2d 25:1~ 2.58o;S9 (N.H. 1998) (".We hold.
that claims of' in~ffective as8istanc~ of c~unsel, whether bn)ugt¢ in ~ rnoti:® fQr
new trial or.-in a habea.s corpu_s proceeding, ccmstiwte a w~vet of the atto:r:ney-
cllent pnvi)ege to the extent relevant to the ·Ineffectiveness claini; the waiver i_s a
limited one~" (emph&Sis· added)).
21
34
• •
IV.
ARG~Nr
CLAIM ()N"E.
n,IAL COUNSEL WERE INEFFECfiVE FOR FAILiNG TO PRESENT'
EVIDENCE'THAT CUE.AAY W.t\L_Qll D~.P OF SUDDEN
UNEXPECTEJ)' DEATii.IN EPUSPY RATHER THAN HOMICIDAL
ViOLENCE
Post-wpvi.c~iOJ:l inVe$tjgaAon ~ revealed that Cherry Walker died ilot. of
homitidal Violertce at the ·handS of Kimbetiy Cargill, bUt of the ~Iatively rate, but
certa1nly .not.. titiknown, disorder SUdden Une)Cpected · Oeath in Epile~
(,;.SUDEP'·'). Trl$1 counsel was q.w~ c,>f 1he ex,\ste)l~ of ·tJ:u.s disorder and the
possibility that. it caused Walker'.s. death, yet inexplicably failed to pres~
eviden.ce of it iJl order to support apld corroborate Cargill's version ofeven~ on the
tiight of June 18, 2010. If Q.ot for this failw-e, at least one jl1ror·would have found
tb.~re to be R.'~ilabl.~ d.oUb.t ~ C.~il.l ``ly ~ec:J tb~ death of.Wal.IQ;r by
m.eans of homjci~.l viole~ an~ woW,d ~9t h~ve conYicted her of cap1tal inurder.
Trial coun:s:ei's. faili.lie constitUtes ineffective assl~ce, prejudicitig CqiJi's'
rightS under the state and federal ConstitUtions; state statUtOry Ja:wlr and United
Stat¢S S:\lpreme Co~ and. ·sWe case law.. Ac~gly, both Caf8iU"s ~;r;tVictiol)
apQ, d$th $ent.e.n~ shQuld be revers.ed.
A.. SUDEP Evidence Presented durlJig the GuiJtli:no~eil~ Pbase ofT~
Cargill W.St.ifled in. her own defense at the guilY,~o``e ph_a.se of her· t,ri_a_l_.
(See Statement of Facts, ante, for ·a fuil recitation ofCargiif;s teStimony.) Cargill
t~stifie.d that on the evening ofJune 18, 2010, she and Walker ate dinner at a local
res~urant. Cargill was in the process of driving. Walker home when Walker had a
seizure. (53 RR at.39-4L) When the seizUre ended; Walker was: net breathing aiid
had 11'0 pulse. (5.:3 RR at 44-47.) Cargiil attempted to resuscita~e Walker but was
22
35
• •
W\SU~S;S.f\Jl, IJ;13 mot:n~l)~ ofp~c, at;ld because she W~ conV.lnced itO. one would
~lieve She was not. responsible for Waiker•s de$h, CargiU djd not·take Walke.r·~
a.nearby hospital but instead drove around 'rar alnlost an ho\Jr. tllt.im.ately, CqiU
Ietl Wal~'s b()(ly on. tb<: $icle ofa I1D'Eil ~ad. In an anempt to d~troY ~Y of her
own biological II'.Ulterial on Walker's p:er.son, Cargill set fue to Walkers shi,rl. (S3
RR~4+$2.)
Cargill was cross-examined for hours and was subje:cted tp ridicule, c.all~ a
ki'il~r and a. liar, arid
told by the State that her version of events could not possih•y
be true~ (See 53-54 RR ~t ~S.im.) Tri_al counsel did nQt present witne$Ses, ~eri
or otherwi.s~ or m,y other evidence fu slipport of Cargill's ~;lCJ'~® ofWalk~'s
d~.10 ·
Iil ~' the S~a~ pres``~ Or. Rich~ t}lri~.b, a n.~Jqgi_st in the· Tyler
·
area, . - . c_argt
to. coU:nter -·'ll's testim · · that
- . oey . - Walker
...... suffered
---- . . a seizUre
- while ridin:g in
C~:W$ ~ Or. Ulrich ~tin``~ W~er w~- hi_s p~cmt fQr ap. UJ).determ.ined
a,moUJ)~ of time J#.i9r t() .Z003 an~ 14~ again for -a short period in 2009. He last·
saw Walker 011 April 24; 2009/~ (55 RR at 9.) Dr. Ulrich teStified that he had
never kn-own of anyone to die· ftQm ~ilepsy itself~ on.iy from other di.~ in
addition tO the:epllepsy. (55 RR at 10-it, iS.)
°
1
Folh,wing- Cargill's tes:tim()ny, the def~nse· presente4 Detective Jam~s
Riggle, who testified he found medication in a.pill organizer at Walker's ho.use (54
.RR. at 8~ 102}; Brenda Whitiiker who t~ified she was aware Waiket was
babysitting several children (54 RR at 10843)'; ·and Loren PWg- Who testifi'ed she
w~ `` C.miJJ w~ lOQk_ing far h~r IQ.s~ qog._ (54-RR. a~ 14``<'2:.) N,.. tJ.lri``s be.st.recolb:ction, Walker began having seiZures at the ag~ of
siX'teal .and bad them. o:ccasionally thereafter, sometiin~s whe:n she ~ ou~ o.f
.1;11edica~.u cou.I4 qie wj.tA t®.t:.~
12
Tegretol is the brand name of the drug carbamazepme.
24.
37
• •
(55 RR`` ~l.)
Following.Dt. Ulrich's explanation ofSUDEP, defeJw:·to.UnSel handed him
·~ artlcl~. printed from the· "Medscape" webs1te (www.Medscape~com) aild asked
13
him to read it.. (See Ex.. 31 (Medscape Art. on StiDEP].)
. Dr. Ulrich ®mplied
-
and stated that he did not believe w~t was said in "the ixrst oouple of-para~phs';
and that
. he . . ncrt know
.. did . an
. Y'·one who
. .. beH.eved
.. . that
" .. "co.Jl$l,S· tent
. . . and
pa..tterns
incide·nts are obvious in su.ddm litleX:peeted .death epilep•y for eight to seventeen
``-" (SS AA·``.23~) Defcmse co``~ pro¢ee4¢d ~o recite from the d~ent
the criteria for SUDEP developed by the United States Ft:>od an_d Drug
Admlnistration ln. 1993. (Jd) Dr. Ulrich acknowledged that tbe Stu~ies teg~l,t:tg
SUDEP .existed but~· he believed ·jt ~ ''very, vecy rwe" ``~.ere are
ahead
. )' underl!}'1118
·• · P-1:0·blems
. . .in .. . He
-. the brain. . also indicated
. : · ds on
. it. "depen
. that
w.ho yot:t re..a4 and wb9 yo~ ~i_ieve~ ~d "yau have to you
use judgment in what
see and do ·and exp~en®." (SS' RR at 24.) Fin8Ily, Dr. uirich acknowledged that
there is a phenomenon caiied "sUdden unexpected death'' where a person dies for
no discem.able·~n ~4 811 aUtopsy will not``~ the c`` (55 RR at.25.)
Oil re-direct examination;. Dr. Ulrich teStified that based on Walker's histozy
an~ the level ofTegretol.in h~body atthe·titne of autopsy, he: did notbeiieve she:
die:d from a seiZure. (55 RR at 27, 30.. ) Dr. Ulrich ·was shown the ~c.ords of
Walker's neurologist at the time of her death,. Dr.. Kariampuzha, and opined the
'
seizUres Waik:er seff.:reported In the menths preceding her death could have been
$.Qtn.e(h..n:$ om~ tb4.n ~ seizure_. (55 RR ~· 27~30.) Dr, Ulricb furtlt(rr tes:tjti·~ ~ba~
wl:U_Ie being ~d~ ~ lot Qf ~s n:Jight in``e W``fs ~ll~ces o( }:ul~g· a
se]iure, it would not have increased her risk of suffering ·from SUDEP.
Oespii~ the fact that Ute article w~ ~ed ~ ~ 4¢fense· e·~ibit i.t does not
13
appear to he in th.e Clerk~s R~c~rd, ~4 as such is. in~ludeci ~ E.*ibit 31 to if#s
Appli'eati~n.
38
• •
Uitimatelr, .Dt. Uiiich did not believe Walker died as a res:uit of SUDEP, a
message .the jwy was left With jUst priorto th~if·c;ielibera.tions. (55 RR at 35,..36~)
B. SOOEP Expert
th~ medical examiner Wh() p¢tfortned Wallcet's Bl;rtQp'sy coUld not d~term.i~e
a cause of death, out concluded that there were slispieiau:s. circumstances CC)tiSistent
With homicidal
.. . . Vioience
. .as
.. . .. manner
the . .. .. .. ... . Therefore
of death. .. . ' it. was. vital. to. the
def¢nse that trial oounsel offer an explanation for the cause ofW.alket's de¢1 that
s~ C@.l'gil,l'~ te.sfun~my. Co~!deting ~at co~el w~ ~wareQf'W``r's
``ive qtedi~a.J. ~q:ry tb.rQ\lgb. djs.cQvezy, includip:g ongoing appointmentS With
neurologists to address her recent seizmes, there. was ·reason to investigate the
``biijty of~ ~del)~ or~-~ ~il:se ofWaU<¢r`` ``~
An expert m.seizure disoi'ders and SUDEP., such as Dr.. Samden Lhato~o, c:Ould
:t,ave provided ihe jury with (;ompelling testimo:qy as to the eXistence and
ptevalen:c:e, of SUOEP and the likeliho:od of that beittg the ~use of Walket's
death) 4 Dr. Lhatoo is the Director. of the Epilepsy Center in the Department of
N:euroJ.ogy·al Unive.:sif:Y Hospit3)s Case M~i~ Cen.t~ ~ 'Cl.evel$11~ Ohio. (E;,_t, 1
at i [Aft'.. of!>J:'. Lhatoo].) He is aLso a profes5or of neurology at Case Western
Universicy·and has speciaiiZed 'In the field of'''m.ortality 'in epilepsy'' over·the past
sixteen years. (ld) Dr. Lhatoo is consid~ed an 'international authority in SUDEP
r¢se.Ch and has published multiple landmark ar~icl~ i11 t}:le field,.. IJJs ~­
reviewed publlciirlens have·colleet!vely_gamered over 3AO citations." (ld)
It is of nate tb`` ~. L.h~t9c;l w~ one of the· many SU't>EP e.~perts ci~ in
14
the Medscape article that: courtsel used to cross-examine. Dr.. Ulrich. (&e Ex. 31
(Medscape Art on SUDEPJ.)
15
See.Exhi"bit 1 at Attachment A (Aft. of Dr·. Lhatoo] for·a complete copy of
Dr. Lhatoo~s curric7il_um vitae.
26
39
• •
Dr-. Lhatoo ·was retained ~Y ctiii'elit po$t-,.conviction cQtm,sel to review
materials pertaining to Ca:rgill's case and render an. opiiliQ!l a:s to tb~ likeli~ood. of
having died
Waik.er.... . . StiDE'P
'. from . ... . ort
based the know
....... . was avaibible at the
·- .ledg·e that
tjtne Qf C.a®Jl's trjaJ, S3:$e4 em Qr. L~tOO'!ll revl~w of th~ atita:P!Y report
PNPared by Dt. Meredith Latin., the tilll ~QI»pl.e!IJ.``J ofWalket's medical reeotds
provid~ througl:l 4.i~ery, -~4 1:1,1~ tri_B:l ~s``ny of ~il, as weil as ilie
testirnony of Or; L~ and :pr, Uhi~b., .Dr:. ~ coul4 fu.lve infonn~ Cargill;s
j\p'y ~ '-'Chtmy W~er's de~tl:t ``- H~ly to have· been a SUDEP death." _(Ex. l at.
9 [Afl ofDr: Lhatoo].)
1. Expl_aoatioil of SUDEP ·
SUDEP is 4-'efit:l.ed a:s a ~dden; unexpecteVided with
·i:nf'Q~ation about StJPEP).) SODEP ts OO.t a n:ew phenomenon and is Widely
accepted mthe medicill fieid. (Ex. 25• at 1 [Pt.. i>evmsky Art.]; Ex.. 26 at. 1 [Dr.
Tomson Art.] .('·'There h;as· been in~ ~wareness of.~-. SUOEP over tb~ past
two to three decades, -and what was onc·e disputed is· now aclmo:wledged a:s a
seriou:s
. ..problem
. .. -- in · ·1·epsy").)
.. epJ
2. Walker's Medical History Reveals Multiple RiSk Factors for SUDEP
B~e4 o:p ~s review ofW~r's n.tedic~ ~oi'dS,_ br. LM.tOO found riumero\ls
factors that were cortsistetit With SODEP and no sigiiifica.tit facjors· inconsistent
with it. there are multiple· risk factors for SUDEP, but the tWo most significant
factors are ~uffeiing from generaliZed t9ni~lonic S¢00ues (as· oP,pc>Sed ~ a
different type of sei.zu:re) and active epilepsy manife·sting in irtt.ei"iitittent. seizures~
I
(ex:.. 1 ~- 6 [Aft'. qf Dr. L``].) Otbe.r ri.~ f~rs incly._d~ i.~«t~e levels of
epilepsy medlcatintinu!:d to ~lq'E;rie.n.ce U,.``~n~ toni~·clonic
seizUres.. RoUghly 20% to 30% of patients with epilepsy do not ~nd to any
medical treatment and continue io expetience interinittent. seiZures.. (Ex. 1 at 3
[Aft· of Dr. Lllatoo]; E~·.· 25 at 7 [Dr. Devl:n~ky Art.J;) It. appears that Walker feli
~nto that ~gory. (Ex. 1 at 3 [Atr. of Dr_, .L~to:o] "[Walk~r] s~ff~d f;orn ~
app_aren~:y medically intractable (l10t wholly respoJ1Sive io treaimen~) form. of
epi,l~."}_.) 1l1 April2009, nr~ Ulrich iQ_dicat~ that W~J.c.~ h~d not experie~ced
A,n EE.G ~ a brain wave test 1JSe9 to diagnose, amQng Qther things,
11
epilepsy•. (Ex. 1 at 3 [Aft of Dr. Lhatoo].)
29
42
• •
Q, se~ in "ye~." (E.x. 37 ~ T`` Neuro.logy ~e¢9rtls];· see als.o Ex. 1 a:t 4
{Aff. of Dr: Lhatoo].) However; i.I) Fe~ 2010, .Dr. ``~Walket's
n~_logis.t a~ tbe `` o_f .b:~ dea~ote· that Walker had ~ navmg s.evere
s.elzt,U:es ·cJescribed as sudden blackouts. (Ex. 36 (trinity Neurology Records.}
Ac.corclil,tg th~ wti~g, Walker~s last se~ had ocC'l)ffed 1.1) JanWUy 7010, just.
five m~n~ ~fore h_er d~. (ld) However, Dt. KariampUZha wrote one month
l~• tb.a~ W~ker bad ~n h~vi.t;tg seiZures a1J4 ~· ~e-~ not. (Jd.) "Thlls;" Dr..
Lha~ sUrrtiJ~·t ``- js 'evi4~ce to $\iggest that. [Walker] had chroriic aetiye
«mil~sy ~4 ~ ~ hav~ se.izures in February 201 0 but it Is po8Sible that she
had no further 5elzu:res when she was reviewed a month~- The I®jo.ri.ty of
S'UDBP ViCtims have active epltepsy, althOUgh it is well.known to oc® in patients
whose .. ·'1 .... -. is a:ppN. entl
.... eptep,sy . 'Uiescent"
.. ,,yq.,,. .. ... rov - . of Dr. Lhatoo].)
\~.• 1 .at 4 [Aft .
Even With the occasionaJ.iy contradictOry accounts from Walker'$
n_euroiogiSt:s, there is other: evidence to suggeSt that she was at a high risk of
iitteririitteirt seiZlireS. Most n~l)iy, Wal~r ·suff~ fh)m obstructive:: $}~ ·$J>p~
a condition associated ·With poor epilepsy control. (Ex. 1 at 4 [Aft;:. ofDr.. Lha~].. )
IQ 2:006.• Or~ Ul_tic.h orqer~ liJ. sle~ ~dy ofWalk~·and th~ re~lts ~ incll~tlve
of obstructive: sleep apnea and sleep fragmentation ... (Ex. 37 [E~ Tex~
Neurology RecordsJ; see a.ls.o Ex-, 1 at 4 {Aft ofDt; Lh~too].) R.~ iF)c.ijcate$
th~,tt OJ:tgoi,z:lg obs~ciive sleep apnea renders tu1 epilepsy patient.at risk oC:epileptic
se1zu,res. (Ex.l ~ 4 [Aft.ofbr.. Lharo·o].) B~ on the medical teco$.av~lable,
it ctoes not appear that Walket was ever prescribed anything to addre.ss the sle:ep
``e-~ (14..) A`` res~[t, .Qr. Lb~oo ~.~tm'l.e(s] tl;te P~-``~ CQil~ued to. s\lffer
fr'Qm obstruct,ive sleep ~pn~ ~d ... [w~_s] a! o.ngoml! tis.k ~f s~i~!l·" (14..)
Those :with active, epilepsy are at a higher risk ofSuDEP.
30
43
• •
~· W~J.~'r Co!l.s.ste.``ly H.•4 lnJ'tJequ_ate Levels of· Epilepsy ·Medication
'iii ll~r System
W`` w~ `` Tegrewl,@ ~tj,~f T~$N~l ~$~ fr'Qm ei$h~ t:(> twelve m.ierQgrams. per
ti;ii:llilit¢t. 18 in September 20.04, Dt. U1rlch ~rted that Walker's leVei ofTegretol
w~ .~..:5.2 mJ¢rq~s per .~{lliljterj and ·m November .2007 he reported 4.1
micro-·
. gram ·· · milliliter.
. per (ld '·a.e.e also .. . 37 n:o'<>m-·'Texas
. . Ex. L`` . 'Neurol
. . .. · Records]-.)
.Qf/,Y .. . . .: .
these levels suggest that Walker was either non-®mplim~ With l'ser IUe.di``
i-~- not ~g th~· M1 a.m.Q\I:Il.t p``-t~ Lbatoo.j.)
A~ th~ ti_rP,e 9f' W~'$ a~9psy, tbe t``ic~logy report indicated that she
agam bad-~ ·S\drthe~l,ltic l~e~ ofTegretpl in her ·gyste¢~.7 ml(;!'Q`` per
milli'ttter.. (EX. i .at.J [Atf.. of Or. Lhatoo].) Walker had a.).so b.een prescribed
In March 2010-. (Eic. 16 [Tnnity 'Neurolo~
Pri.t'nidol)e. by i>r~ Kari~pUZha
Records]..) App3rently, Walker was also pres.(:ribed ~ third ant.iepi·Ieptic drug. at
18
~Mi¢togiains pet milliliter" is a ·mathematic.ally equal ratio t9 the
'~milligrams per Hter" ratio referenced by Or. Ulrich in his testi.m.:o·n.y.
31
44
• •
same· unknoWn time before her death, as phenobarbital was detec~ in het
tox1co·togy repon but i$ riot mcmtion~ h.t her t:teuro!Qgy records. (Compp.re Stat¢'s
trial EX. 265, with Ex. 36 [Ttlrtity Neurology R.ec~rdS].) Her primidone level at
the time o{ ·~u;psy vias ''borcietline tow·,'' while her phenobarbital l_eyel was·
"significantly low~" (EX•. 1 at.J" [.Aff.. of Dr. Lhatoo].) Bec$.ust; these :tn.edi~"~EP occ\JrS is the twenty to forty
years· olc;i range. (Ex. . 1 ~ 7 (A:ft. c>ft>r~ t.~oo].) Ev¢1,1 so, ·a well-known Swedish
study, pubiisheci ih The Lancet medical jownal, foUnd that. nine of the fifty-seven
patientS who died of- SlJDEP were over the age of fifty..:fiVe. (Jd) Eighteen of the
fifty-seven were over the age offottY-fiVe. (Id) Walker was thjrty-nh.te ye.ars old
a;t the time of her death, placing her well withln the ra:nge typically associated witb
tho$e wbo die ofSUDEP·.
Shldies have indicate.<~ that epil~:sy pBctient,s un4ergoin.g an:U.ep~Ieptj'c;:-dr\lg
pol}'therapy-ptescri.bed three ot tn9i'e antiepileptjc medicatiQJ1s .at· th.~ sap.te
time · greatly irl.creases a pati~t's risk of SUDEP. (Ex. 2·5 at 2 [Dr. Deviri.sky
J
Art];. EX. 26 at 3 [br. tom$on Art:.l.) In a survey of sey~ SUOEP s~die:S in
.2008, four of the stUdies showed pOlytherapy :as a risk factor. (Ex. 26 at 3 (Dr.
TQmSOJ:l A~J.) Wbi)e t.h~ use of polyt_h~py sin:~piy m_~y have been Qtl ijldi~tjon
Qf `` epjl~, '~jr1g tl:u;ee [``~jlept~c drtJ&S] con~Qn.tj~t,ly c~
with inonothetapy was asso:ciated With an [odds ratio] of 8:1 after adjUSttile'ht for
seizure frequency." (id..) Wal_ker'~; tox~col.ogy rep·ort at ~utopsy si:towed v~.ou.s
leveis of catbamazepine, prinlidoile, and phenobarbital.....;;.al} of which a:re
32
45
• •
a.rt~ooJJ.v~l.sant.J,U``q:Q.s. .This use ofantiepilepti~ PQlytll~py on Waiker,
therefore, greatly increas~ her"ris.k ofSuPE.P .
Mental -retardation has al$0 b~ reco~ .a:s a risk factor· for· SUOEP. One
~urvey c,f SQPEP $1Qi~ g.~ tl.'t!ee ~t· three such stwiies identified mental
retardation as a risk. factQrfor SUDEP~ (:S~:· 2:5· a~ 2 [Of. P¢vii:lslcy Art.}.) Simllar
results have-~ found in other sweli~ HcS well! (Ex.. 26-at-4 [Dr. Tomson Art.].)
In 1995, Wallc.er's IQ was ``d 1¢ 56; wl;rl.ch ~t~ in her diagnos1s of mild.
mental retardation. (See 42 RR at i I~.) Walker's· "inteUec~ disabilltY is yet
another factpr·~t inc~ her tisk of SUDI:P··
3. TheCireiliDStan~es ofWa.lke.r's ~ijt ~re Iudi~.tiye ofSVlJ~P
Du,ring the c:l~fe]lSe presentaQ()n at th~ guflt(itu:ioc~ce ph~ ot'trial, cargill
took the stand to explain the events the pi$h1 of W``'s 4~:• After revieWing
CargUJ's testimony; Dr. Lha:too found that di~ ev`` as d~bed by Carg11i an:
indeed consist`` with Ul~Y $.SpeC$ ofSUDJS;P.
Cargill's description ofW~'s· seiz.ure is ~iSten~ with a de$Crlption of~
tonic..cJo~c s¢~e. (E.x~. 1 ~t 4 [Aft of Dr. L~tOO].) Cargill explairied that as
s.he and Walk~ w~ ~tppped at a light ·and waitms to ~ @ tb" Intersection of
Beckh~ Av~ue and Ho\lston Street 1rt tyler when Waiket began tQ .ha-ve a
se_i~. W``~ was· 4·'b~ging ~S~· the gl_8$S and the doot of the car'' as she
c.onvulsed. (ld) This is co~ With the clonjc phas¢ of-~ ~¢n~i~ tonic-
clonic epileptic seizure. (ld) During direct examinatio~+, ._Cargil.l ~ro~:t.ted that
W~:tl~er's sei.zure las~e.d appro~dtru``.iy q1;1e ~(.{ o~e-half' minute·s .. (/d'; 53 RR at
4_3.) Cargill d~cribed p~.ing ``· ~' rtiililiilg to the passenger side, operung the
passenger door, and Walker faillng oUt ofthe vehicle· onto the pavement. (Ex. J a~
4 [Afi. of PI\ Lb~oo]; 53 RR ~t 43·.) W``r's ``re stopped within a few
seconds of her hitting the ground. (Ex~ t at 4 [Aff. ofDr~ Lhat~o]; 53 RR at 44.)
After briefly ·searching fat help, CargiU ret.Utne4 to Wal)cer. Ba:sed on Cargill's
33
46
•'
'
•
s~jilen~ tJ:W she tJl~ ''·flipped [Walker] .on h~ baclc. [to perform CPR]," it
~pp·~a(S· ~at Walk,er w~ i.IJ t).le pl'Q~J.f' (face down) position when het seiZure
stOpped. (Ex. i ·at 4 [Aff. of Dr.. Lbat®J:; 53 RR at 44.) Cargill `` t.o
resuscitate Walker, but Waiker was no longer breathing, not did she have a pulSe .
(Ex. I at 4. [Are. of Dt. Lh~oo]; 53 AA. ·`` 47.) Thi~ 'is ~.on~ist~m wj~ ~Y
witness accoUnts of SUDEF., nam:ely that the dectased's· br@thing and heart
~¢tlvity stop wl~ii) a short while of cessation of a genetalized toriic-cloni.c seiiure.
(Ex. 1 at 4· [Aff. of Dr. :Lhatoo].) Moreover, tho$e who di~ of SUDEP ~most
often found in the prone position. (Jd.) Dr. Lhatoo surtunarizeS mhi$ report.:
· Th.e ``t., • provided by [Cargill] is consistent w~tl:t (~)a
generalized tortic~cloriic eplleptic seiziite (the .·seizure type: most
$"0ngly ~-s.ocj.`` wir:h &l,JDEP); (b) wiiD~ accoun~ of stJbEP as
pr~vided by ftiendslreiatives/acquainta.nces of SlJOEP Victims;
namely that breathing and heart actiVity cease Wi~. a short while
($eem:tds ~ m,ir,l``) of ces.s~on of a g~eralized toruc~lortic SE:izu.re,
and (c) the position (prone) m`` often asso.ciated with SUDEP.
(Ex. 1 at-4 [AfL ofDr. Lhatoo]..)
4•. ·The Autopsy of Clieri'y Walker is qonsisteat with SUDEP
In conducting Walker's a:U:tppsy, Dr~ Lann w$.5 un~Jble tc;J ``bli,S].l·a s.p~inc
cause. ofdeath.. (See swe~s Trial Ex.. 265.)' Dr. La:nn noted that the irijuries to the
body were."minor'' and non-fatal. (51 RRat64-65, 73-75,·86, 102.) Nevertheles~
she d~.t~ined tba~ the .rna)mer of W``e'r'$ Q`` Wf#!. hom'Jc;id,al ~o]ence based
0~ ~e @``c·~ of ~tt.J,ra.J. ``. 1;he conditi~n in which the body was fo~d, and
the fact tila.t Waiker had been ·reported as a ml'ssmg person. (/d. at 84-85.) While
in no way ~9ncl~ive, Dr. Lann did ~Qte the presence· of p:etechial and confi~ent
bemorrhag~ on the bulbar conjunctivae which she explaiined c:o:uld be consi.~nt
with asphyxiatioJ:t. (/d. at 5S.) She Went on to n9te that the heinorrllages could
alsa be explained by poStmortem changes to the early stage of decompOsition
34
47
• ••
b.ased on tA~ posit,ionl,t~ of Walker's b<>dy-a factor wholly unrelated to Walk.-'s
specific caU® of d@th. (See U:J. at 53-54;)
After revlewmg··· the auto·psyrepo '• Lhatoo
·.· ·· ·· · rt of Dt; Unn, Dr; ······ .. that- the
.... concludes ..
absence Qf an ·i~.ntifiable ti>xicologi~ ()l' ``~9uij~ c.a`` of dea~ Is con.si'stent
With SUDEP.~ (ex l a~ 7 [Afr. of Dr. Lhatool.J Moreover, ce$ip oftb~ Jijj(J,or
injun~ ide.~ti~ by lP• .~$. d~ng tl:te autopsy were indicative of Walker
~ering ~ g``~ ~omc-clo!Jic epileptic se·i,zure priar tO 'her ~tb, e$PeCWl)'
col)s,idering Cargill's 4.escri~ion of ~e events that night. (/d. at 7-8.) Among
those are the ~-al ~d contlu~t )l~q~es d_iscov~d OJ;~.~ bul~
corij~vae, minor in:jl¢es to Walker's head and face, a iliinor·iiiJmy to tb.e iJiside
o~ Walker's mouth, •ci the,ptese·nce of puimoilary edema in.het lungs.
Dr~ Lann n«ed that tit~· petechial ~ coniluent hen1orrh~C$ CQlllQ. be
indicative of straitgUlatiort or the positioning of Walker's boqy P')s:tmortem. (Sl
RR • 53.) ~ ~ the St,$. 4.$ec;l Or. J,.~'!,i $pecUlati.on regardlng the pete¢hiae
as a way to suggest that Cargill had, in faet, cause Walket7 S d~th. (~e S(j RR at
43, 130.) Dr. i..hatoo notes, however, tJtat th~ petec:hi~ acm.al~y could be
a.fll,rma:tive evjd`` of a .sei.~,-e h,avin~ ~d... He s~tes, "'it should ~ noted
that these are weil~escribed findings in autopsy 5enes of ,SlJDEP patients, are
bel:ieved to be ~)J$~d by ~e stnd~ of a s~izure; ;;t,nd in themselves do not conti'ac:lict
St1DEP a8 th.e `` of4~am~" (Ex. 1 `` 7 [Aft. off>r. (...h~l~)
or~ Lm.m ~kn_owledged that th:e minor 'i~jurj~ t9 W~k.et~s he.aci ap~ fa¢e
were not lif~threatenmg. (S 1 RR at 65.) Nevertheless; she found them to be
sugg~tjv~ of I}.Q~cid,aJ Violence as the ~er of Walk~r's death•. (See State's
Trial Ex. 265'.) Dr. Lhatoo explains that such injuries are quite common in those
whe h,ave e``~4. ij. tpnic-clo:t?-i~· se~ espectally mthe prone po~itjon. (Ex.
1 at 8 [Aff. ofDt. Lhawo.~ Ml:nor injUries to. the face .are consistent With "carpet
bum"-=:-injw:ies to th~ no~, forehead,·`` c.h.~l:dxm~s (h~ occur wh~ ~ p3;tjen~
35'
48
• •
exPefi.ence$ ~ wn.i~-clQljjc .seiZUre 41 ~e faee down pOsition. (Id) or. Lh•oo
states, ''ThUs, in the event that the described injl,Uies occurred premort~, tb~e ·are
consiStent with seiZiire related irtJWies ca.Used .by a fall ftom l:l small heigl¢. (c:ar
•t) apd fri.~tion (~ few $e001:1d$ of zyii~hing/jerlcing on the ground in tbe pro11-e
posit1on).n (/d)
..
The minor ii:ljt.try to the inside left of Walker's motnh was also indi``ye of
haVing S\lffered a seiZUre. Injuri~s to the inside of th.e n~o~th, $u~h as biAAg of the
tongue, lip ot cheek, ate eommon occumnces in those sufferin& from seizure:s and
are ofum collSi~ $5.8(1~ by netii'Qlogj.~ ~Osi.r;tg sei.zures in practice. (Ex; 1
~ 8 [Aft ofDr.. Lbatoo ].)
It..is aiso of note that a microscopic exaiiiihation e>f Uie lungs ~ Walk~r·s
autOpsy showed mod~rate pulmomuy edeJ;na. (Sta-te's Tn~ Ex:. 265~) PQJ.m:on.ary
edema is the mast COirtiiibil autopsy finding ih SODEP c·ases~. (Ex.. 25' at 4 [Dr..
DeVinsk)'" M].) In one stti4y, pUli_n~ ~oJ1$estlQn ~d ege~ w~ n~ed at
autOp~ in fony-two ofthe fifty:..tWo.stUdie:d SUDEP cases. (Ex..l at 8 [Aff. ofDt;
Lhatoo].) This is tho·ught to be d.ue tQ selzute dJ:~harg" in the br.ai~ (1.4.) Th.e
presert¢¢. of p:uli~t9P.Jey
.
~.4.~• @4. ccmg~ot:J ~ .w~er's
. ``~Y s,y.gg~
-· •'
ili.at
she died of.SUDEP.. (ld.~ see also Ex... iS at 4 [Dr. DeVibslcy M.].)
Aft~ mrj.ewing~ ~:uWJ>sy·reix>~ ~ Dr. ~'·s testiln~my, Dr~ Lha_too fi~
t;h;at '-'the evid.~c;e,js ·still consist~t wjtJI a 4.``~ ofSDPJ3J> an4 ~e ~vi4ence to
the contrary is . notsUfficieiitly corivmciilg." (EX. 1 at:8· [Aff. ofiJt. Uia~(JQ],)
5 •. Walker;s Death Is Likely to Have Been a SUDEP Death
Based on his· review of the tb.ll cotnplernent. of Walker's me:dic.al records
provided through discovery, Dr. Laiiii's autops}r report, and the·testhnony ofLa:nn,
Ulrich, and C~ll, Dr: ibatoo is "of the oplrtion th:at Cherty Wall~er'$ d~ath is
likely to have been a StiDEP death.'' re.~. J at 9 [A.f.~ of~; Lhatoo].) In support
36
49
• •
of that con:clLisioil, Dr. Lhatoo checks off each of the detinltfoni:il el¢m¢rits of"
S{)DEP that aJ"e m~ in-thi.s case. (l.tt $.! 7:.)
Walkef.s death was·sudden and un_``· It w~ wi``~ by Cargill and
$ppears to have occurred while Walk~ ..\V~ in the· prone ~i-~00.- A~ the· ~$pSy·; .
tb~re. ~ i;tsuffic~e- traun;ra to cont:nutict the possibility that Wa.U~:er'$'WP``
n9rt``ti`` It was cle~ly a non.,;drowning death. Walker,s· medical records
~d fot:n:t~ neurologi~ co~ th!it she suffered ~epilepsy. Th~re i~ eVidence
~ Walker ~xpe'Ji'~ced a se~e on the night of June 18, .201 o bOth throUgh
C~giil's testiro9ny ~d ~e mhlor·lnJwies tO Walker.'s head, face, and mo1ith)9 At
iiQ pointwas thete: any eVi4ence of Wa.J.~er ex:periencirig st$5. eplle¢~ wb.icb
·1s a condition in whiCh the brain iS In a .state of pet5iSten.t seiZUre. Finallyl'
Waiker's autopsy revealed no toxicological or anatomical cause of death. "ThuS;''
Dr: Lhatoo con.cludest "in the abs`` of an 'id.~ntjfia,ble tQ,dcol~gical ·or
aruttomicai ca~ of dea~ Ch~rry Waiker's d~th is li~ly to. have been a SUDEP
d~J..m:. 1 ``ot xd~t.ify ·~ c``ic_tjol) ~0 this in the ~sti.m.o_ny pro:vi4~ by U:l~ .
defendant md the testimony provided b)' th~_medi~ ``--~ (E.~ 1 at 7 [A.ff:..
of Dr. Lhatoo.)
C. I_.efJ'eedV·e As:sis•-.ee of'Tri,l Cou..sel
Aii hi.effective assistance of counsel claipl requites a .shoWing tha~ trial
counsel's perfonilance w~ defici~nt ·~d t,bat. the 4eficiency pre)udi~d CargilL.
Even asswning for the sake ofarguinem that. Walker was selziire-~ and
19
that. Dr.. Karlamptizha' s medical records are.inaccurate7 tt Should be· neted that iii a
weil~known .Stuczy of nine patients of SUDEP, one pa~c;n~ bad 1>een ~izure free.
(Ex.. 1 at S [Aff. of Dr; Lh,at®J.) Ano:therwell-known ~dy ofSUDEP pubU.sb~
in The Lancet medica) jo\imaf found that five of the fifty-seven SliDEP patleJ:Its
$lYd.ied ha4 between zero and two seizUtes in the previous year. (Id.) This
suggests tha.t SUDEP can occur even in thos.e patients who are ostertsibly s~izure­
free er have rel~ively·mj_l4 epi_lepsy with il,lfi-equ~ts¢lZwe.s~ (/d.)
37
50
• •
. . ' .364 s.W.3d at. 88-3. ln order to meet the
. . . . ···' 466 U.S... at. 687~'. Jimenez·
Strickland
def::idency requirement, Cargiil must show that her ®~l's t~.entanQn feU
below an objective- standard of reasonableness. Strickland, 466 u.s . at.688. The
rea.sonablen~ of counsel's perforrij,ar.ce 1.s m``ured by the prevailii,lg
professional nonns at.the time: of trial a:s ret1ected gUidelines, sucll as the.Am;erican
Bar Association standards. Jd to establish prejudice, Cargill must show a
"'rea:.s~;na,ble probabiUcy ~ btJt fQr coUA$e1'$ ~professional erro~, the`` of
the ptOceeding would have been ditfei'eilt." /d. at 694; Thompson, 9 S.:W.3.d at
812.
investigation and preparation are the keys· to effective representation. While
trial counsel need not investigate "frivolous, impia:u.sfble, or meritless defenses,"
United SUites v.. Carr, 740 F~2d 3.39, 349 (Sth Cjr-,.1984), ®unsel m~tengage in,a
reasonable .amoliht. of pretrla.l investigation. and make an independent investigation
of tbe ~t;s and circpmsf:Bl?.~s i~vQ,ved in the C$Se •. Jl.Ufrl.ijtell v. Estelle, 590 P..2d
103, 104· (Sth ~ir. 1979); Brycmt v. Sc.ott, 2.8 F.3d 1411~ 1415 (5th Cir. i994); see
a~$() Gomez v.· Bet.o, 462 f..2d 596', 59'7 (5th Cir. 1972) ("when a defense c:oimsei
f~jls to i;ny.e$;igate hjs client':s only
.
PQ$.Sible clefen.`` although rc;.q~"-$.te4
. . tp do so
by hitn; and fajl$ to sllbpo~ wi.tne:sses il) sopport of the ~fense, it. c.an hardly be
said~ tbe d~fen4ant bas l:la9 the·~ffectiye ~istance·ofcowtSei."). Trial C;Otmsel
h:Ss- a ®cy wcons~d~. and i,nv~tjga`` ~h~ ba,Si.s for al_l p()s.sible le~ ~lai.ms `` w
present them as fotcefulty as possible. ABA Guidelines, GUideline 10:8; se.e also
(d at cllit: ("Because of the· poss)bility that the client will be· sentenced to death,
. COWJSel `` be signi.fi``y IlJQre vigi.I`` ·~.bou~ l.i~_igajj.I)g ~1 potenP,al is$.Ues· aJ
all levels in·a capital ca.se th:ap ·i,n @Y otl1er c.ase").. ~pert witn@'s·tes.tiinony is one
ofthe most powerfui t~ols ·~ an attomet s dtspGs~ ~o pres¢nt. a cot;npelling <;:l~ro,.
Coble v... State, 330 S~W.3d 2J3, 281 (Tex. Crim.. App. iO 10).
38
51
• •
in this c~se, tri.al cotm~l fa.\1.~ to take ~v@`` of that. opportunity.
· .-···t-·l·t·.s ttt-'al counse
Cargt ·· ·· · · 1 was •· ·"'-· ·••: · tror failmg'· to call an expe·rt with
· · ·· meuecwve .. an
.. . actual
. . ..
wQrl.Q.:t)g kpowledge of · StJbEP who coUld provide the jury with a ptedse
expltmation of the disorder itself, a description of the kind Qfindividu;als who ~
part.lcutatiy wlnetable to it, and an explanation for why it was more likely than n:ot
that Walker did i.n ~t die ofSUDEP aiJ.d 1.10t.l)oinicidai violence.
1. Trial Counsd's Failure to CaD aa Exp:ert·like Dr. Samde.u. Lhatoo
C~n:s:fitut~ De(jden• PerfonD:•r,e~ ·
J3y p:Ul:ting · Cargijl on the· stand as the defense's operiing Witn~s at the
guiltlinno:cence pha~, trial e.ounsel made clear their intentions· to ancb~r tbeir ~e
with Cargill's acco:unt of what hapPmed on the n:ight of June 18, .2010. Cargill
nm.Clenxl U\¢. v~ ro~jofi:tr ofthe s``s ca$e-irl-c.hiefmoot by·p·``ing b.ers¢l.f'wj:tb
Walker on the nigl:lt ih question. However; it was her explanation of what
~u:~pp¢ned i,n a few· shQrt n:Unutes that would deeid~ her fate. before the jury. Cqill
eJqllain'ed dlat ·walket had di~d un``:dly following a brief~ ~ C~ll
~ driving b~ home. Cargill was not able to. detihitively explain hoW Walker
J);lj$b~ h.~ve Qj~d frQJ;r) ~ ~i.?J,U"e ~ nmin~ed tl:tal sb~ ~ I)O~ lti.Ued Wai~er.
Aft~r hpurs o( ``~x.~U:J:Q.~pn frQn.~ th~ Sta~, tb~ f SUDEP and an
expl_ana~on of it:s lll``hm.isl)l.$.
40
53
• ••
tJel4.. T,h..e `` place to look might ·have· been the· list. of expert authors· of the
tbiJ.'ty•fjve schQlarly 3Jtjcles cited In tbe Medsc~ prmt91,1t. !lad co~l don~ so,
they might have coriSulted With Dr~ Lhatoo, listed In the fifth fOo.tnote of th.e
~cle~
Walker's death eXhibited simply tO.o. many cc;;nsistencies with SUDEP for
oounsei tO abandOn it as a theory and leave Cargilrs te$timo'Qy unc·oiTQb()~ ·or
to ~ly on the opinion of a genetal i:leurologist. presen~ by tl;J.e Sta~ OIJ. ~butt::;d.
Counsel should have consulted With an ex-pert in the area of SUDEP ·as part oftheir
inv~stigation lmo Carsi.l.l'·s op,ly JX)$$ible d~f~ b~ed o~ her accc)UD.t of the
events.. See GJmez, 462 F.. 2d at :597.. Had counsel elicite:d an indiVidualized.
opiiilon frOm an expert on whether. thiS case was consistent With SUDEP based. on
Walk~'~ medical records proviStrickland, 466 U.S.
at 694. ~n rt:i``~ ~ d¢4!rmin.a:tjon, the Court ``ces ~e ~ti.ng evidence of
Cargill'$ g\lilt ~nst the evi'denc~ thaJ c:ounsel failed to present. See Str~#llJI.d..
46.6 U.S •. at 696 ("a yetd.fct or concl.usion only W.~ly· suppottef:i by t}te reco.rd i:s
more li.kely to ~ve been affect«t by errors tha.t on·e with overwhelming record
support'').
41
54
• •
Th.~ S``~f.$· ~ 4!!ri~ tl;t~ gujlt/~ocence- phase of Cargili;s ·mat was
````b· we* for a ~pital murii~t ~Q_tiVjc:tion.~ The vast m~jc>rity of th~
witn~ses that were pres·ented testified to IJiattetS that tUm.ed out to be moo.t one~
Car.gi_l) t~ol¢ the st.~; n.$.tt:l~ly, ``tnptirig to plaee CMgiU and Walker tQgeth~·on
tile n)ght in- queStion. The balan~ te-stified" to -CatgHl's purpc;uted mo#ve for tb~
crime
..... _,- and
... - the
-· State
. .. . . finished
. .... . its
.. case-in-chief
. b.y p·. ·resenting Dr. L ~-
· . who
cqncbl.~«< W``r~s ~:U~Pl?Y ~ ultit:r!ately te$tlfled tb~ a ¢apse of d~ coUld not
be e$tabiished-. Dr~ Lann p~il:l~Q. o~ ce$hl ipJqtjes to Walker that might be
lndi_c_atjv.e of bomiei.:le,- "b\Jt ~f\llly ~:nd~4 U.e; jl.U'_Y `` she coi,lld not be
.... ····· of
certain . .. their
... ... cause.
. - - . Ultimatel
.. was. the absence of natUral dl~ase
" _y,- it . ~d the
CO.Q,4.i~9n of w``~r'-~ body th,at- led Dr. i.ann tO conClude it. was a case of
b,o;mici~ V.ioJence. That COlq)Jed wi~ th~- n•· C6iitplete l_ack of al``-aQ_ve
· lanatioo
e.."P .. ... ... . . for :·· · ti. y· led to·
. . . death. a·pparen
. . Walker's the Jury O,J vetd.l~t.. Trial
·· ·· ·• . 's g·uilru
coun~:el's AA}y ``~pt to a4dfes$ the ~swere4 ~e of ~th qt;Lestiort was• a
relatively brief ~xaiil.inatio11 of a geneial ne:Utologl$~. who. clearly did not
underst,and StibEP-. the coneept of--St.IDEP was- significantly uftdetdeV.elop¢d as
a reSUlt, and the Jlii)' was aslied to vote ·:'nm gliflt)''; ·on the bas~ c>f flee~ng
references to a "·very, vety tate;' coildltlon that was described as nothiiig.more than
-~ ~n:tedjcal rnyst,ery.;,
Ol,ujng cl~)sjl:ig argurnems, the Staw l;iighligllt~_ tri;:JJ counset·s· f~ilUJ:e t.o
prese_n~ affl.~liv~, rel.i~le evj@.pee t() $1:i``11' ~e ~erti_OQ ~ Walke): died of'
Sl)DEP~ The State ren_1inded thejury that Dr. Ulrich had never known_an'yorie to
dJe ofa,se~t,l;te befo~, d)d rt_ot bel)¢Ve Wa,Ik~ c,{ieq of~:$¢~, an4 -~ Walker's ··
Hkelfhood from dying of:a.seizUte was notttHfererit tlian anyone else'~ (56 RR ~t
4748, 97.) rhe-S`` rep~a``l_y ``ed: tb~ C~gi.ll w~ th~op.ly per$0n clai.nti.ng
tb`` Walker ha4 a seiZJJte on the ii_igbt i_n question, and tbat her word was belied by
~h~ testim(my of tt,:~ed_i~-;;U profession$. (56 AA at: 4.2, 49, 55-~) FVtally,- ¢e. State
42
55
• •
d.,rove bol;ll~ the point that no ope· other than Cargi'ii had. said. that Walker died of a
s:e·izute. On~ prosecutOr argued, ''Yc,lu teU me where the e:viQ.ence Qf a sei~ is.
TJtat's a iie, another one of [catgill's] iies, like every other one. ~ .. Bas.ed on.
what7 Not tf?.e D'l~cal evidence.." (5.6 RR a~·gs~) The``e prosecutor continued
tb argue regar4J.ng· the .~ei:ture, "Who have, we he:ard that from? ~t liar over
there." (Jd. at 99.) Aiid, again, "What. eVidence do you have of a seizure? That
fiat's word." (Id at 103,) Near the ~ of i~. ~lt/iAn'~n~e ph~ closing
argumen~, the s`` left the jury with the folloWing cOri'irtleilt o:n C.a:rgill '.s def:ense:
"[S]he's· got this \JJJ.believ~l~ ~CJ.l'Y. `` ~ dJ.SgJJlC~ tQ pe0pl~ who teaily have
epfl.epsy ~d seii';i.®.s ~4 ~- g9 tb.ro.u~ tha.t ~" -(/d. at l23.) Cargill was-
le~wit:b l.iffi.f! to ~e; as it ~ true that ootiilsel had tafled tO proVide medical
eviden~ tg corro~ ·her· testimony.
f:iowever-, counsel couid have, and should have, presented the. jliij' with the
co~pelling ~d essenti~ testimony Qf Or. LhafPo r~g&rd~g t}t¢ ~e prevalence of
SUDEP in the" epilepsy popUlation and the faCtors of this case that. are. ®risistent.
with the coz:a$tr.icklqnd, 466 U.S. at 6.88. The
reasonableness of counsel's performance -is mea5lired by the prevailing
prof~ssional norm_s,at the t4ne of·trial aS reflected gtiidelines, S\lch a:s the· American
Bar Association standards. Jd To establish prejudice, Cargill must show a
':'~o~ble p,O~bHity tb.at; b~ for counsei's unprofession.~ env~, tbe resuit ef
44
57
• •
the· proceeding would have been different.'' Id. at 694~ Tho;,;pso~ 9 S.W.3d at
8l2~
'
Trial counsel h3;8 a ~· tP objec:t to in.ad.m(s.s.ibl~ evi_d``e or iroP.roper
argument and estabiish a record reflectiilg advet;e ndfup ·hY the. cQurt. See ABA
~Jdelin.e."s, Owdeline 10.8, c)n`` ('!One of tbe mo~ fund~en~ dJ.~ties o.t an
attorney defending a capital ease at trial is the preservation of any apd all
conceivable ert'()rs for each stage of appellate and post"conyiellon reVieW ~ . -:");
ABA Standards for Criminal. Justice, Defense.Fzqzctian, 4.-7.l(d) ('·'d.efen~ co~l
has a dUty to have· the record reflect adverse. tulings"). Ii1 order to establiSh that
counsel was ineffl;'ctive for fajlbig to obj~ Cargill m~t s.how·tb~l th~-triQJ judge
wo.o.ld have committed error had the objection been inade and overruled. Ex pane
Martinez·; 330 S.W..3d 891·; 901 (Tex. Crim·. App. 2011).
B. Victim Impa-ct· Evid~nee is laa:d.mfslji,Jl' dJJriJII the GlJ.iiV!-..nqceaee
Pb•e·ofTrial
"Vietim impact" ·eVidence is testimony "aboUt the Vicfuil: and about the
imp.~t of the murder on the vict,im's fami'ly••• /' Payne v. Teitiressee·; SOl U.S ..
808, ·82_7 .( 199l).. ln Payne, th~ Supreme. Court lifted tbe ~ a.e bar against vi'Ctim
Impact evidence under the E~ghth Airiendmertt and delegated the decision to the
States
... &S.t6
..Whether
. . . to' admit suCh evidence
............. at sentencm
_ ....... .. Id Since the..n,
,,._g.. victim
im:pact. evidence has· been found to be generally ~$lble d)lilng tp.e se.rn~ci~a
ph~ of~ ~ bec~use ~vi``flce oOI:le .spec_i:f'jc ~ ca:u,s~ by-tb.~ d.ef~d#n~ ~Y
assist the jury 1.n assessing the· defendant's moral culpability and blameworthiness.
Ford v. $tate, 919 8~.W.2d 107, 114 (Tex.. Crhn. App. 1996) (citing J'qyne, SOl
U.S~ at.825).
Howevet, victi.tn imp~t evidence i~ Qot . .lssfble dunng the guiit phase of
a criminal ~·aJ because it fails to meet the ~levancy requiren,t.ents under the
evj.4``-`` ~Jes. Vi'cnm impa~ evi4en.ce. 49e.s not h~v~ '~:my t~dency to rnak.e
45'
.
···-· ....... -- -
. .
58
• •
. more or le.$s· prob&JJle th~ e:xisten~e of ~Y {a~t Qf cQ~sequ:en.ce ~the guilt st.age:·of
triat~" Mil.ler-El v;. &.ate, 78:2 s_.W~24 &9.2, 895 (Te~. Cri:nt. App. 19:90) (cirJng
TEX.
..... R.· . . :Evro.
- .Cit - Rule
. -·-·-- 401
. for. .. findln
.. the .. - ViCtim
------· _g that .... - im act evidence
.. P.-- . .. . . is. itrelevarit
- . - -
at th~ gWltftM()ctm,c.t: p~e). As·,:):ot.ed. i.n Mos~ly-v. Stg.Je, vicPm il_llP~t ~i``
i~ relevai;lt only `` ~ i~ r~lates to the mitipUon spee~al issu~ at ~ent
beqause that part.i``M ``sue gre~y broad.eJ;lS. t,h~ scope· of relev`` evideri~. 983
S.W.2d 249, 263 (Tex. Crli:n.. App. 199-8). However, victiin iinpac.t evidence 'is
''patentiy 'irreievant'' te other issues at tdal, even InclUding the. futUre
da:qgerrili$ness j.$su¢.at pUnishment. Id.
c. trial Co11nsel .Failed to O~ject to the Victim Impact Testimony of
WaJ~r's St~p~otla~r as I~lev~Q.t
During· the guil:tflimocen® phase of Cargill's tria4 the- State called as a
wit~J~s Wal.k~'s st~other; Rueon Walker.22 Over the co~. of n.~;Y fifty
pages of ~sti¢~ijy; Rt.Ieon $pO~e elt~.ive_ly abo~t C~lJ"Y'·s Uvi4g si~o~
re_l.at_ioq$ip Wj_t;h JQsepb Mayo, ~4 oth,er topi~ tb`` b~ nQ ten~cy ~ n:aake
mote or less pri>tiable the existence of -~Y. fact- of consequence at the
guilt/mnoc·ence .stage of Cargill's triaL Shortly after Rueon took the stand, the
Sta~ eUcited ~roany that Cb·erry .rnad spent. Chri$Un.a5 of 2009 alone, rather than
With her family. (49 RR at 146.) Rueon recalled that Chetty·\isu:ally came home
for Chri_$11aS,- and Rueoil would often bak.e a strawberry cake for h~r. (Id.) The
State wen~ on fu cl~fy, '·'$o . ~ . he.r l~ C)lris~ was spent alone in her home~
(!d.) Rueon ®nfume:d that that was true and trial c:oW:i.Sel failed to object tO the
p· atentl
-· ... Y irrelevant .. ---- - _y,. which
.. - .·- testhtlon . . oiily to tilg at the hea:rtStrifigs of
was offered
the jury-. (J.d) N~"'t, `` ~pl_aiJ.J.e4 `` Ch_t;ey AA.d 4;b,Qsen `` ap_artmen~ where
she Jived be¢ause it was cl_ose to~ pj_~ restaurant:. (Id at 151.) She also testified
22 Because Cherry Walker ~d Rueor:.a Walk~r sha,re the ~e 1.~ ~am-~; th.e_ir
first names only will b:e l,l;Sed (or tb~ re_m_Q.il)der of Claim Two.
4.6
59
• •
~t 9n:e o.f Cherry's hobbieS was eollecth'lg stWfed ~. (/d.) Despite the
State's Uitent to eHdt irrelevant testimo~y to paint Cherry as a simplistic ®d
sympa~h~(i:c vic(im, trl~ counsel again failed to ebje¢t.
Rueon also· testified about Cherry'·s biologi_caJ motb.er 4ying of ~cer,
. ¢herzy's varlotis options: on where to live once .she chose to leave her p~ts~
house, and ev·en the loca#on ofChe:rry's gra..ve. (50 RR. at 7~.) Ru~on then Weil~
into an eX.terided discusSion of Cherry's relationship With Jqseph Mayo_,; She
d<'scnbe.d a photogr¥.h of the ¢uple ~was hung iii CherrY's apartinent, noting
th.at Mayo was white and "a t:ittle slow." (ld $t testifie.n by neXt call~ Joseph Mayo to the stand. Mayo, Wh¢ bad
previously been descnbed tO the jury as "a.l1ttie .slow" offered very little testimo~y
relevant: to the guih or innocence ofCqill~ Asid.e ftoJn a few li.l!es confll"ming hi_s
·alibi for the evening of Jl.ille 18, 2010, ~yo primarily spoke about his bQnd with
Cherry ~d how their fan:ll'lies felt ·about their Interracial relati~nship. Mayo began
by talking about how Cherry "loved $.c:ary movies" and be was afraid ofthern.. (~0
RR at 49.) He tatJ,ced spe_cifically about the moyie "P.aranonnal Acti,vi~;_, a,n4lw.w
he believed the footage in the film was real. _(Id. at. SO~) The State capitalized oil
fue op}X;l$.Jijty to c.l~t}' tl'mt fu~ t!;1~-five yew--old :Mayo actually believed tha~
.the scary movie was real, askb:l$ "Yo:u thought it was real?" and following up with
"You thotigh~-i~ w~e-~a_l Vi~l not only f~l.e4 to o~j~ to `` S~t~'s ~eiitative
questiem``g, b~ ·~so fiijled. t.o o.bj«t to ~i(alt_er's. improper lay oph.tjon which
resuhed f'rozp th,e· Sta~'s questi~iiig. trial counsel's failure to object in both
i``ces cofl:Sti~e5 iiieffeetive ·~is~ce; preJudicmg Catgi'li's rights unde:r: the
state and fe.deral Con$titu:tions, ~t~ $t$.ltory I.aw., and Unjtec;l S~at~ Su.prtm.J~
Court @.4 s~ ~e. law. Fo.r t:h~se reasoJ:}S, Cargil_l's ·convic:ti()P. &b9uld be·
reversed.·
A. Tri.al Counsel Ha:s a D-.ty to Preserye Error by M~l:d-.g Pro~r·
Objectio~ ·
An ineffective assiStance of caun8el claim reqtlires a shoWing that trial
counsel's perfo:o:nan.ce w~ deficj`` and ~ll:t ~e d.efi~i~cy p~jud.ic~ Cargi.IJ.
51
64
... •
S/fil:.~ 466 U..S~ ~ 6.87; Jim~ez; .364 S.W.Jd at 883. To establi.sh defiCien¢y,.
m'ust show that her counsel's representation fell beiow a:n objective
Cargiil
st~dwd of re~ieness. Strickland, 46.6 U.S. at. 688. the i"easoilableneSs of
coUp:sel '·s ~o`` is measm-ed by the prevailing profes$iot.:al non.t)S 1¢ th~
tim~ of t:r.i.~ as reflected
1n the Amencan Bar Association Staiidaids and the like..
Itt To ``P~ ~judice, cargiil muSt show 3 "re.aso!Wble· proQa.PUity ~ but.
for couns~i·s unprofe~s.i~IW eqor5, ~e result of the proceeding woUld haVe been
differeo~r I_d. ~- 694; Th071JJJ,80~, 9 s:~w~Jd ~ 812.
Trial. CO\IJASel ~ ~ <;hlcy to object to m.a:dm:issible evidence or- improper
~eiJ.t ~4 e.$~1.i.~b a rec:orq reti``g ~dverse, rulings by the oourt. See ABA
Guidelines, Guidelin~ 10:8, cmt~ ("One of the mo~ fun~ental dut,ies of~
a~omey defen~g ·a capital we· at trial fs the preservation of any and all
conceivable errors fQi' eaeh sta$e of appefl~te -~d pos~-con:vi~on review . . ·.");
ABA g+...-...,J
wu.&wuWJ ..--.J- fl··
or-Criminal 1·.us
· ti'ce.,.
· · IJe#. t:'itncti
· · 1;',
. :~ense • · ·· 4-7.1(d) ("defi.~
onr · · co
. ~.1
has ·a dUty to have the· record refleCt adverse rulings'') .. martier to establish that
colu1sef was 1neffe.ctive for
.. fa.iiing to. obJect, Cargill mUst $how th.at the trial judge
.
would. have ooritr.i:lltted error had the objeCtion been made arid ovetru.led..
Milrlin.ez, 33.0 S.W.3d at 901.
1. Limitation oil Lay Witness Opinions
Under Texas Rule of Ey}den¢ 7()1., a l~y wltn~ss may offer ophiions or
ln.fenm;ce$ S:O l~mg ~· tbey. (1) ~- l.in.tiled ~c) tho~ whi.ch ~ ``all;y b~c;i OJ:!
the wimess'.s pereeption, and (2) w9~d be helpful to d.tejury i_n cozning to~ clear
understan~g of the Witness's testimony or the determination of a fact that 1s iri
issu~. Faitow v.. State, 943 S'.W.2d 895, 898 (Tex. Crim.. App. 1991).. ln order tp
meet the first requirement; it must be eStablished that the wittless has personal
'knowiedge"of:th~ even~' on whi.c_h th~ QPmjpi_l ~s base4 ap,4. t}l:e op.i.nion n,I,ISt b~
11iltjQ~Jy b~e4 o:r:t `` lcnowl``e. ld.. A witness may no~ offer opinron.s wbich
52
65
• •
are b.ased on s~ieAtinc, ~hni_~, or other -~gal.~ lid. ("the· :a:rgwnentative obje~on is an objectio~
common!; ~ b}.i~ ~Q~ co~Qnly u.n4~- "). H9wever,. it is more a~.e.\Ji'ately
an o.bje:ction to the opposing party's attempt to argue its case 'while quest,ionm~ a
witness. Id. "Counsel may not, in the gUise of asking a qUoeStion, make a jury
arg~en~ or att~mpt to summarize, draw inferences from, or comment on the
eVidence. lil Cld.dlti~ qu.e~onS that ask a witil~ to ~$tift .~ -~ his oWn.
ctedibility are impr~per.." ld (quoting .2A Steven Goode, et al., Texas Practice
\
Series: CourtrO(Jf11 Handl»okon Texas Evidence§ 611 cmt. 12 (2012)). Ifthe.trial
c~ ov~le4 ~ obj``:tion t9 qu_e:~ion_il')~ tba~ meets ``~ cri.t``l!4 i~ wo~l4
constitute trial court error;
53
66
• •
B. Trbll CouP..~el f~_iled ~Q Object to tlle lD)pJ;Oper L.ay Opjilion Elicited
frQ~ ]Jre~;~d~ Wh:i~ker ·
During its guilt. phase· presentation, the d~ens~ qalled Bre.n.~ Whi~er; ~
~warke.- With the .Andrews Center. (5·4 RR. at i 0.8·.) Whitake:r· wo:dns ~low the til~.." ($4 R;R ~t 143 .) Whitaker did
not appear· to underStand the: question aiid responded, "'We:U, it just depends. I
wo.uld saY probabl)' 70, yQu lm:o~, oo. s.O.m~ grwb_s woul4 ~ (l.Qr.m.~.l. i.t j~st
depends an that [clie.nt]:" (fd.) the s~ then ii).foti'I)ed Wh_itM~t of~«! three
54
67
• •
aspects· 0 f l;Il
- ental
. . . retardatfo , , further·
. n, and . , testified
' . . to what
.. .. it- means , be- tWo
........ to
standard deviations below the mean.
Q.. (By pro_sec;tn.or) We_ll, yo~'I'e ~ able to ·in.4~c:e Whi41k~ to bacldrack on ~
previous ``¢1.11:$ re·garcU,ng WaUcer's cn.mpet~t:tc:.e. to b~_bysit cl)jl~. (Jd -~
1_24¥) Yet, tlj~ co~.l d'j<;t got object to Whltak~t.'s i,mproper lay opitllon. Had
C9Ulis~l objected ·~ tt,;:~ poi,nt to
WhjtakerTs imprQper lay oplnioht, the t;dal court
.. I.. ..
would ~ve- ~-`` and tbe S1::a:te woiild h_ave been prevented from undemiliiing
the vast . .jori~ of WbjUJker'i$· t~Q'Q:y.. Beca:use Wh.i~q luui not been
qu.ali_ti~ B$. an ~ h~ 4$timo{iy ~bowd have b=.;t litt;tited to f.a~ which she
ha4 p~rson.al k,nowleQ.ge. of SJ;ld logic~ i¢erences that coUld be· made therefrom.
Whitaket was quarlfied to testify to her obsel'Yati()Il$ of Walker artc;l c~
l.nferences she, might make about Waiket;sintelieCtWIJ dlsabild;y based on those
oh~r'Vations. However, the statisticai br¢akd0wn of ~ve ~d i:l)tellec~
nmctio~ was well beyond Whitaker's competence as a. lay witness. Her
1.Jllcle~djJ:Jg, or l~ck thereof, of was not helpful to the· jury iii widerStaildlilg. b.et
testiinony or det~onining a f~ct i.n js``-~
Even if cQlii)Sel di_d not objee~ to Wh.i~er's ig~w.oPef l~Y op_i(liP.J;I:, 'i_t ~I~
sl:t,oulci ,h_aye obj~'*d t9 ~he ~nteJ.l``-ve n~-`` oftbe Stit,e's questio.~in& Wh_i_l~
th¢ Sta~ is ~nnitt¢4 ~ cross-e~@.don to_ offer sU¢em~1;i to whjcl:t ih~
wjtness may awee- or disagree. the S.tate may not go so far as to correct the answers
~ven t>y ~e wif..J:l~S.S· I.n this si~1i01l; the S~te· .mad.e a concerted ~ff~i1 to pu~
testhnpny before the. J\lry which Whi~er w~ Q.ot ~le ~ offer.- Whitaker did not
appear to be familiar with the clinical defiriitic;n of mental retardation, nor the
iJnplic~ioii.s of being two st;an.d.ard devl~uori.s ~low tbe m~. Nevertl:l~less, the
State offered the explal)acl.on_ '~in th~ guise 9f .l!.S.kin$ ~ q~_es9on/-' Th.i:s eviden~
w~ ~ ess``i~ part of t.l:te S~te's ca~, ccm~i.d~ri.O$ `` the primary tl)ot.ive for
56
69
• •
the c.rh.ne ~ ~ ``'ged was· Cargill's d~jre to prevent CPS from findii:tg out
t:Qat s~e had. ijited a ll;lentally rewded woman .to babysit. her son.. Trial counsel's
f~h1re t.o object to tbe State; s argumentative questioning constituted deficient
perfoi'm.ance under prevailing norms at the· time oftria.L
c. <;~J'Iin was Prejudiced by Trial· Couasel~s FaiDure to Object to the
Impro~r Lay'Teitimo.ny ofBren~ 'WhJta.~r·
Trial``·~ ~lt;Jre to ol;lj`` ~o tb.¢ S``'s ``el)tative qu~oning and
the resuiting improper ~ opinian by Whltakei" prejudic~ Cargjll. Tb.e S~'s
. mentative
argu . . .. queStio · · essentiall
. . . rn.ng . . y cailed on 4;;~ to bet own
Whltaker to testi&J
credibility.. See Par~, 20l2 WL 35164.85, at •6 c``qu$.i()ns `` ~·• wifl.lc;ss ~o
t``fy a9 tO his own credl"bliity ate improper'). After Whitaker testified that sbe
w.otked with the intellectually diSabled at the ~ws· Center ~d tha~ Wa1k"r
showed signS ofbeiiig a capable babysitter, the swe asked, "And so the Andrews
Center·does· pot })ave afty probl~ witlt mil.dly men4Uy ret;arded pe<>ple keeping-
keeping children?;, (54 RR at 138.) Whitaker explain:e4 tlla~ 'it was not witbln tb~
Andrews Center's pti'rView to detemiine wbethei' or not clients woUld babysit
children. (/d) The Sta~ ~ded, ~Ijust.do.Q't @cle~d how someone wh9:s
functioning in the lower 2 percent of everyone 'in the nation, adaptively and
~tellectwllly, bow a,nyon¢ c()U,l~ thhl,k. ~i tb,ey a.I:t; ~p~ble of taking care of' a
cqild/' (Id.) Wb.i~er ~ ~ ~t witne.~ for rb~ d~fem;e, 8$ s,he te~itj~
that Walker WaS qualified to babysit, Cargill did not try to hide the ract m~t w~
was her 'babysitter, and, accorCiingiy, there Was no good reason for. Cargill to
obstru~t Wal,l{er froJD ~es:tifyii,ig .at `` C~S hearing. However, the Sta~'s
argti'lnel).tative que$iioriing and Whitaker's resulting improper lay opinion
effectiv.ely ~dermi~ed whatever credl"billty Whitaker possessed when she took the
.stand.
57
70
•
Whj~er!s w~m~y w~ ~spec_i~ly ~mpQrtant because the defense called
only four witn~sses durihg_ tbe guilt phase of"tnal. In additiQn tQ Cargill ~ ~
``4, tl1e def~se: ~led Whitaker., DeteCtive James Riggle, and Loren Puig ..
Riggle's tes_tim~ny f~us.e4 on his inyesligatlon of Wallc~r's ~eJtt folloWing
the lnddenL (54 RR at 86-102.) Specifically he was call~ tO testify that he
diseov~ a ~111 org@,j_~ i~ ~e ~ent that seemed to Indicate walker had
not taken her medication on the day of he·r death. (~e id. at: 89..91_,) Puig was
cllll.ed (~t the v~ murow ptirpOse of' eStabflshing- that Cargill did, in fact, have -a
dog named '"Or®" _and that the dog had r:un away at some pQint,.. (14. ,~ 14,5-62-.)
PW,g recalled seeing signs around the neighborhood for the dog. (Jd at 147~)
Con$idering the baUmce Qf d~fense w1tn~sse$ that. were· called at trial, Whitaker's
testimony was vital to Ca:rgill's defense for the purpc:;se of undermiriing the mQtive·
~l~e4l;Jy tlle S~te.- The S~te's impea,cbm~t '!'l"Whitaker through mapptopri._ate.
means pteju_diced Cargill's defe_ns~. Had c:~el obj~ ~the argum``v~
qttestionfug·' by th~ Sta~e .,_d. Wi)itak~r's ·b,nproper
..
l.ay opi(.ii~, th_e obje·ction would
~fitve ~ -~e4 an.4 ¢-ere i.s ~ ~ble p_robability that the jury would have
(o1:JI1d ~ the ~ot.jvc:· for th~ crilpe proffered by dle Slate was ¢1convinc1ng.
Therefor~ if counsel had properly objeeted on these grounds, there is .a reasonable
proba,biiity th~ the o\itcome of the prb~eedlil$5 wo~ld ·hav.·e been diffet~t. As
Sl:l`` CargiU'lii c~mvictj'ol)·sh9~.1~ 11e ~ve``-
CLAIM~OtiR
TRIAL COUN.SEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE- tO REQUEST
A. CHANGE. OF VENUE DUE. TO INFLAMMATORY P~TIUAL.
PtfBLICITY
The Sixth Arrieild.ll1.~nt to tb.e Upj1~d S``s <;on.stiWli,Qt:~ declare{$ Wrt die
accuse4 ~n.. ~ll crirnlna.l prc)5.e~iQns· $ball ~nj Q)' th~ rigb~· tQ a trial by an hnp~al
j'ury. l>v.ncan v. Louisiana, l91 u.s. 145, 148-54 (1968). This fundantental right
58
71
•
·inclqd.@:s· th.e ·rjgh~ tp ~· t.ri~ 'Qy ·a. jury .fre:e from outsid~ 'i..ilt}~et,l``~ ~.ch as
. prejudicial pre-trial pu_~licib.'~ $h.q1p(l1'd v. M~e.ll {1966) 334 u. s~ ,333, 362":63.
Courts consider several factors in detetm.in.il)g w:h.~er pr~trjal publicicy w;1d
commill:iity prejudice prevent a fair tri.J., 'i.n~l\Jdin$ w.b~Ut~ the g~s ~ories
coveting the: crime c·ontciliied blatantly· prejudicial infurinatiQD an4 the sevexjty ~4
nQtonety o.fthe off~se.~ Slr#.#ng v. l/r#.t~4. S,(qt~., 561 u.s~ ·358; 382-83 (20iO);
If¢~\'.: $(at~;. 516 .S.•W.:'l.d 6.6, 7142 (Tex. Crim. App. 1918).
Jrt Qggij)'s~, `` pre-~.al publicity and media attention regarding Cherry
W~'s death an.d Cargill's ~ll~e:d invc,lvemept prevented her from rec~iVing a
fair tO~:~ A~ a result, defe~ couijsel's failUre tO request a change ofvenue detlled
C.'argill tbe· effective assistal)ce of co~seJ ~4 prejudiced her hi Violatlan of her
appllcable .state and federal Constitutional ~ state statU.tOtY law, as well as
U:nited States Supreme ootirt ·a:nd state case law·. Therefore, Cti&ill's conviction
·amt death .sentence should be vac.ated.
A. the Media Coverage of Cargill's Arrest and Trial Was Extensive and
Inftammat~ry ·
Tb~ Ccm_stjt~on ~tees 3 ~r t;ri.~l by -~ il!lp~i~ jury, but the United
States Supreme Court has expanded this right 10 include ·~ir:tdlfferent" j~.~ Irn11.
v• .Dowd,.~66 U.S. 71.7, 722. (196i). to justify a chang~ of venue based on media
·anenij914 ' def~dan' musl sbow that the· pubUcity about the· cas¢, was perv'asive,
prejudiclal, ~d '.ii)fl~IDatory. S!;z/az.qr y. State, 36 S.W~.Jd 141, 150 (T!=~· Crirrt. ·
App. 2001). In 2010, Smith Cou.nty maintained a popUlation of 209,714~ With
96,901 24 resid)ng Within the Tyler city limits. V ario:us media outlets, including the
23
http://en.wikip·edia.org/wiki/Smith County. Texas (las.t yi$ited July 17,
W141 .
24
httiJ:lleil:_wikipedla.or&wlki!fyler. Texas (last visited July i 7, 2014.)
59
72
• •
Tyler· Motnl~ t~iep.Pb`` K.l,:tV, ~ytX, KCEN~ and KETK, covered the story
of Walker's death and Cargill'.$ sub~ ~.in ~g 4~1... Th.~ D.l~a
coverage documenting the intident started as soon as Walker's body·was foun4
and C(intinued W't>Ugh the en4 of tiiJ.I, Q,early two years l~er. The trial i~lf was
eXtenSively oovered on television and in print. Iil fact,. the trial was "live blogge:d"
Ht i~ eJ:itlreo/,, wiUt a reporter p~lishing • reci~on of teStimony In real time for
an onlme audience. News ·cameras w~ a colllStant pn=.``·e in the courtrQow ap.d
video footage W&s both uploaded to the news website and broadcast' on television
on. a ~ly b~i~
the court was aware that media eoverage would affect the ·ability to find
im~al ju:ro~. As ~ucl;l, on July 7, 20 l1 the co.urt signed a Restrictive and
Protective order that acknowlaiged. the existence of pre.;,tzial p\lblicity b1 the case
and set forth restrictions regarding broadcast, i:nfotmation dissemination, and
public sta.~m.ents.. (I CR at 39-43-.) Howev.¢r, qiis order was el)tere4 after th¢re
had already been extensive coverage 'in the media regarding Walker's death and
Ca,rgi_ll's. arrest. Even despite the protective order, 'between July 7, 201.1, and the
cOmmencement of trial, the Tyler Morning Telegraph alone publiShed at l®t pj.t),e
artiCles tegatciing the cas¢.26 (See Ex. 23 [Tyler Moming;News Arts~]..) On May 7,
2
'CirculatioQ. of' the ·Tyler Monijhg 'Teiegtaph is fcitrly Widesprea.Q, Witb. ~
daily Circulation of 22,-556 and 27-,568 on Sunday. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikilfyler .Morning Telegraph (l~ vi.si~ July l7-~ 201:4)..
26
On Marc~ 2:2·, 20 l~, ibe first day of voir dire. deferts.e: Col)nsel brougllt tQ
the court"-s attention the fact that a video c·a:mem,had "surrepti'tiou:sly" ~brought
into the cQ'UrtroOm d~ng. ~ J)re-triallJ.ea,ring an~ vide<> foot.age from ~at hear1ng
m
was broadcast.. violaq~ of the testii¢tive an4 protective c>rd¢f:.. Tri_aJ co``i
requ:ested that either the current venire b.e disui.is.s:ed or venu¢ c~·ged. District
Attorney Singl).am ~ClQ:l()wledge~ be ~w ~- stqry i_n tl:l.e I)~W.s~pe.r a}x>ut th~ tri~
and was }~Pset at the fact that [the reporter] had tepo'rted that we were paying for
information on jlJ.JYX:S' cri.Jt:l:inal h_is.t~_ry/' ai:ngh.~ furtb~r sta~ed m~:re ~s no~ing
60
73
• •
ZOlZ., o,n th~ first ®..y oft~.m-~ ~n ~he gu)lVlllJl.OC~ce p~·ofCaigiU's ~apiW
an (>rder to gi:~t m:ed:ia
trial, t;h¢ cou}:t $iJP1ed a:ccess to th~ Tyler Momjng
Telegaph, ~1V,an.d cas 19~ (4:2 RR at 37-38.)
The amowt o_f c~v~$e the ~ recejv~d ~out i~ F,Qdet)cy was
eXteus1v~. Howeve.r.; it w~ ~ PJ"e-trj~ p~bU~ity ~ was the most egregious..
The Supnm)~ ColJ,rt ~ C(!)~id~ both the e.`` am4 dl.stribution of pre-trial
publ_icity and the substance of s:uch pu~Hcicy. Part of th~ atl~ysi_~· ccmQ~·
wheth~ tiJ,e public_ity·was bl~tl)' pre.fu4.1Ci.~, WJljc:h ~ ittcl_u~ the·rev~l~o~ of
c:le:tails of the de.fendant's b~kgroun:d and/Qr previowr crime.s ~i~-. $ee
u.. s. at 7:2·5-26.. the a:it),Olint anc;l infl`` na~ oft,b.~· infQ~tio.n
l_~i"', 366
di!s~l®d about· C&J"gill mtJ;le: medi.~ p_rej~d.i~d her ``ilicy to recejve a f.aJr tri.~
mdeptndelit of outSide influences.
N4;w:s ~on¢$ `` Ch~ Wallt~ beg~ the: day h~ body·was f01.ind,17
and oontllw.ed in earnest even after the prono:unc:em~t of Cargill's d~
set:lte:nc~.:il A COn:m.:t9il thre84 ~n tl.J~ coverage W&$. the i4~tjfj~on Qf W~ ~ a
men~ly cij~blec,l 4:14.iv:id~ wbo worlc.ed ~ a ~ysJ~er (or C~rgili. In fact, ~e
JWOn:ed beyQD.d wbat w~ ~4 in ope1:1 cQurt -~4 I)~ be_ljev~ Ut~ repot:te, w~
given permission to filiil by a member of the court~s Staff. The c:oUrt denied the
d~fense's requ~ ij~di_ng no prejta4ice ~Q <;::~i.ll.. (9 RR at 223"3 1.) CargiJ) aJ~eg~
irt this instant Application that it was the pre-trial publicity prio:r to the speeific
inf<>n.na.Ucm. ~g juror ~rb:ni.nal ~sto.ries ~ w~ in fact prejudicial to her
constitutionally guaranteed right t6 a fmt· triaL That prejudice eXiSted long before
March 22, 2012, and tri~.l oo.unsel -\vas- ineffectiv~ for (~ll,ll'e to ~co``~ ~ssue
-~27 .
See,&nith County Aiithoriti~ Need Help JdentiJYfng Wom.an-'3 Bolly, fus~
pu}>Hshed J~e J.9, 2010,- http:Jlwww.-kltv.com/story/12677701/smith~ountv~
``ori~es-n~-helttidentifving~\v.omans-body (laSt visited AUg. .~.20 14.)
2:1· See, kimberly Cargill's Trip to De~th Row Unjt ~egi~ T~y, tiro
p\lbl.isbec;J June 7; 20 rz, http://www~k.ltv.com/stoty/.l8'13.04831k.imberly-cargiUs­
trip.-to:death-row-uiiit~besZillS-today (iast vls.ited Aug~ 2, 20 i 4.}
61
74
• •
majority of headlin¢s idt;mtined Walker u ``ysiuer." ``~ th~ {act that the
investigation was still in its infancy, the m:e.dialatched on to identifying Wallc,~r by
bet:rei~on,s~p w C~il). ;Fu,Ulel'D}ore, on July 1,.20.10 (less thaiHwo weeks after
Walker's death)~ -an aitlcl_e ran ·m at least tWo fOr!ns and .on multiple n~ws Ol.JU.~t$
i``c pj(;~ed up t:tews of
CargiU 's atrest and Included her photo and colorful ·commentazy o:n the site,
·&;S.``rtil;tg ''so be~e i)ot. ~illy w-.-e yo~ 'allegedly' .such an abu!lve mother you.
·ane·gedly' had to kill a:n jnnocent witness· and set her body of fire to ey aJtd :h_ide
yout .i.n_adequ_~es as apa.tm.tt." (Ex. 21 [Texas Bte~r].)
was·. a,n_ "e~pose" on Ca.rsill wri¢.en by news reporter Kenneth
Howeve:r, it
Dean with the Tyler Morning Telegraph that took the mtlarrunatory n~e of the
cov~e to ara entirely different level_~ O:t:t Sep~ember l4, Z()lQ, t)t~ Tyl~ Momiog
6~
76
•
Tel~gt:aph publi.sbe4 in $e S~day n:ewspaper and pOsted online·@ article endtl~
-~Vi.ol``e; M.~W I.ll`` Defi~e Al.leged K.lfler." (See Ex. 22 [Dean ~].) The
publJ``Oil of this particular article came over a month prior t,o Ca;rgi.U' s ~d jury
indl~erit for ~e. death of Walker and over-a year.:..and-halfbefote the selection of
Cargill~s capiW j\1?'. Th~ arilcte is a sa13,Ciaus and highly in:tlariiinatricy report
reg~djng C~l's ~eged prior violent behavior an:4 hi.~ory of tuPIW.~olJ;$
rel.~()~ps_.
~ro~ tb.~fb:st ``tezxce to the 1~ it is· c.lear that the ~thor beU¢ve$ C~ll
is 1n fact guilty of Plui'~g Walker and Cargill's propensity for- Violence is
indi~ve of her l.egal re_sponsibil.iW" for Waj~;s ~tb. In the artide, intensely
personal and -ihtiiilate. details of catglll's life were revealed inc.l\lding specifiC$
reg~ing her prjor `` ·a,nd c~stody b~ttl.~s, treatment for depression alid mental
health issue~·~ history of difficult reladoriships. (/d) From this the al,lthor
SU:I:J:D..i~ ~ " ••• records c;tetall court battleS, aitests, coUrt-ordered ~chological
evaluatjons, a,l;use a,c.Ctl$atic;ms, violence, a pl~ 14~p~ atl4. even murder
[sic] thoughts." (Jd.) The article cites exten!ively to a psycholO"gic.al evallJS~on~
of Cargi.U t1U¢ •· the· time was over twenty years old, a8 ail indication of Cargill's
volatile personality and pro:clivity for violence and rag~. Addition~.Il)', the ~c::.le
proVides quoted mate-rial ftoin Cargill's family inembe'rS~ ex-hUsbands and
boyfriends~ and e~-ip laws who all had n~g~ve experiences with ·Catgiil and
ac~cW.ed her· of vari.ous· i:qcid~ts of WJ'Or)$ dO~·s·· ~s· ~g~4 from fiiing "false"
police reports, to "manipulating the judicial and welfare system," to abusing her
owil c.h.ildren. (J.d.~)
29
Th~ P.$Ych.oiog"ical ev~lu~p.on ~sed by the ·~icle w~ tb~ one perforriled by
Dr. Sandra Cnug in 1993 as a part of th.e c.ustody case involving Cargiil's eideSt
sort. Ot. Crilg testified at the puniShtnem pbase ofCargijl's tri`` (58 RR at .32•
105.)
64
77
• •
•
SpecUically, th~ ~cle cb;rcm.jcJed r;m imervi¢w trul! the ``or dld wi~
Cargill's ``b.U$baild, Brian CargiU, who rec.o~ ®t C~gill got pregnant·
d``e h~· ~rtioi.J,S ~be· w`` ~¢ have ac;lditi~naJ ~hildten ~4 b.~ an explosive.
tem~. The ar:ticle quoted Brian Cargill as ~yin$, ~-So~·~ [C~Ul woQld
punch me rigbt in tbe fac~ hi ord¢r ~ ~t some ldhd of ~s"'~·-·[C~gill'·s]
behavjor was ~l:y ~c (roJ,l one mom_ep.t to then.~ One Injnute ~e was
great,. and the next sbe was throwing dishes.~':'· (Ex. 2~ ~ Arq.) Bl'i~ CargjJl
w~t on to say that be' w~s not surp~.d to :find Cargill ln. her·~ sjtuarlon of
being arrested for mwder and opm~, '~e pet:SPn here that suffered the m.``t is·
Ms. Cherry Walker· and her family ...that wo~ was a Iilartyr for· the ~ of~-·
It's tragic this had to happen for the re$t ofus· to ~ve $9m~hat· Qf' I)_orm.~ Ut:~.
My h~ goes out tp Ms. Walket's family.~ (Jd.)
How!i'Ver~ ~ is p~ps II}Ost egregious is the ~tati~ wi~l,g. th~.
arti.cJ~ ~ tb:ose ``~ ~9. c~.n w~ livi.I:tg ip f~ Qf h.~· and ~er· P9tCm~al .for
· ·v'ioleilc~. On~ (orjite.r re.l.ative was quoted 8$ saying, ·"I know (Catgill'.s] in jail but
we're $11 still s~.ared th~t.she will somehow b`` the ~stepJ BQd g~t o\l,t. I oon·'t put
an~g past l.l~··" (Ex .. 22 [D~ Alt. ].) ~ikewise, Bljan C.~gill was qu;ot~ as
sayin$; "[Garglll) car) co1,1vmce people ~ do al_l kinds of ·th&tgs, and we're all
worried abo\lt ber; ev~ ~ough sl)e'~ injaiJ/' {14.)
B. Gltgill Was Prejudiced by Trial Counsel's Failure to Move f()r a
· Cb.,gge·of'Veuue ,
The effect of pr'e':-tiial publidty can be pervasive. PreJudicial pre-trial
publicity has been found to influence evaluations of the· defendatit'·s iikabllity,
sympathy for the d~fendant, perceptions of the defendant 3$ a ~i'~" crh:n.in~,
pre-trial jUdgments of the defendant's _guilt, and iil some cas·es, final verdicts..
Christina Studebaker & Steven Penrod, Pretriq.J PubUc~ty;~ The Medt'a, thf! Lp)v,.
and Common Se~se, 3 Psychol:..Pub.Pol':Y & L~ 428, 433 (1997) [hete~aft~r '·'Pre-
65
78
• •
tri~ P\lblicio/"}. Juror QUestionnaire in Cargill's case
~estjo~;~ No. 63 of the
a8ked if the venire mem~ had "Heard, red, ·seen or 1~¢<1 ~ytMtg ·about this
case frOm an:y soutce? (Radlo, Television, 'Newspaper,. Other)." Follow-up
questions asked fo.J( the ·$o1(rees of h'lfomi~J.i·cm, til;njng of i.nfonnation, and an
explanation of what the venire person heard, read, saw, or team·ed. Of'the v~
tllat ~ imp```` but not seated as jurol'S; almost sixcy IndividUals had been
privy to pre•trial publiCity regarding Cargill and/or the alleg·ed crinJ,~. (E.~ 27
[Ex,cerpts frngin~l.) l'Qi.s
i.ndi:vidual dia not Ultimately serve: a8 ajuror bUt is Indicative of how pervasive ·and
mflammatory tb~ p~-tri~ c;ov~e oftb.e c~ ~ct,ually was.
30
· In July 2014, post-conviction counsel requested and received eople$ oftbe
jwor qt,~estiooo.aires from the Sm,itl) COWtty court: llle only page inci\i.ded from
that queStl.artnalre 1rt Appiic·ant's eXhibits is the one. with the relevant pre--trial
publi¢ity exposure .que·stion (as opposed· to each qu~onnaire in its entirety) in ~
eff()rt to save paper· and protect ~e n1PJ)es ·~(i id¢IJ.tifylrig information of the
v~n,~re.
66
79
• •
Ofthe .un " . J·urors·, tw_o
... panete·d · · rted
" l'qX) " . eXposure to · · _...:·ft 1 :P·ubiiclty
. pre....u~ . ·, in s·ome.
orm.
tj··· · · F'··Jds
J w-or 1e m ·· dicated' on _hiS qu
· estionnaife that he b:ad
. . -seen ~""'"'"(!'"'
. . . ._.-: -:•.-e.- on
tel~ision ·an4 was aware that "Ms~ W``. `` beei) Iqllec:t. ~ J,.e,t body w~
:fotmd ~ Whiteh~; TX. That Ms.. W;1Ilter~ a c.ml4 ~ work~· Th~. ~­
Cargill was later charged With murdet." (Ex. 40 [~·stionnaite',ofFi~lds].) During
indiyidUaJ voir dire, .Ju,ror F~eld$ r¢it~•ed tJ;I~t h~ had ~d ~ti!Qr l)eard reports
abaut the case btit it wu not .enoUgh for him to make a deciSion.. He agreed he
colil4 p.U~ wbl¢ he ~ read ~d/or b~ O\lt of his ~nd whe,1 m.,ald;tg. a decisi,ort
abou,t the c..a:s~. (38 ~ a.t 117,-18_.)
- se,-· 1urot
LikeWi -· Shaffer
. -- - answered
.- - in ., - q-\lestionnaire
-- his .. . that he kn:ew of the
~ nnm the``. ~j\J$t ~ ~ l.~y w_~ ~ed of [sic] murder." (E~. 41
(Qu`` ofS~er].) ~g mwyi~ voir dire, t® o~y questian Juror
Slm.ffer ``with ~ga,rd ~o preo-t;rial public'ity was, "You haven't really read,
5een, or learned anything abotrt this caSe: that would ~use- you to nave f`` -~
opinion yet?" to WhiCh he siriipfy answeted "no." (22 RR at 15.8.) Neither of the
jl.JrOt:$ whQ a.dmltted to be~ ``pa$e4- to pre-tri.al publicizy were ~ about the
eXtent of their eXpo8ure, what .specific new.s reports or ~tones they either saw or
heQrCJ, the SJ?~ifi~ media source they were exposed tot and/or what sp:e:clfie· content
was cnntained in the reports. With pr:e-trial publicity as e~ensive ~ it ·WM in
Cargill's c~e; it is reasonably prob:able that the Jurors were exposed tQ the higbly
int1ammatory and prejudicial reports descrfbed above.. See also Notbert L.. Kerr et
al., 01:z (he Eff~c#v~s QfVoir Dire (n Criminal Cases w~th _Prejud_icial Pre(rkll
Public_ity: AJJ Empirical Stt4y; 40 AM:· '(,1. L.. R.EV. 665, 6.95-99 (1991)
(concluding that the- re5ults of a study show that voir dire is not an effective barrier
~stjurorbi~ ~at_ed by ````to pre-.tri_al p~_bli.~io/l~
J~ «;;ii ~- preju4iced by pubii~ity e:ven though they are n_Qt c_onscio:US~y
aware they are affected in this way. The-rnajo,ityofjurors tend to b~Heve, ~4 ~I)
67
80
• •
the col,l,rt, Qt,a~
tlley a~ iJ1 (~ct abJe, to be· nnp~. Pre"'!trial Publicitji at. 433.~34.
Media exposure caa. contribute tO the fonnati,on Qf a parti~lar ftatnework f~r
organ_iZing infotmat1on and infiuence the way the case inforiilation is heard and
pro:cessed.. Similatlyt pte-trial p.Ublicity shapes tbe way in which j\JroJ:S J~;~.~er h~
evidence at trial-"medla coverage both id'fe(:ts and is affected by community
sentiment aboJ.lt ·a ~' :in```` so~ip; ~rs, and pressure· t9 coilfunn to
comm:Wlity opinion and to community nonnative valu@ about ju_stice." El_l~
Brickln.ai:l, et ~., How Juror Internet Use Haa Changed ~he Ammc~ Jury Trial, 1
Journal ofC.ourt Innovation 2'87_,.28.8 (2008)[hereinafter "Juror``~ l,Js~"]:..
It is exceedingly diffieult fot jurors·~ set aside e~ic infomxaiion 4~g
tbe CQurse ofa trajl.. Whlle t;be ~\\J1 rouQJ)~ly ~d ``e.pt.J.y ``jurors J:l9t tO
~ly 0)1 infqmwi011 th~y hay'e l.e.am¢~ ~\l~j_4¢ th~ CO\l$'0011..1, th~ adznc>nition
n:ts.J.c~ l_i~e di.ff.ere11ce. Pespite instJiJ.ctiQJ:)s to the· contrary, j'uto~ tend to tmng to
d¢.libe@;ti(>ns any 1s~es ~t $ey ~o~der to be ~'ev`` t9 tl}e dedsion ro~g
p~s. Juror Internet Use at 2.91; citing Sh.-;. Diamond&. Neil Vidmar, Jury
R,oom Ruminations· 01.1 Forbid!l!m Toptcs, 87 V~L.R,ev. 1857, 1863 (20(H). Thls
phenomenon is- ·not the resUlt of intentional or deliberate dl.sobecilence to judicial
instructions. Jurors are p:eople· and ~:ople ate ge~taily tinable to distega:rd
informa~ion that they alreaP)' kbow and consj~to be:rel``~ wb.~ther-they ought
to Or not. Onc:e heard,. the information cannot be, ·;gnored. Ju.ror Internet Use ~
291 ~ Citing Shari o·iainond, Beyond Fantasy and Nightihtii'e.• A Porli'azt ofthe.Jury,
54 8\lfll,..R;ev. 717, 150:-S l (200.6).
A ti"ePlen~o~ ~Qtm~ Qf' b.t.fomt``i.trlal publ_ieity sUrrol.lndlng the· death of
Wa(k:¢1' and ~.ll's subsequent:a:rrest created a situation where Cargill W8$ ~ot
~bt~· tp receive ~ fair trial. the media coverage wa:s too wi~spl"efid and too
$alacious riot to h~ve had an effect. on thejurors. ~·``sul:~ C~gill was prevented
from ~lng judged by an impartial, indifferent j\ary. Trial counset:'s firllure ~
~:q~est a cl;u~nge ofvenu~·prej'LJ:diced C~:U's -~ ~d thus, Cargill's verdict and
se.n``·of death $.o~ld be vacated
CLAIM FiVE
CARGILL RECEIVED INJ;`` ~-STAN(X OF DIRECT
APPEAL COUNSEL REGARDiNG m·E IMP-ROPER AND PREJUDICIAL
. ADMISSION OF AN AUTOPSY PIIOtOGRAI'U . .
lt i_$ w~U e.``bl_i,$~ that cril_ninal defendants are entitled to effective
assistance of couns~l dUring their direct ~ppeals.. the effeepve~ess of appeilate·
counsel is de.termined using the two-prong Stricklarzd stan:d~. See Robbim, 548
u.s . `` 28_5; R.~ v. (lugrte~, 5~. F.$.4 517:, 5~1 (5th Cir. 2008); Amador v.
(Mlrlermtm,, 458 F.Jd 397, 411 (5th Cir. 2006); Ex p{ute Santana, 221 S.W.J.d
70.0, 70+05 (Tex. Crlm. App~ 2·001). Appeilate·counsel is con_sjdeted ineffecti:v.~ if
cotmse.l's p~ormaJ.lce w~ obj~ctively · unreasonable, and this deficient
perfonnance prejudiced the defendartt. St.e Ries, 522 F~3d at 531 ;· A.m_t;~.c/or; 458
F.3d at 411.
69
82
• •
Appellate CQunsel has an oblig~on ~o ~s~b. relev~t facts and law, sa as
tOmise "soild, meritorious arguments" based on CQntroiUng pm:ede_nt i_n mt
appe~e brief United States v. Willia1!1Son, 183 F.3d 458, 463 (5th Cir; 1999);
accord Ries, 52.2 F.3d at. 531 ..32; s.ee Ex parte &mtana, 227 S.W3d ~ 704-0S
(Strick/a,zd standard controls ineffective a8sistaiice of appellate ~1 ~laims).
Section 12.2(A) of the State B~ Qf Texa;s Guigtaphs, mdetetm.inmg whether the
infhmunatory naWre: of th~ evidence outwejghs hs probative v~llie ````~ f~
include tl:le r;rumber of exh.ibi~· offered, t~eir· gru``e``. detail, si.z.e, if they are
in color, if they are close-ups, whether the body is naked or clothed and the
availabilizy·of other means of proof. Drew v. Stqte, 76 S:.W.Jd 4~6, 4Sl:52 (Tex.
App.-HoUStoil [14th.Dist] 20.02).
72
85
• •
liveQ witJt ~· J;Dost CW"SOl:'Y ·~.alysjs-it i~· cl~ar io this· CB:SC= ~.IJ.t the prejudjchil
e~ qf ~ljit 78 ~ outweigbs &n)' possible pro\>a..tive v.aL11.;1e.. The photQgraph in
queStion was particula:t~y gniesome. It was a greatly enlarged clo~up ofWalk~'s·
(~ce as ~e lay on the autOpsy table. The photograph is in color and includes the
number us.ed to 'i4en~:fY· an indiVidual for purposes of the alrtQpsy. (See. E:ic. 34
[A``opsy Pl,lotoJ.Y 1 f.~errnore; that 'partictila.t phOtograph at that paint in
testimony serve4 abs~luwly n,Q PfO~rive mgpose. . J'b.ere w~ no r;J.~ for
W~_.'s ha:.in.ltesser t9 i(ie``fy h~r d.~d body.•. By publishing the larger thailli'fe
·s~ Ph9P> `` tl!e. jury befQre ~Y teSt.ln;l()ny regarding cause of death or the
C,n a:nd sentence sh011ld .be
v``a~ed, qr ````ve:ly Cargil_l ~l)~ul9 be ``e4 -a Q.ew 4irect apPe_~ proceeding. :
·j1 State's Trial EXhibit 78· is an oversized exhibit and thus was not included
~ a part of t:he l1Qtro~ ~cord em ``aJ... Post-cot:lvi~.i.Qn co~l CQ~J.{jy~ted ~ i~­
person review of the trial exhlbitS at the Smith County Courthouse in OCtobet.
2014. The photograph a_ttached a:s EXhjbit 34 to tilis Applica.ti~>n iS:;,. p.I:J.oto of the
actl,lal trial exnibit which i.~ currently housed at tbe Smith Co®cy CQU.rthouse.
73
86
• •
~SI.~
THE STATE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT. WHEN IT ENGAGED .N
IMPRQJ»~ AA.G~NT 'fiD.{OUGHOUT CAR~ iLL'S TRIAL, AN1l
.TRIAL COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING 'i'O OBJECT TO
THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THESE iMPROPIU~TIES
~v~ry ~ tP~ entails obligations on the pan of both the State and. the
4-~fe#S.e.., Both p~es ~ve fli1 obligation-tQ mal, fortbe most P.~
sat by as the1r client was disparaged, as religious imageJY was improperly invoked, . ·
as si4eb~ wtnrnent$ ~ ·sarcasm w~re pen;n.i~:d to 'infect dir®t .and ctoss•
``art:li.n:``:o~s ~i~, a.s· tbe St~e's role in Ut.e proc~in~ was nij~en~d, ~
the qualifications of one exp.ert wete challenged thro.ugh the questioning of
anoi,ber, as facts and ass~rtions not in evidence· were testHied 1:0 by the prosecutOrs·
th~mselves, a:s th.e mid.d.l&-aged victim Wll:S symp~tl:t¢ticlllll.Y r¢ferre4 to -~ "a child''
~ci ~'c.hil.dlilce..~ apd as me rnagnitud~ ofthe jwy's responsibi.lity was dimi.nisb~.
If not by w one of these errot:S then by them in c()mbinatioii, the prosecu:toi'S
trallimeled upon Ca:rgill'.s rights undet the Texas· and United States Constitutions,
74
87
• •
TeX"a$ sta:n,nc;;ry law, an~ Unite4 S~tes S~m~ Court and texas case- law;
Accordingly, Cargill's conViction and her sen~nce mu$t be``
A. Rel.``,.t ~J St~nda.rds
The State'.s atg'illnelits at trial may violate a .defendant's right to du:e:process·
of ijlw ill, t;Wo respects.. First, the ar.gUmeilt may implicate a spe¢ific provision of
the Bill of Rights that has~ fu~rated intp th~ F~:tb Am``~nt by
the Due· ProceSs Clau_se. Rogers;,, Lfr.J(1JJghy 848 F,~_d 606, 608 (~Ul. Cir. ~988)..
Su~h argumt;mts are c_onsid~ ``~_ife.sUy i_n:tprQPer, ~t\1_1; apd prejudicial to
th.e defend~m/' CO.#~ v.:
6.8.3 .S.W.Zd 419, 420 (Tex. Grim_. App_, l984)..
$(ate;
S~l)d, qun.t``ts that do not impiicate s·pecific provisions of the Bill of Rights
may amount to a .general denial of ®e. process. Rogers, 848 -F-,24 ~t 608 (citjng
DOnnelly v. JJeChristoforo. 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1914)). ill order to prevaii on a
genetal -- -cess cl.ann,
. due pro.. · the . rilllst
- applicant . .... ' demonstrate
. ' . .. ... . -· . that . . prosecutot's
- - the
statelileJrt waS improper and that the impropriety "so infected th:e· trial with
``ess -~to ~ake the: resulting conviction a d~id of du~ proce$5.·;, Dard!m ,;,.
Wafnwrig}J;t, 471 U..S. 168, l~1 (1986) (quotjl)g Do'IJ'le.l.ly; 416 U.S. at 643).:. To
e~bl_i~b tl.l~ ~Uisi~. preJ~di~, ccmtr()l).i_ng ptet:$:~ req\,lires a s.howip.g- ~t ~­
~reason~le pro``lity [exi~] ~t the verdict might have been different had the
trial b:een properiy conducted." Rogers, 848 F'.2d at 60-9,
T}:le CoUrt of Crin:t~ App~als also has loilg h~•d that the law provid~ for a
fair tri~n_e· (r~ qom i_~proper ~ez:tt by t_he prQs_ec'QtiJ)g ~9r_rtey. fJoTjan \.'•
$t_ii_t~, 787 S..W. .24. 53, 56 .(T~X,. C~.• App. 1990) (citing Dickinson v. State, 68S
S ..W..2d .320~ 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Richanbon v. S.taJe, .2$:7 S.:W..2d 308
(Tex~. Crim. App. 1953)).- To be conSidered proper, jury argumentS rtuist fall
Witb.fu one of four categories: (l) summation of the evidence; (2) rea.sQnable
deduction fro~ th~ evidence~ (3) ·answet to argliiilent of oPPosing counsel-~ and (4)
plea for law enforcement Guidry v~ Stat.e, 9 s.W.3d 133, 154 (TeX,. Criin. App.
75
88
• •
1999) (dting Cannon v. State, 668 S.W•.2.d 401, 4o4 (T~x. C~. App. 1984))..
Ptopet jlllY atgWnent therefore avQi,dS s~te;men~ ~-al~ul.ated to ipbj_bjt th~ j~
£ro111 deci4in$ th~ ca5e based on the evideii~e. presented, Rqgers, 848 F.2d at 610,
and it. likewise liiri_iis i~lf tQ the reCQrd and t4o~ infe`` w~ich mi~t
reQSO.~_bly be 4.ed`` ~¢.tefr.Qi;r;, !;Jrown v. St(J/e; Z70 S~-WJd. 564, 570 (Tex.
Cr:i1n~ App. 2008).. A.s the Co~:rt ~ s~ted, "'The p~ose or ~l<>Sing arguments is
to facilitate thejucy in proper~y analyZing the evidence presented at ttiai so ~ it
may u:rlve at~ just.and reasonable oondusion based on the. evidence alone, and not
on a:ny fact not.-~tted jn evidence." CQ.!J'il'b:e.Jl v.. St.t#e, 6JO S.W..2d 75:4, 756
(Tex. Cnm. App. 1.980) (internal citations omltted)}2·
JUSt 8S the SU® has a da.l,ty to ·a:void ~pro~ argument, triai counselst
responsibilities to their client include o.~jecting to in·admissible eviden~ or
i!nproper ~-ent Slld e~li.shing a record of the. trial c(Jtiri's· a.d'Vene nilh:igs~
$e.e AB4 ``l,ze_s, Gui4.el_il);e 10_;8, emf. e·'One o.fUle·r;g,~$t t\Jn--ep,_~ dutjes of
.
an a:tto·-:ney- defending a capital ¢sse at trial is the pres~rvation of any and all
cOQc~vab~e e_rrors for each stage of- appel_late and post"!Coriviction review· ...");
ABA Standards.for Crlininai .Justice: Defense Funqtjon (3d ed_. 1993) (St`` 4-
7.l(cl) (.:i{D]efense coUtisel has a duty to have the record re'flect advers.e ruiingS").
To e$blish tnat couns~l w~ ~<'ffect,i.ve for fai,ling ~o objecJ:, Ca,rgill must show
that the· ta:ial jw;Jge wou_lf;i ~ave commi~e4 error ll.a4. ~e obje~on beeq m~e and
· overruleci Martinez, 330 S. W.3d a:t 90 L
&e a4o ABA Standards for C.riini'n.a.l J~#ce:- Prose~tion Function (3d
32
eq. 1993) (S``d 3~5.2(a)) (~AS~ otneer ofth~ co~ th~ ptQsecmQtshould
support the authority of the coUrt and the d.ig:nicy of the tria.I cotirtrOom by strict
acihere;nce ~9 codes ofprofessionaHsm ~Qd by man_ife.stipg ~ prof``i.on~l arti4.1.tl.~
toward thejudge; opposing counsel, witnesses, defeadantsdairor$7-and..others in the
cO:UrttoOm.").
76
89
• •
B. The S~te'_s M;i.sco.~duet
the St:ate~s erro~ dUring Cargill's capltal trial may he· divided futo eight
ove_rlappin:g ca``~ri:e$J those b~_il)$~ (1) pro~ec``852 F.2d 83-~-, $37 (Sth Cir. 1988) (``ssing the cumulative effect of the
State's.lmpropet arguments tO determine whether the defendant was prejucij~ed).
•. l'rosetJJtiPIJ T~tjfyi_~;~g to .Facts ·•nd Aslertions Not in Evi~en:c.e
tltroUg.bom CatgHI;s capital trial,. dUring both the guiltfmnoc.en~ apd
penalty p``' ~e S~e t_estified to facts ·and ttequently offered iinsupported
assei'tioos, both pra:ctiC:es in clear ViC;llation Qithe Texas Rules of Evi~.,c~ 1:1J1fi.,-
wh~n considered in the broader context of the State's niis:condu~ a,t tri_al--'-Of
Cargil.l's tight ~ @. fair trial. The piactlcai result W'as that the· State pei'Vasive.Iy
testifiedjQr·their--w!:tnesses, often not aski1:lg 3-q~on but i~t~ off¢ing lengthy
recitatiol'.l.~ ofthe State~s theory, tesfunony by oth~witn~.s~s, or other·f~ not in
ev-i4~nc~. 33
33
Examples of times in which the State provided improper teStimony or
impu_ted the Stat.e's theory of the alleged crime during either their dire(:~ or cross
examination of Witnesses· dUring the gillltlin.D~ce pb3.SC- .are as follows:; Cory
77
90
• •
Fo_r·e~ple, att ~chmlge b.etw.een ~e,pro~r·and Gina V~, ,.former
ell)ployee of ~x,~_l St~g wb.o worked with Kim Ca:rgiil and teStified for the
S.tate d,mng guiltf1Dl1Q.``. ``es as ·a.t ill~stration of the.
State felt unfettered in ~ts examination of i~
•ee
witl)e·$.ses .. The only
to which ~
at issue in
. point
.
the d.efen_s~'$ ``-``:t,ion of V~ w~ wf:l~er She had fitst cafled
Cargill ~n Friday, J\Dle 18, ~010; ~Wld 8:30p.m.. (as Vestal testffi:ed) or· around
10:_30' PM (~·wa3 iQc;U`` i.n tb.e pl)oo.@ re~ords a).ready admltted into eVidence).
(See 43 RR at 94-95.) On its redi~ atld u,n:ab)e to reso•v~ the contradiction
betwee:p. its witpess's ~on..y SJ)d its own eyid~ce, tb.~ St:ate proceeded to
testify through the guise. of qu~sti-31, 151, 153J;· Jamie; Cargill (60 RR at 175--76, 184; 61 RR.at 41); Matt
R9l:>it\son (61 RR at 61..63, 89, 98); Iiil Lowe (62 RR at 104 ); Li`` AJ¢~_c;t,I)4~r (~2
RR. at 114); W~ndie Turner (62· RR at 136·'38); Jam.es We~ver (63 RR at 18};
B.Qilrtie Weaver (63 RR at 60); Susana Aguilar (63 RR. at 240)~ .Stephen Rogers (63
RR at 269); Bobbie Maxey (64 RR at 52-53); Kimberly Bowser (64 RR at 90);
Al:lto_in~¢ M¢~ (65 AA ~.t 69-80, 89-90; 132..42); Tim Proctor (68 RR at
50)~ Edward Gri~n (68 RR at 80-81, 93 ).
7-8
91
• •
minl)te,, mbil:lle,,a minute, okay? ·some of them ate going voicemai.l".
Others she's answering.
L~e th~ l~ thtee righ.~ h~, a~ 10:~7, 52;5 ``te~- I m~
seeonds. ·3.45 seconds, 65 secuJ I'm goil)g t.o s~t tl:J,a~ body ()n fire:and.t;ry. to
bidei~" .
Doe~: m~;`` s.eem m,lSOJ),ap_le t9 yoq?
A. NQ.
OH RRa:t 57-58), ot misstated the results otNasir's DNA analysis,
82
95
• •
Q. ~ .. State's E~bi~ 122 shows the body ~ i~ was fo~
with a cteamet top between the legs here, which had a profile ofthe
defntr.i~ to t;h.e
p_atrcmizing atm:osphe.re surroun4ing C~gill~s tti~ and, i.n conjUJ:t~on \\jth tb,e
State's co:untl~$ o.ther ¢ttoi'S h.-e mention~d, WC>rke.d tp d,eptiv~ Ca.!JiU. of ~e fair
~-~ to wb.i_ch ~e ~ ````le4.
s. Miirepreselita.ti~il Qf the State's Rote
In addition to the- above-mentioned ·improprieties, the State. also
misrepresented its· role. in the ca$e. ~gibtst Cqfll dunng ln831 S.W.2d 331, 336.(Te~.. Ctiin.
App. 1992) (citing Rougeau v. State, 738 S.W;2d 651., 6.57-~(T¢~. Crl.ro~ Apt;~·
1987)). It 1s altog.,ther re3SOJUlble to conclude that, wtthout these and so m.an:y
oth~r insumces of prosecutprial m.iscondtlct ~t.irig the proceedings ·against
Cargill, the result other capital t.rla.I woUld have been different..
6. lmpr.oper Cb·anenging of an Expert's Qilallticarioni
As suggested previou.sly, the S'tate's. it;npropri~es w`` not ~o~fi_n~ to i~s
opening and closing atg\lmertts but also contaminated its questioning ofwitnes~s.
fo.r e.~_;mtpl.e,. @ -`` q``.stion.in~ of defeu~e e_~pert A.n~Qtl)et~ M``~ a
forensic psychologist, tl:te State sought t;o challenge the qu.alificatiol)s Qf ~othc;r
def~ e)C~rt. Jona.than Lipman, a neUropharrn.acologi`` who by tb.~t paint i.n ~.,
pro:c:eedings had .notyet taken the stand to offer te.stimony:
89
102
• •
Q. Wel.l, i$ it som``g--·~4 tbe r;ea.s911l'~ asking you is
b~ a nelll"()}lhan:ftacologiSt [st.'i~ 8$ Dt. ~.ip~] is not a medic;:al
docto~'they're np~ ~ p$Ycholo~P~-or; Qbyiously,a p_sy~hi•tr:i;~
So they can't, I dati't.believe, aSSeSS patientS, prescribe
m~ication, do anything of that~· }:lowev~r, you do assess
patients and ~ clinical diagno$es.
(65 RR • ~9~70_..) La~et~ Ute S~a~ ~gai_il re~ed t9 this line of qiieStioiiliig~
Q. BUt he [Dt. Lipman]- he's really- he's not- and ~'s
w,h.y I'm .,..rro t,oing tQ nn4 ou.t wh~ re~y J.()(,),ks -a``~ bea1use he's
not a doctor. He: has no llcense from Whi~h he testifies tinder that I
know of; He can't assess patients. He c.an't pres_qibe medication..
And SQ I d~ 't --I d_on't )Q)ow ~t ne c:an ~;ty as to:...
you know w.h• I'm saylr:t~.,... Wjth thes_e ·dj_s~td~_.
(65 RR at· 79.~) The appropriate oppn$nity· to- c.mul~ge an ~rt'·s ·q~c~c::u``
~s ~ R,ule 705 hearing, a hearing which :r:u``~sarily-~ pi_~ \'IViij}out.tJl,e ~¢liCe
of the jmy. Moreover, the State's error ~- •ll the rnore <;gresious f9.r bavlne
"poisoned the well,'' viz., it disptrte472 U.S. 3.20, 3'29 ( 1-985) (citation,s
omitted). Although CaldWell concerned .a. prosecmot's lrnptoper argument w the
jury that its ~Jo.b is reviewable,., an argument which thereby re4ucing the wei'ght of
responsibiljty the jury ~ould feel in m;aki_ng its· set:t``ci.ng d~em.Ji~ti9n; id. at. 34~
(internal quotations: omitted), shltli'ng the Ju:ry's sense of r:espPJ1Sibil_ity to aJ:1
apPeflate court is not the only means by wtuch the imjxutance of itS role may be
diminished. Indeed, the CoUrt or Crlnili.la1 J\PP~.$ re(:O'gl)i~ d)e ~der
im_pljcat.i.ort.~ of C4Jriwe# when-, in DrQ'I!.ghon v. State, lt observed th~t "teliabiiity
of the decision tQ impnse death 'is reduced impennissibly when, a:mong other·
92
105
• •
reasons, jurors· are misled intQ believing ~t their d``i$ion may be l~!;~s m.ome1:1~ous
thanlt~)yi's_}' 831 s. W.2.d331,337(1)``:· Ctjq,... A.pP.-1992).
l.t) i~· cJQ$_i,r,\g ~en~ ch:uii.tg tQ.e p~alty phase of Cargill's capital triai, the
State tna~e tbe fol_lowmg. $re.t:rl``s t~ tJl~ J~::
Jlijs ~e is1_1't hMd~· Yo-q:'re not e~e~mitJ.g anybody. You tre
not tiiliing iiiid shiiiildet1ng responsibility for tin)ithlng.. She made
tl;l,ose c.h.c;»ic~$ o~ ``e I 8th-. She bo"Qgb~ and paid for those ·a.n.swei'S_.
She did ft. And she bQugh~ and paid for lt With her ha~ujs around t.l:l,e
neck of Chetty Walker.. She bQugbt and p~d fQI" that "yt$," ~no"
answer when she took lighter fluid . . . showed you how she did It- and
squiJ:tt,d it c:;p. tbe bOc:ly, tb~ still-warm body ofCJ;terry W``r.
(69 RR at UO-ll (emphasis added)..) Altnougb the first· str;~t.ement is a mat.t~ of
interpretation and the· second statement teclinically t:tU.e, the third statement is an
uneqUiVocal ahl:ogati,on Qf the ju.ry's ~l;on$ib1Hty to rqch ~ $el1``4'ig·
detetmJ.tiatlo.n based 'U.p0l11ts appreciation of the faCts adduced. FUrthermore, the
State Ca:r1:[,19t be said ~o have cured i.t$ error by going on to cilscuss Ca:rgill's
choices, for.:...-and this be.ars ~peatiD;g---the St~te'·s blanket statement tQ the jUry
Was that it wo.Uld not ~ ·•'takfug and shouldering responSibility for anything." ld
(~mpb_~is- ~.de4)..
In like fashion, the State also sought to diminiSh ea-ch juror's sense of 'i'ts
re.spc>````_iity~ore prec~e~y, th.e a;n~a.ns by whi~h. each juror was to carry o.ut its
respons1bi'lity--4:;y arguing to them that emation should factor into their decisl.on•
.ptalQ.I)g,. Thl.s the State did in its dosing 8:i'gUment dUring both the guilt-h'u.Jocepc~
phase and the penalty phaSes of Cargill's trial,. saYing,
And if [the as~rtion that Cherry Walker died of a seizure]
doesn't make you mad,. it ought to. lt ought to infuriate you.. It's
pjtif\tl. It's p_athetic tb.at she can c_ome in here in this court oflaw,
-after I've worked for tWo years with that Sheriff's Of_Hce out there,
m:~d throw i~ ou.t there, and her·laW)'er go, well; would you jump out of
a. pla,rte? Who cares aboUt a plane?
93
106
• ••
(56 AA. ~ 99), anci
And .. she chose to take that .stand. m;td lie to you abo.ut it. That
o1,1gb..~ to m~e you ma4~ It re~ly ought to-.
(69 AA •105).
..&It is of vital iinp<)rtance to the defendant. an4 to the c_()mmunity that any
deeision to impose th~ deam sentence be, and a_ppeat- to ·~x; based on reason rather
than caprice or emotion_.". Gt;zrcirter ~- Florida, 4.30 U,$.. 349, 358 (1977).
Cons!Stent with tliis expectation, the ABA Staiitli:zrtb for Criminal .lz4tice call
upon pr:os¢cutor:s to '1-e:f}'a.i,n from a:tgument which. wauid divert the jUry from its
duty til decide the C3Se ort the evidence/' ABA Standards fr,Jr Crirftinill J``~::
..
Pr.asecution Function (34 ed. 1993) {Standard 3-S.S(d)) .. AQC·otdingly, there can be
no do\ibt.as
. to the iiif' ·· --·~ of. the
Proprlw:•J .. . at·gum
. ·Stateps ·· · ent. to the . . y ~o''"l.t
. . that. the
. J'ilrortl . ~-~-
to" he angry with Cargill for having mounted a defense to the capital charge, and,.
in con:ll;>~tjo~ wi_th tb.e ~:um¢.rable ~ ~ addressed, these errors CJ'Qde
confidence fu the fairness of the proceedings against C31giU.36 See aho Swn_mers·
v. State, 1-82 S. w. id 720, ti2 (Tex. Crim .. App. 1944) (wrhe accUsed is entitled to
a fajrtrial w.iUlou~ reference to ·ou;tsfd,e i_nflue.nce.").
c.. Cc;nehasitt'n
Throughout eighteen <;lays of tri~-::-;n``rialized in over 5,000 ~g~s of
transcriptj_on--the pr-Qs_ecu~ion routjnely and varioU;Sly n~giecte4 its. unqualifl«<
obligati_oi1o to C!nSute `` the procee4~-~gs agai_nst· Cargill were fair and th_e. ou~come
~ her c~ re_hably reac_hed:. Th~ S~t~'s e_rrors were; in short, ~:(ISiVe;
36
Like th.e S~te's oth~ mi_scon4uct during closing' argument, the errors
c_omplained of here are of particUlar concern because 4'[s]tatements ~_ise. t,h(t choice~ A
ju~:y's·tm``diXl~J'ofth.~ evi.cJ~.~e •mp~gj_ngtbe m9.r8l ~\ll~bil_ity of a d~f~t).qant
is critical to ~ j~'s co~i.d~ra.~9n of the appropriate pWlishmen~ for a capi®
offense.
Mitigati.~g evj~n~ i3 not d¢velop¢c;J to provide. a defen.~e: to the crime· Or to
challenge evidence of guilt; nor is it an excuSe or explailation for .a crime. Inst.~,
it prc;>vid~s a con~e`` fQr tb.e ¢.r_ne by d``cnbU,t$ ~ ~9jv14`` 's life· experiences
that serve to inspire (:9"rtlp.assi.O'n, empathy, mercy, a:ndlo;r undeQ.tanding. Indeed,
95
108
•
.rnitigat4lg ev!dence Is any eVidence: that "might serve ..as a. basis for a s~entence less
tha.J:l death.'" 'Ten'np.rd v. DJ'e(/r.e, .$42 u. s. 274, 287 (2'004) (qtiQtin$ Skipper V;
South Carolina, 476. U.S. I, 5 (198.6)) (emphasis added).
Th~ failure of tti~ cou.nsel tQ PN.$~t \~y Wjtn,es;ses at the pon.ishnient phase·
of CMgiii's capital tria.1 prejUdiced Catglll's plini'shment pha;$e presen``on ~4
vfol~d her applicable state and federal Constitutional rights, as well as. state
sm.rutory l~w and state~ law. therefore, Catg(ll's d-.b s~ce sb.puld be
vacated.
~ T~ Counsel Fa_iled t«> Present a Co~p~bensive P.eture of Ca~g)Ii''s
Life· Jljstory Durin1 the Puliisbm,nt PhJise.ofU:er C.apit.a_l Trial
The State ptesented forty-one Witnes.~ ®ring:tbe pllllishrn~nt`` TJ,.~se
witnesses spaniled Cargill's iife IUstory and 'included Cargill's. own tamily
memberS; ex-husbands $11.0 in-laW$; three of b~ fo~ chjl~; forr;ner fiien~ and
neighbors} teachers from bet children's .schoals,; peace.o:fflcers involved in prior
arrests of Cargill; and county J~l co~on.al off;ic~J:S. AI.l of these wt1DeSses
testi:fi~ in y~g detail ail~ intensity, t~ the t{etriment they SllffeJ:'ed as ~ ~It of
~eir int~cti~s with CargiU.. M_any ·Wim..~ ``bed mcid®~ o.f ``
vloltmce, ~4 ~motJ~ wrotQU tb.~y exp.,ri~n~e4 bee~· of CargliJ's volatile
~vi9r~ .(SS-68 RR,passjm.)
Alternatively, the defense presented at punishment two persons to rebut the
prQSecp.tio~'s· ~on `` Cami.ll had co~tra.band in her jail cell while awaiting
tri81; four cdrrectional officers who tcs:tined C.argjiJ d,i,d nc:>t ca:use pro,Ql~ • the
county jail; a fellow inmate who testified C~Jl was kind and compassionate tQ
her~ ~d two experts=-~ foren.sic p8ychologist and a neuropharmacologist. The
d~(~ cijd got pre.s,eJ;tt ~ .singl~ wi~ess who knew Cargill priQr·to h~· an-est or h.a4
a,n.y Wr59n~ CQilJ,l~t;iol) t.o CargilJ's coi;llp)icateq and tumultuous life histoty. the
result was that the jury heat~ the singular and one;..sided Stozy of a woman who
96
109
•• •
ere`` `` ih tl)e·liye.s· of everyone -~ encoun~ `` ~ viQ~eiit, ~busive,
and cnu~l to thQSe w.ho ·w~ cl~ t.Q ``- ·lJUs was @ ina~ PO~)'~ of
Cargil_l and enonilously prejudlciai.
Proft;.s.sihm;atory· for·th'e·.offeru;e for·wJ.U~b tb~ ~li~ is ~i~ ~ced, wouid
teb1.J; or explain eyi_dence wesented by the pro~!,"~ Would ``t PQ$i.tive
aspects o("the· c:;~ieJ1~:·~ l{fe, or woUld otherwise- sllpP&rt a sentet)ce less than death ..
ABA Quidelirzes, G~4~li,ne lO.Il(F)(l)~
PoSt.-convictlon investigation has revealed a number of Witnesses who had
fir$t-hMd J,u,:owledge of t;ratir,i;t• ``giil su«~r~ dutlhg the· .colirSe· of her life
in~lt,t:drng p,are11t~l ~:Ij~n``lon. of a:f(¢c~Q.,_; `` ab~d()~!I!Qt;· pareQtal physical
:and emo.tional abuse; adol~cent se=1mal -~U.I`` ~"4 phy~cal. emotior:tal, an4
psychological abuse. by a spoliSe. These Witiie!Ses. were. avatlable and wflling to
te~tify on, Cw~P.U's ``f ~egarding not only the details of the traUI!lay but .also to
the simnfic~ effe~ the trauma had on CargiU's emo.tional development .an~
percep``o:n oftl)e Wor.l4 a:rouJJ,c;l her:.
Tria.J coutisd's, faHute to uncover detailed Iilitjgating. infonn·ati·on trorn
family m~mbers and friends about Cargill's background, a,nd sup~uent faiiure to
97
110·
• •
pres.ent these Witnesses at the: pun.iShm~ pltase QfC8JliWs tri~ prej~di~ed C~
in tWo ·ways. Fit(t, ,a:s- a resUlt of not l)~g ibis IQ.nd of criti~ ml.tjg~ora
evic;l.e,;``e, tb;e qnly u,:t,``rs~di~g. t,h~· j~ry h~d of Cargill's background and life
histocy was thro:ugh the tiltt:r of the· S.tat~'·s ~v~tin tb`` she could actua.lly
be.
s``y., the failure tp Qi,scover this type of mi~gating evidence
undemililed. the def~'s pres:entation of their o~ expert Witn~.s.s, Dr. AntPinett~
McGartahan, who opmed that. Cargill suffered. from a personality disotder that
Li,kely originated in en~nmenW f.a~ors p``.nt i.n C~gill's t:hildl:lood.
However. Dt. McGattahan had no knowledge, other than what was r.eport~ by
C~gill h~elf, (>f ~Y kind of trauma or other env!ronni~ntal factor'S ®cuni.ng or
w_h,:at the effect might have been on Cargill's eJilotioJJ~ ~d PsYClt:PlQgi~
devel9pit:l``-- 'Illete were ~ .~!llDJJ:~r of l.~y Witil'~s.s.es wil.Jii;J.g to F.Qvid.e Dr~
McGarrahan w!th the necessary background information that she lacked 1n order to
contexruaiize
....... ......... and ·· rt her
... stiPPQ. ... belief
. .. that ···n sUffered frOm some kind of earl:y
.... Catgt
trauma. Not presenting this te$imony was prejudi-cial and denied Ca_rgiU h~r
constitutional right to a fair trial.
98
111
• •
B. C3.Wl S~e.~ trro~ T~uma Dtiiiilg ChildhoOd, Adoieicence, aud
EariY Adultbood
TeStimony from l~y Wittt@S.e$ wo~d have estJbli.sJ.l.ed th~t IG,nb_erly
c~gi_U~s31 life was rii8rked ·by instability ·and dysfunction from its early origins.
Despite- the outWari:J appearance ~ si)e h.ad ~ supportive and loving home
environment, Kimbet\Y'.s development was rooted in ins.ecurity and f@.lit1gs of
~-~qi)ffien:t, both by adults who were a censtant. presence in her life and those
who were entirely .absent. Tills woUld have a noticea.J;Jle itnpa¢t on ~ re~ of her
ii.fe ap.d aJ)ii_icy to f~ and maintain positiVe and fulfilling mterpetsonal
relatiQJJS)lips.•
i.. ``bei'ly 1$ I.\orn IIi to a Chaotic and Unstablt Family EnVii'onmeet
.Kimberly was born to Eddie Upt;cm Md IU~b~l D``. Uptcm38 ~ Novff].) ~.mbei:Jy a.t:1d April w~re trea.te9 ditJer~tly.. (Ex-. 8 at ~
[Aff. ofT~a L~vengp~d]..) Kim.b:erly WlilS IJO.t t.ol~ she was adop~ed by K~nneU1
until she was nine years old. The revelation was disclC>sed to Kimberly ·ina casual
101
114
•
mann~ by Rft.cbel ~ ~i,nberly remarked 1;lt~t she wopdered why she did not
look lik~ K``tb. ~.. 14 at ~13 [Aff. Qf~hel ~ll$on].) L~ .I4y, il:l~l"!lcUr.tg ~ welt f;roJn a belt.
buckle. Tma s~w the imprint of the rotmd ri;u~w. pa,rt from ~e ```` Qil IQmberly's
body 81ld head. A.dd_itiQn.ally, Ti.J).@ ~a~ Ki.mberly'!;l bouse whm. she witnessed.
~h~l physi¢ally SSS:``9Jting K~berly ~ Tina was upstairs iri one of the bedrooms
an.d h`` ~b~l ~bol¢.lg ~d ~eking Khnberly tn the neXt room. Tina even
cov~ h~ ears to block out w~ she was bearing. ~en IGmberly ca,me intO the
room wh~re 1."~ was Klm.beriy was crying.
O!x. 9 at ff5~ [Aft ofTina NelsOn].)
-
~berlyt~ frienerly contiQued to
be plagUed With medical ~blems even after.recoverilig from the acute meriingjtis.
Getting w~ll w~ a p~.$ tli.at took clos¢ to a. year\ Because the lining of the
spinal w·sue in her tailbone was affected, Klm.berly had a ~ffiet1lt time sinh.lg
down. :K."irilhetly had another episode Where she temporarily lost control of her
lower ~tremlties~ She went tQ the emerg~cy room bv.t 4octors could not
determine the c·aiiSe. (Ex. 14 at i[t5 [Aff. of Rachel W'~n].)
In Jtm.iot hjsh ~OQI Kimberly W@s weil iiked a:nd. got along with other
studentS..
. . ·DUnn]; Ex. 9 at 'tf2 [Aff..ofTma.Nel®IJ].)
(Ex~ 4 at ,2 [Aff.. ofGreyson
However9 one night she experienced a traU:rtlatic event involVing a group of male
. I
cl8S$D18~S. lGmberly went t() ~ borne of c>ne of th~ boys ~4 something sexual
happened. Rumors: circulated that Kimberly's parents ~ened to bring staU®ry
rape ch_arges against at l~t one of the boys. (Ex-. 4 a,t tp [Aft ofGreyson DuM}.)
Ulti_m!tely Kjmb~ly's p~gts refusec;l to. acknowledge that an assault had been
coiiuiiitted against the1r daughter. (See Ex. 14.at 1[19 [Aft of]hchel. Wi,J.spp],)
When i<.lmbetly was a teenager .she wanted to meet her biological father,
E4die. Kim.beriy tr:a.vel¢4 to Mi.sSissippi a few times and was: able to ineet her
father and m:embers of her paternal family. (Ex·. 13 at y,r5~6 [Aff. of ~borah
Upton].) Due· to Kimberly's perSistent and ~ignificant lss·ues with .Rac~el; it Was
detided Kimbetly should. go to Miss~ippi to stay with her biolqgic.al father for ~
103
116
• •
signifi.c:ant p~ocJ of ttm.t.'. E.dd:i~ and hjs ·wif~· Deborah filed for· legal gtlatdianshlp
so Kimberly would be able to stay pennanen.tly. (/d. • ,8.)
However, Kimberly did not have a good experience 'in Mississippi.
I.n. ·`` tlt~ w~ ~ed b~
wete pia~ by fertility ~S$U~s, After· ~em Kh;nb~rly w~ ~le to get
pregn~ ·wit!) her· firs~ 59P. ~d ~.d ~ ~$.tic.. Kimberly be.li~ved a baby
would fix the problems in her marriage_, Kimberly focu~ h,~ enea,-gy Qll haying a
h~tby baby ~d was in heaven whe,n Oav1d was born. Kimberly love4. (i~$
and h;a:vipg a newbon:l a:nd it s`` to tbo~ ~urtd h~ t:rnJ..t ~robedy was fiila)ly
where $he wanted to be "in l.ife. ~ 5 at 1[3 [M Qf Mary E.Qfl]:.)
However. the birth of David did riot fix the· t:Ui'bulence in Mike ·and
Kirnbedy'.s t;nan'iage. ~SS\J.~ ~een them rema,ined unresolved and the
relationship did not get better.40 When David ~ about tbre¢. years old, K.it:n~ly
bec.a.n)e very l.Il wi.tb Cl'()bn'·s Di_~41 an.d spe;n~ ti_r:ne it) th~ ,b~j~. Two w~ks
40
Ml"ke testifie~i at tri.al tha~ Kimberly was· qu.lc~ to ang~r and h.a4 a voJ~ti.Je
·
t~I:nF.· (See 59 RR at 7~1~)
·
41
Ctohil's Disease Is a chronic i"rlflammatoty condition .of the
gast:rQinte$tinaJ tra~. It c:auses a variety of symptoms that are often d.ebi}itat.ing
lOS
118
• •
~er Kitnbedy was ``~ fro~ the })osp1r,al Mil_ce left Kimbe~y and filed fot
divorce. (Ex: 5 at~4 [AfT: ofMary EoffJ.) Milce ul.tnnauely ~OQ~ K,imbe.d_y ~ co~
over cust«i)r of Dayid ~.4 l?rougl:lt i_il ldriJ.~tly's own mother to teStify on his
behalf at the temporary ~ody h~_ng. Ki!Xl~t:IY was prohib.ted from seeing
DaVic;l ~ly and iilst.ead ~-held to-~ co``rdered ~tody arrapgement. W>Smg
c~.:¢.®Y. Qf ~Yi.d aff~ Kimberly treiiJ.e_ndously and threw her in a deep
depression.. K.Unberly became so d,epress«i ~ she ``ec_l~ed l,.~lf ip,tQ ~ ol,l;t"'
p~ti`` n:1`` health prog1:8111. (14 at ,-5) Ki!ft~ly d:id ~t want the niarri:age to
end and was overwhelm~ by w.~t WciS J:uqJp``- wh~. (E~. 10 ~ '1f3 [Aff. of
Debotal:l Newman].)
Mj`` lw4 mOI)ey ;m~ l~gal resom.ces at Ills di_sposal and IGmberly did not.
Kimberly was at a s.en~ di:sa4van~age d\Ding the l~gal proce¢ir.I$-. f~.~. 6 -`` ~
{AfT.; Q('Cin~l_y .l\a4 t_o mQve 0ut of the: home she- and Mlke. Sliated and Mike
inarried a. woman named Sonja. l'Alk:e and Sonj~ crea.t~ a new tam.ll:Y toge~er and.
tried to get the1r exes out of-their lives. (Ex. s at fij6 [Aff~ of Mary Eofi].) By all
accmints; Sonja ~e life dttli'c'Ul~ for tbc;>se ~e w~ted out of her life. SOQja
divOrc:ed Doug Henry when ib~tr d_aligbt~r Leigh AOO ~ ~ :Y`` old.~ In order
~9 be vfuqi~tive, Soijja a~cused DoU.$ ~f sexua.JJy ~us:ing. L¢i$h Ann and fon::·ed
him -~d hi.s new wife to endure· a lengthy and expensive cc:itiit battle. This was
going on at the ~arne time ~ .Ierly ~u.ently broUght Pavtd to tbe Ji~ house and th~
a.d~.Ilts tal~e4. wtrl.l~
tb.e kjqs pl~yecl. (Itt ~t ,5.) In i_s to fi.nd the most egregiqus events anc:f convil)ce
a jllcy th~t tbose. ~venr:.s ·Me rep~sen.tativ~ of the defendant as a whole. It Is
109
122
• •
tb~fore inCt,liDbenj \IP«l trial CQUJ.lS~l t9 ~un~ th.~ o.~e-:si4ed ~r:i~on and
dem:onstrat~ to tb.ejury ~ lld.di.J)8. up d:t;e ~vatipg even!S Q.id nQt reach ~e sum
total of Kimberly's wo!1]1 il$ t1 petS®-. To the contrary,, there were people Whas¢
liye.s she touched in a IIl~ip.gfW `` pos_iAve w.ay ~d ~e fact that the jury was
not· priVy'· to those p~ople denied ~er the Q:t~fuJ as$t_al,:~e ofco~l..
'
D•. Trial Co.ttn~l Preseqted ~n. E_xpert' Who Testili~ Tha)t ``rgli) Sg_ffered
From Bonieriiiie P.enouiity DisOrder Witll:out badep:eodept·
C(lrrobo_ra~on of E ..vironme~;~tal faetors
J)r. All'oille(te McGan'ahan; ~ for~ic p_syc_hol_ogist, testi:6.ed dUring the.
defe.nse ``in-chief that she con41.lct~ a cl.~nic.al intervi~w of- C. .l and
ac:Jmini``red psyc_l}.ologi_~ ~ S.b.¢ tllso review~ a :(rull~tude of fluni,1y co~
do~e_nts, investigative· m.a~-~ls ~l~Wig ~P ~l.l 's ~-s~ ~4 ~ of
Cargii1's psyetllatric and pSY'Cboiogieal hjst9ry.. (65. RR at 3~31.) Based o_n her
clinical assessment, Dr. Me~ p~ffered ~tria} that Cargill s1lffets fro.m
Borderline P~rso~ Dis()rder· e'BPD") an4 ~Pits person~it:)' tra,i~ ~l)Sj_``
\Yidt bQth harcl_ssistic and ~ti-soci.~ p~oi)S]jty dlsortte·rs..42 (65 RR at 45.) Dr.
Me`` opjnec,t th,at. ~ a r:es~t of th~ BPD, Qargfll has signific8.rit
t``nal rel~#oD.sl}.ip di_(fi_culties; Sufferers of 1JPD have pervasive 4iffieillties:
witJt b:ow ~ey t4~ abo~ tbH:lgs, percel.ve the- wor:Id, experience emotions, and
42
Dr. McQm.aha:n testified that thpse With na,ci~sistic beh~yior have.
~djose opin_ions ofth~lves ·and ree·l entitled. they can aeiit in a. demanding
fashion and lack empathy for others. They can a.I:so exploit other'S for- perwnal
pin. l)r; M``~ off~d ~ Cargi_l_l h~ ·~sem.e ofthese· symptoms." (65 RR
at 48-49.) Ad4itionaUy, or~ McG~an t¢stifie_d that an individual witl:l ~j~
social ~-ts b~ difficult following th~ r\.des $c;l wiU ~e in beh~vlor that.
subjec:t 1;hem to ~t. Th~ is d``i~ n.t~ipulatiop, lyi_ng," a,n.d imp``ivicy~ (65
RR at 49.) Dr. McGartahan indicated that. in order to m:eet the criteria for BPU-
soci_al perso.IJ~jty di~I'(l~r; a p``QD .IP.I,l$t h~v~ e.~ibit~4 co!l(i~c~ c:ljsorder
pro_biems prior to the:a:ge offifteen-;:and there was no indication in Catgill's.history
that.she engaged~ tho~e kinds ofbel1aviots in c.hjl(fuoo.Q. (6_5 RR at 51-S~·.)
110
123
• •
~ Wit;h. otb`` (65 RR ·~ 45:..46.) Dt~ McGarrahan further offered thai
indiViduals With BPD ate emotionally unstable, unpredi;ctabl~ ~d f~l cbroni~ally
empcy so. they·are "always trying to fill that emptintss with. relationships." PeJSOnS
with BPI> wlH fn'P.ltic.aO:y tcy to avoid abandonment and often .have vety intense·
and volatile romantic fel'ationships~ They can al$o have chronic· anger· probl~ntS
wb.ic;b. ~ ~ifes~ with aggressiveness and·violentbehaviot. (65 RR at 47-48.)
When asked by defe~· co~l how a p~il deVelops tb~se types of
person_alitY diS<>rders, or. McGartahan replied:
MQSt ()f tile li~ and the research, partiCularly on bordei'lme
pe.rscmalitY c;{isoi'd~t, ·suggests' t!?.ttt ~ le~ a ~j~J.jty of it is·
enviro~ent.. An fudividUSl is n~ nec~sariJy born w1th tbe di~r~
and startS shOwing It at the age of one or tWo, but they ~y have .a
vuJnerability gepetic~ly to develop some type of merit;al ifliless or
p,sychi~r,rjc problem,. An4 w.ha~ that· tum:s Qtn ta be pro®bly dq,ends
on· that person's en:Virol'itilent.. And the research tells us that with
resp®t to borderline ~n~icy- di.sord~r, a ~jority of those
'fudhi®als Md erilot_ional.ly negie:c_tfUI ~egiver:s.. These are no~
caregivers Who left and left th¢m alone bt¢ e,moti~_ly cU.d ·:p.o~ sbare
love, did' not express emotion, did not tell the individual they loved
them, did .n.ot show affection toward them.~ :n~e ~h al~
su .. a.. lar
. ggeSts. that . ge number
. .... . of . d1agnosis did
- ·- .. .. with.. that
. indiVidualS
have a Iii story of seX\lal abuse in childhood. ·
(65 M ~t':53-S4..)
i:>r.. McGattahan testified that she did ~ot have independen~ knowle.dge that
C3l"gill was sexually abUsed. (65 RRat 54.)
On CI'Qss.,;e``ioA, Pr:, MeG`` te~ed that Wlder the DSM IV,
p~a,lity 4i~9rd.~ wl#e ~haracteri'zed inld.er Axis· II, which proyi~ for me.nW
diSorders rather than Itt¢.,~ iU.n``$~S..• Dt. M~G~ap -``-la).owl.edgecJ U:m~
personality disorders w~ :more difficu.lt to· .tre.a~ witb medjc~tjQq tban ment~
111
124
• •
illneS;S. 43 (6.5 RR ~ 57~59.) With regard to th~ info~tion Dr.. McGarral)_al}. had ·Q.t
n_et di~, ~h~ ack~gwit;dged that she haS to take s:otile' backgrOUnd mfonrtation
(su~J,l ~ &.~ f~ct $~t Cargill suff~ from ntimerous head injurieS or was sexually·
abuse4 by a ``rn-~ UIJqle) witb ~ "~ of s~.t" bec.``e' h~ only basis of
knpwledge was a ``11 ~ Cargil• b.``Jf abs~
indq,endent co-rrobqratibil.
(65 RR -~ 88, 1_27 .) Tl)e S.~ prof.f~d tb.at ~wing up, Cargill had it "prettY
gOOd ..• J:tom all accoW)ts.`` In lieu ofa.$ir;lg Or. M:~ a qu~()n, tl_l~ State
offered d.uting ~oss-examin$t;io~:
B.ecause the testimony ofher mother w.as that ~-e W8$ very hrvolved
ii) Q.e_r [C~g)U's] ljfe_. She had her college paid for, which mof itself
is ~ pjetzy ~e~ ~-~ .Had ~U~ge ~d for, ap~en,t paid for, wa&.---
got just ~bou~ ~ytbfug sbe ~«.~ for II,Ul``-wise-•..Her ~other was
involved iii her [Catgiil's], all her activities groWing up.. Her original
da;d left wh~ $e was about s~ :t;non~. I thinlc wen~ iiltc> the
mi.U~, Her rnon, m;td biologi~al fa,ther divorced_. Mr. Pl#$ tai~ed
her, and. they had. a very good relatio.Dship, actually ad:opted
her.... Wba~ was it in h~ e;,ttly rel$~()_nsbjp tit.• w~ not good?
(65 RR at 127~28~)
H~d Dr~ MeG~ ~ provided wjUl Ut~ infQUn~tj()Il from iay
WittteS;s_es, &he would haye b«n more appropriately able to expbiin an:d
con``li~ the ~vjfotw1et:lW ``ors present in Cargill's life tl)~t m~y have
c_ontributed to h.er einQtional and psycbolQ"gi¢al d_eyelopm_et:~t.
125
• •
S.p·eeificalXy, as describ.e:d ·~ov~, l~y w.it;a~· provideuted to Cargill's development Not doing so ilildenn1ned the presentation of
the defense ~s oWn expert and undennined the ctedibfHty of the defense case a$ a
whole.
113
126
• •
:E. Trial Cotiiisei's Faflu·re Prejadic·ect Cargill
Tria) cotm.sel's 4~fi~ien~ con~ct prejudiced Ca:rgili's right tc;l a full
presentation of miti'gation evidenee -at the p.u.niShnlent phase of ber· tr.i`` Se~
W"z!1(4.ms., 529 U.S. at 393 ("[l]t is undisputed that Willianis had a right~indeed, $
constitutionally protected right-to provide the jurr with ti.l~ m1ti~ evidence
that his trial ooutlsel either tailed to discover or failed to offer."].). Counsel's
per:fortn8Aee is therefore defic_ien~ Wiggins, .539 u.s-. at 527 ("Even assuming
[cotinsell iimited the seope of their ·mve·stigation far smrtegic reas911$, Stri~/44.r.zd
d9es not ``H.Sh th~ -~ eursocy Investigation au:toiriatlc~ly justifies a taCtical
deciSion with respect to sentencmg straWgy. Rather a revie~ cow-t must
cri~ide~ the. ~nableness of the ·inveStigation said tO support.that strategyf')..
The State ~- that there is· nothing aho\J~ Q. persowmty disorder that is
mitigating-. (.69 AA a:t 4647, 95.-9.6.) 1-lowev~, trial counsel's defi.cjent
p¢o~ce prejudi~ the punlshment phase· of Carg1lf's trlai because the jUry'
was denied the opp:ortunity to consid~ ~e full st.Ql)' of c;~ 's c9mplicated
familial, emotional, and 5ocial history. Regardless of whether the j\uy believed the
tra~ suffered by Car~ll eith~t ~y or 4ldirectly resulted in her· deytHopment
of BPO, the underlying traiima .its:elf is still mitigating. Th~ type of'infonnati(m
trial `` co!ll4 ))ave i;m¢overed $bout Cargllf's difficult life. is the km:d of
informati:o~ co~ n~ve ruled ~s r~lev~t to assessipg a defeilda,i:lt's il)o~l
culpability. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 535. Some aspect of that stocy·; sqro~·seeq_~i_ngly
minute detail, could have· been· the one fact that caused a single juror to d¢ci.d:e tha~
Cargil.l'$life shoulav1d. Oil direct exa.mfuation, :Mike# disc:u:ssed th.e
custOdy battle t;hat ensw:cl betw.e~ hin;1 ~d Cargilt pertah)ing t9 thei_r so.n.. M~
explained that tiprin filing for divorce from C.argill, the ~an~ vi.Sit.atlon sch.e:4"QJe·
w.~ h.nple~en~; that r~ Cargill main:taiiJ.ed custody and Mike was given
viSi~on every other·w~ken4. (59 AA ~ 92.) Howeyer, by the tfme the· divot~
w~ fi:naiized, the tables had turned. Mike waS granted custOdy -and Cargill WSS'
reduced to visitationS every other week¢~ (14 at. 92-93.) Mike, teStified that he
later sought an order to Iimit Cargi'J.l to .supervis.ed. visitations because h~ w.~
co``t.ec;l by· CPS alj.4 informed that he m\lSt do_ 8omethirig abou,t Cargill or el~
CPS woUld remove David· from M~·s ~-~ (!4. at 95-.) No eviae.nce ofth~
co:rivet:sation was presented~. Mike then claimed that bEiSed on that ·conv~.io1.1
'with CPS b¢ Q.eeiclec,t to ~.rea. lawyer and attempt to limit Cargill's visitation rights
even further. (/d. at 97-98.) Later in his~ testimol)y, Mjl{~ r``t~ his
sllspicjons that Ca.rglil was ab'Using DaVid before t~fyiilg th• he ~ -``
sole c~s~dy of Dav.id in 1993, when David was on~y three _years..old.. (Jd. at 108-
11.) He went on to poipt out ~t Sl,l,ch rulings were 1Very rare· at the time,"
suggesting that Cargill's tre:atmelit of Mike and Oavid w.a:s ~spe:ci.Ql.ly eJ¥e~o:us.
(See. id. at Ill.)
44
With the exception. ofApplicant, rust names wil~ be used for the ease of
the reader thrQugb.out this· CJ.ai.m.
117
"-------...,......·-· .... -.. '
-·- . . 130
---~=-=----
• •
On cro~xmrunatton·, trial co\ms_ei fa_il~ to adequately cievelop ~ m~re:
balanced history of tl)e· cu,s.tod:y .iss.ue for ~e j~.~ ln. f~ct, ~unsel did not address
the "issue a:t all l)ther tl:um to,poin~ o~t that the proc¢edings were coiltentio'il$~ (59
RR alll3~) Tri~ co~.sel o~e,lool<.~ th.e oppo$Qfu' to contex~ai~· the custody
proceedings regatding Davi~ in order t() demonstrate that n wa.s a ``n9·
e~erie.nc~ .for ~(I t9 lose custedy of her first born, a. ~hrt q1Jit~ ~l_ev~t t9
mitigation.· Pcst-c.onvic:tion inyestigatjcm has uncove.red fo~ wi`` wh9 would
have b~ available and Willing to testify at C.at~ll '.s trial regarding bow ``~ic:
the divorce ``nd CU$t®.y prQC`` w~ for ~U aQ.d Ute ~igt)~:fJcant ~mpact it
had on her.
~-· l)ebq"'J;J N:llV``c~n
In addition to being a. vital Witness fot the development ofCargill's· s«ial
histOIY,45 Deb"Qrah New.tnan 'fQl).ld WlYC $.ed. ijgli~. on :M:ike~s account of the
divorce and cUstody proceed.iilgs_ Deborah was a friend of Cargill in the early
1990s when they both lived in Ailen,. Teias. (Ex. iO at ~1 [Aff. of Deborah
Newman].) Sh~· was not con~cted by C$.1'gill's tri~ tea,m., b1,1t would I;J.ave been
willing tO testifY on Catgill's= behalf. (ld at ~7~) ·Cargill.and Ml"ke were ·still
marrie.d. when J)e~ roet ``~. C~ll,- Mike, an~ Deborah ail auertd~ th~
First Baptist Church in All~ an·d Cargill and Mike ``ght Su:n4.ay S·c.bOQl l;o
Deborah's ~ghter. Cargill ·was "very sweet and bubbly" when Deborah Wa$
arol)ild l:ler-. (ld" ~ ~2-.) Deborah reealis when Mike filed fot·divoree .. Carsill did
not want the m~ag~ to ~d ~d $e~m,ed overwhe`` b.Y the whQle ordeal. It
seemed to DebQrah tbat Mike was '-'mu~h m~'er abou:t it than }:1~ J:l~_ed to be."
(Id. ~t 13.) Mik~ b~d tbe su.pport of b)s fiml,i_iy so he·~ able tp )lj_re expensive
a,ttomeys .. The p_ower balance was in Mike's favor, and he use:d that to Cargill'$
4
·' See Claim Seven, ante.
118
·-
131
• •
«;ietr;iJ:Q..ent. (14..) MMch to tl)e CQ:t;l~; Car~Pll did not have sljppo,rt fro.ljl het oWil
f'amjly and s_he felt a~d~l.1~4 by lt:crr·m.~tbc~r4.ming tbe cl.ivo`` (J.d. ~t 14.)
~.U w&s· ~devastated emotionally" when Mike began p~g custOdy of
David and trying to limi~ Cm:gll.l'~ visi``on l'igh~. (Ex. 10 at 14 [At'f. ofOeootah
Newman].) Dehorah believed that C.argillloved O~vi4. very :Q;J.~c.tl and took good
¢~ c)fhim. (!t/.) AtJ the pr~eedmgs c_arried on, C.atgill began to <:fill Deborah
late at night tO talk.. Cargill sounded distraught and did n.ot know how to ~le
the·prospect.oflOS:ing.her son. (/d a~ ~S.) Deborah encouraged Cargill Jo p~y, b~
ec;,uld·:r,ot dp mu,ch else·for h~. (ld.)
Deborah's rec:ollection of the divorce and ~- proc_e~g$ provi`` 81)
alt.erD!J.tive a¢cO~t to the one Mlk.e testified to at tri,al. Rather than C.~ll ~iDg
pOrtrayed .as an especially violent and unp~di~ble rno~· who g~ wb... -``
deserved, Deborah could. have eXplained that the result of those pro.c~gs ID4Y
act:ually have been the influeQ.®.CJ. by Mik~'·s ~COJ1o.mi~ $Dd p$Ycb:ologica1 powe~;.-lp.
the coUrtroom. The emotional toll tha~ those eYellts too~ on Cargij_l w.o\l_ld a.Js.o be
relev~t ~o the jwy's punishment deiiberations~ N`` only did Cargi_ll ·lose b~ fi.,m.
hom, but .she wa:s abandoned by her· f~ily in th~- pl'()®S$.• Deborah's co.nfin:n.~Urpose-role of mitigation and.
re.bUttal witness~ Cindy j$ mmjed to Doug Henry, who W3$ formerly married to
Sonja West. (Ex. 6 at `` [Aff. of Cindy Hency].) Cindy got to know Cargill
aroW:ld ~ time of C~(l's div~e ~m M1~ ~ ensUing ~dy battl~. (fd)
Cindy was- not contacted by anyone on Catgill 's tri.aJ ~ bUt woul.d have
I
te:$tifi~d on C~ill's beh.al.f. (/d. at.~.) Cargill was go1J?-g through her cUstOdy
battle With Mike ~tmd tbe ~e tim~ th:a' D9'Ug w~ $Ping through his with
Sopja. (l.d·· at ,5~) As a result, CiJ:ldy·g9t ~ be G;e:l}_ds wi~ CargjU.. {14. ~ ftl, 5.)
C~gili frequently brought David over to Cindy and Dol!g's ho~ to. play. (ld. ·at
'dS) ChtP,y ¢.oP.Si4ere4 Carglil to be "Very sweet arid a bit naive." (/d. at 'JJ6.) By
Cindy's acco.unt, "Mik~ really beat up [Cargill] emotio~ly." (lit.) S.l;le ~U.eve$
tha,t Ca.tgili 'Was uhprepared to de:al With dlvotce proceedings. b.ec·ause Mike :filed
for· divorce and full cl,l.St(>dy of David around the time when C~.ll was in the
hospital. Mlke had money so he could hire good attoz:tteys.. Cargi)l, on the other
ha.nd; Wa$ on })er·ow.n.• (fd..)
120
133
• •
Cindy could have· further confinne.d the teStimony of Deborah -an4. ~
regarding Milt~ be~g· • d.iffiCl,ll~ spo~e 1l~Pcl ``g, ~4``~ of his power to
-~ CU$~y QfD~vi4. TrW co~l's failute to call h~r as a witness :collStit\ites
d~ficj.`` ~Q~ce•
.d. Do.ug Henry
Fi.nally, Doug Henry also could ~ve c.Qnfirme4 this all~_ative· acco~ of
the divorce and.custody_ptaceedjngs. Doug·was a friend ofCargillwhen th.ey were
both soi.n.g thrc;)l-Jgh c~tpqy ``es Witb thetr ex@~ (E~. 7 at ~1 {Aff. of Doug
Henry].) Doug's ex.;.wife Sorija Henry-W~ is llQW married tQ :Miln~ rights.
2. Sonja West Incident
On t.nuJti.ple occa:Sions over the course of the purijsbment ph~, the S~
elici`` ~sti~9r)y regardlrig an altercation betWee)l Cargill a:nd Sonja West. M"lke
West ~vi4 West, Sonja W~ ~4. Le_igh Aoo fleJ:tey al.l t``#fi~ ~o soJl.le exte[)t
tegardi_ng th~ incident.. Despite the fa~t that the State repe$tedly :te~"CC;l t~ the
incident, trial cOu"nsel never attt;mpted to rebut or cantex.tUal.ize what really
happmed.
SonJa testified that she, Da:vid, Leigh Ann, and a nan:ny were a:t So~Ja' s house
in Rockwall; Te~ O!l tl_l~ w Sonja's hand against a bride
waH. (ld., ~t 40.) Leigh AM hid behind Sonja thtoughou~ the ``~01). (14.; at
4.1..) David; oil the other hand, began to .run aw-ay. (/d) CargiH chased. David,
122
135
• •
caught hiM, and carried 'h.im back to h_er caz:. (1.4) A~ 8Qme p9jlrt qW:ing tl_le
jn~i4en.t t:h~ g~y .c~leQ. tf;I~ pqUce· `` Camili was later apprehended. (Id at 42.)
Mile.~ W~ te:sP.tiec;t ~ 1-!e was ~ot p~t during the incident but sa.w
· SQpj~:'s injuti~ ~fterward·; (59 RR at 101•.02.) He ob~I'Ved
, lm.lise$ ~il Sdy i.S:S``
Stich 'testimony eould have provided. context the jilrors and given them reason to
s~.Pect ~e oo.rnplet~ ·accuracy of S~nja's a~unt of the ~ncider~,t_. Tri.at coo$el's
failure·t9 in``rview Do`` a.nd ~11 him to testjfy t,o th.i.s·~.d v.ariou~ oth._e_r~ects-of
Cargill'~s social history constituted.fueffective assistance.
124
... 137
•
b. Cl_-.d.y H •.ry
C1_n4y igl,ew SQnja as ·a resUlt of Doug's divorce and c\i~ b.aUie Wjth, h~..
(14 ·a.t ,L) c"indy cauld have testified about her experience with the divoree and
c~ody ``~ be`` DQ~g and Sonja and h~ <:Jpinion r~s~g Sonj~Cs
c``· Sl:ich. testimony is relevant to Sonja'.s manipulative romtre, impeaches
her ~:bi_lity, Md. p:royig~s re_levan.t ev'd~ce ~ subst:an``~ Cargi(f's social
.histoJ')'.
SQrtja b~ `` thm~ dlffi.cu_l~ fQr Ci_g.dy an¢ Doug ``e S~ja an4 Doug's
divo,r<:e. (Ex. 6 at 13 [Aft of Cirn.iy Henry).) )u!l,t a few ~s· bef~· Cln4y ~4
Doug-'s oWn wedding, they had a big- tight with Sonja.. (/d) Cindy and Doug
wanted Leigh~ Doug's ~gh~er-; to be il) the wedding but Sonja objected.
SltQttly thereafle.r, -Gr$ opened an Investigation against DO:Ug for aUegedly
mol~ung Le_igb. ·Atm.• So~j~ ~c`` Doug 9f dail)g some~g- mal)proprlate:
·when he ~as bQ~ing ~-i~ Ann ox:t hjs ``. Cfuc;ly d,~ctib~s· ~e ~eg~ons-~
'~a~e ~d outrilgeo~."' (Jd.) T'h.i.s led to a contentiolis custody battle·that lasted a
lang. time and cost the Henry's ~ns ofthousa,nds QfdoJ.l~. (ld)
Following the moleStation -allegation, Cln:dy and Doug were not allowed w
have ~pet\'i~ -vlsi.~'on With Leigh AJ:in. (lS_x. 6 at f-4 [Aft: of Cindy Henry].)
They were requlred to go through a series Qf" p~chologicai testS, an4 ~1¢t A$
had to go to play therapy. S.oriJa te;mai:ned difficult th:rou$ho.u~ the prQC-., If
Doug an.d Ci_nciy wem. ey~l) ~ ·s.~r:t t_iffi~ ov~_t· th~i't· a.Jlo~t_ed t4.ne wi¢. Lei~ .Arnl.
SQI:tJa wo\lld ~·'throw =iL ft~ -~bout i~ SJ:lQ -``t ij:l~ l~wy~s mv9lved." (1.¢) Based on
SonJa's bdlavior thrQughout thls pracess, Ciridy believed she ~ '~unbalanced."
(/d) Cindy recalls when Sonja acc·Used Cargill ofassaulting bet. (/d at ~8.) This
was a very dlffictilt g_J;ile· for -C~gi.l1 be~ause s,he wouJ4 not- be ~:Q~e to be ·$. n.~e
with art. ``ul~ convi``icn:t OJ) h¢1' record. (Jet) "it seemed like Kimberly gave up
after-that-both emotionally and spiriwailY.~" (/d)
125
138
•• •
Cb;td.y l.s -~_other ~xaJ11ple. o_f a witness who coUld have .teStified to the
m.~_ipul~ive l)``ure of Sonj~, 1~ the.j-ury to qilestion Sonja's ctedlbilicy. lrt
addition, such testilnooy would have more fully elq)~ed th~ @)nWxt .of the
alleged assault.
c. Ra~.h~l Wl,lS(tg
~chel Wilsop,, C.ars(U's ~other-, ~stj.fi_ed on b~h~f of tbe S~e at the
pliliisbment phase. She testified to a variety of aggrav~ting iss\}~ bu~ ~ev~
commented ori the Sonja. incident ot the dyna:mlcs ofSonja's ~.lati_oD.$bJp wi:tb ·tb~
fiiinily. FolloWing the St.$1~'$ ~t ~on, tri~l cQunsel d~Uned t9 cros:s-
ex·amine Rachel; instead, opting to call her d~ the def.~ ~· (58 RR, at
210.) However, trial counsel never tecail(d R.a.chel 8$1 her ~st_hnc;>'l;ly was left.
entirely unexamined by the defen~.. If counsel bad. re~led ~h~l for Qte
defense case, she. coUld have testified to the nw:nerous aspects of' C~_ll'~ so.cial
b.jstory4o6 -~ well as tbe followipg.
RaChel remembers Mike's divorc_e from Cargill ~d. Mil.<,e'!i $U~uen~
ma:rriage·ta Sonja. B_as~.d on Rachel's expetien~e5 With So.~j~ ~h¢1 folll)d ~to
be a "trouble--maker:" (E`` 14 • 125 [Aft:. of R.achel Wii$9I1]•) S~J~. was ``~ ~
David and emotionally ah:us«i him. (Id.) Rachel, too, d,es_cribed Sorij~ as·
m.~ppl_~ve~ (Id.)
Wbjle ~l:t~l's t~tiJ:nonY re~g Sonja is relatively li:mited, it tends to be-
c:onSiStent With what otherS could have said aboUt S'ortja--namely that :she co:u,ld be
cruel and manipUlative and had an interest. in getting both her and Mike•s exes out
oftbeir ljves, Mo~v~, ifcou~l bJid recalled Rachel-, they could ~e el{~j~
-an abWidance of niitigating evid~nce from her· in ad(lition to the t~imony ~boQt
126
.. 139
• •
SonJa. 47 ·Considering RaChel's potential t~mony along w.fth tbat of Cin.dy an4.
Doug, tb~jucy wol,l!d ~ve be~ provided whh a rn.u~h more ~WU1~ed p.q~yal of
the alleged assault. Instead, jurors were left ·with ~ ab~o~ wholly ~J:W.l~p.ge<{
a¢cotm.~ of an ~s~ult by Cargill against Sonja. Triai cotlilSel's faih:Ue to challenge
the mcidence cOnstituted d.eficient perl'OIJl:l`` and prejudiced Cargi)l's
ooilstitiltional rights.
3~ Injury to a CJa.(ld Ch•Jle PerQJ.ju_ing to .ZS~h Robinsoa
OVer the- cdme of the ptmlsbment phase of trial, ihe State called. three
wjtp.ess~· to testify abou,t the injury to ~b Rob~on' s f6reh~ that led to the
I,:tjury to a Child charge beln.g flied agafuSt C.a:rgill in Marc.h 2010. It was~
IQ.jury to a Child charge,that later led to LUke Gamet being temo.ved from. Cargill's
care' promnn"
t" ......g the·
.. CPS case to whlch
. ... Waiker
.. . . . was
" subpoe
· naed to testify
.•
Accord!ng to Zach's testimony, the brUise to his forehead O.CCO.rred one morning
before school when Carsfll was- ~mptjftg ~ pm. cQD.~ lens solution in ZS.ch'~
eye. (61 RR. at ll4.) .Zach blinked and flinched as Cargill wa:s· trying w $pply the
$oh.rtiQJi, wliich ~ Car@.~ Zach testified that. Cargill then to.ok the aerosol
can that the· solu~cm was cOntained in a,nd hit. Ucb. in tb.e forebe~ witb •t. Z4ch
stated that she hit Jilin With the bOttom e:dge ofthe.ean.. (14) Zach then identifi~
some pllptos ofthe ~jl¥.)' to his forehead. (Jd. at llS.) On redirectt the S.tate asked
Zac;b ~f be h.`` ever· hean;l Ccumll teU pe~l~ t,h,at the fofel:tead ~j\lry was:the result
ofhitting his head on.a basketball goaL (62 RR at22.) Zach stated that he ~d n~t
.heard that before, but that such a.statement would be a lie. (/d.)
Th.e S.```` also c;alle~ Z``h's fa~er, Matt Robinson, to testify to the injury.
Matt t_estili~ tbat he pi:Cked Z~h up fn;nn sc.b.®.l on a Friday and Za~b a~ed "re.al
47
See Claim Seven_ ante- for further favorable testimony that Rachel could ..
h.ave provi4~d gt:J (:miW$ ``Jf.~
127.
• •
weifd·~·w.ee~nd}' (6.1 RR,at 83.) Prior·to pickiilg.Zath up &om school,. Cargill
had rep$tedly told.MaU no~ tQ c~ Z~.t, '$ ha.ir.. (fd) 1\,fa¢ testi.fjecl `` o.n S~day
of that weekend, he noti'ced a large bruise· ori Zach~s foreh~ which ~ ~
coveted by his Pai.r. (If/. at 84.) Based on lach's explanation fQr the brui~e, ~
decided to take photos far CPS. (ltL at as·.) ~ite not being @1~ to ~ ~9
what Z&:ch's ~l~t;.on. ~ly was for the injury, Matt later identified a photo of
the .aercs·ot can. (Id at 86.) Matt stated that ~r he dropp~ off.Zad.t a~ sch9ol ~n
Monday, he went to the. Sheriff"s depattment tO tep:ort ..Zach'.s injuzy•. (ld at 88-89.)
CargUI \vas~ • ~ (jd ~ 89.)
Finally, the S.tate calle·d Zath's fO:Urth grade English ~cher, Jo~ llQO``.
Jo~ ~ti.fied ·that she saw a brUise· about the size of a golf ball on Zacli's
forehead dUring the. spring semester of 201.0. (59 RR. `` 26, 3'1.) She te#i.fied tba~
it was very noticeable. (id. at 32.) When she asked Zach What it was. .from, he
gave her a stotydtat.she.fc;.iu.nd r.'yery unli.kely, ~osh"~dicwo~." (/d. at.26.)
Despite the repeated testimo~y regarding Zach;s i~jury, counsel did little tQ
~bUt tbe iSs~. ll.le o(ily attempt by trlaJ counsel ·wa:s during the eross--
examination of.Johila Booker when co.wulel nl(de the P<>int that Jo~ cc;>uld J;to~ be
sure that the· brul'se wa:s net a football injo.ry. (5:9 RR at 33.) Post-conviction
'inve:Sti~on bQ uncoverecl ~- invesu~tive report ~ provided an alternative
eXpl``tion f()r Za(:h's h)jury CIDd an a¢4itio~l wi``s wh9 coulrn CargiWs· alxt_se; C~gil_l ~ult~d an
unsUspeCting Sonja.West for no apparentteason·; and ·lath Robinson'sinjury tO his
fc>teh~d·was a cle.ar-cut case ofchnd ab~. As ~v~der:tced. by tl'l~ St;ate'-s 4ec_i~lOJ1
131
144
• •
~o ~O.t:l~:t;``ly ~ ~ th~ ~gg~:ayatjng t<>pics; t.bey were vit;a.l ~jury'~ verdict•.
PoSt-cori:Vietiol) in"ve8ti$1tltion 4l:lcov~d· five Witi)esses and one report. that could
have been U8ed to either lmpeach or rebUt the aggravating topics and the witnesses
supporQ:~g tb~. fie: witile$Ses could have revealed that Mfke and Sonja West
w~ ~dly th~ ·!PJ;J·oc~t 1111~ ered:i~le Wi~e~ `` they :were m.~de out to be a~
tri.al. However; be``e I)Othmg was ~n~ ~0 reCti~ th~:~lr testi.mo.n.y, tl;le Jury
had no·reason ~ questicm tbeircredibilitY.
With :re~ ~ the l,J;iju:ry· to Iii Child ~e, co~l @.s.s.ed a ptiine
opp~_ty 19 ~ clo.~ 01.1 w~ was cl~y tb~ catalYSt ~ the State's ptef~rted
narrative a~ t,rial. l:4d cotinsel ~ed the Danny OJ'ee.n Repo.rt tp i~.b. Zach ~4
jn`` the alt``~ive accoun~ of l;iis il;ljury, ``jury wouJd ~pre • like)y
)
ques.Qoped Z_acb~$ story.. The altemafive a~oUAt w~ ·off~ by OIJ.e ·Qf Z,ach's
goOd friegds (t¢11 ~ :t;``~r®od ~o cl~ to ~ly Wj`` tb~ i~jury
f:taw.pening during a basketball ~e. The eVidence Iiiay have been even more
compellfug consid~ring ~ Zach was Je case in favor of a
sen:tence ather· th.~ de.~;;"); Gujc;ieline IO~ll(A) ($``ing· th~t counsel has a
co:ntin~ d~ tc) D.tv``~ in,fo~tion. that rebtns the State's anticlp~ed ~ jn
~WVBY~dM). ~ d\ID' ~o. rebut evidence presented in aggravation ·includes the
investfgatiQn of all so~ ofiinpe;!```` ofpros«Utjon wltne$~·
Forrest Gamer; an ex·l;~sb~d of ~.1, te8Qfied to a lttany of incldentS
wbere b~ alleg~ ~vatil;lg be.lw.viw Ql:l ~ p~ of CargiJ}. These allegations
went tmche:tked dUring cross-examinadort by d.efense counsel and ~bmtal
evidence to ~M.llenge Gamer's assertions was virtu:aily nonooexlsteilt. (See Cbilin
Eight, ante.) Despite- the fact that Gainer· pled guilty to two coun\5 of
misdemeanor assault Wlth family Violence against Cargill in 2007, he was
permitted to testliy that bis tQnViction,s were va~ed in 2011 ``e h~ was
actually the victim and not the a:ggte"ssor fu the incidents that gave ri~ to his
original convictions. However, the true cJJ't\llD,s:tances by whl~h. G$.et's
convi~ons w~ ``~ were ~« ~ljcjtJy IJlade c~ear t9 the jury. Th~ l`` of
dis.tlosure of this mfotmatlQn ma4e it impos~bl~ for ~e Jury to fully ~d
effectiveiy assess Gamer~s credibility. Beca\lse triai counsel was aware of the
citeuinst,aitces ·smro\mdin$ both G.am¢r~s co~v~ctiotl$· an'd Si1b~q``I)~· post--
convic~iOI1 diSin~ssal, yet did n.r_irit:lg ~e.~ed ~ ~Ii'l~ll~ had set
his ap•e.n.t .on fire..49 (63 RR `` 8.3"8.5:~) Mo~v~; Q`` ``.i.fi.~ (o an
oc~oil wh#e Ca:tgiU a)Ieged,ly bec·ame irrationally angey over a bag of chips ~
. ~4 ~n opeJ;l~ ~"' ro~ lti.JD in tb~ ~ tmd ~b,e~ SlJ..d pbysicalJy ``ulte4
Garner'·s young SOil Tuck~. (63 RR ~ 95.) G:amer· <;laimec;l Cqill falsely
acc~d him of ·bteaklng her jaw during· the aJ.terc~OI):• followi:ng t4e incident,
tn.m~· c)$.hn.e4 Catgill tried to help b.i_s el'. .wi.f~ ge~ ~ll.$toQ)' Qf Tucker by ~e~·
Garner bad a drug problelll, but then ·backed down when he proliiised not to press·
charges agailist her for the assault on TUCker. (63 AA at.·~7-99.)
Oa.r:t:ter ~er i~ifi~d ``-t ·h_is. relr~#onsb.ip with Cargill tm.d.ed after she hit
Tucker;· ca.rglu refused to relinquish hi$ b~longin~ ail~· he moved OU~· c~u
49
Garner provided unsubstantiated, speculativ.e, and yet: 'inflammatory
4eta.il.s `` why be tb9ught Cqi}J w~ th.e or:te who set the (~, i_l',lcluc;ll.J;Ig the
fa¢~ tha,t a fr.ained photogr~ph of' hi.m and tiis .son and .nephews was placed in the
comer of a be4room andhad no soot underneath it. This led him to believe
~llleo.n.e delibera~ly m~vedthe photo prior to ~e the. (63 RR at 89,-90.)
134
147
• •
verbaliy as5a~lted l:iim; Cargill ~c~ G~er's S;paru;nent d99r il); Ca;rgil_l to•d
``r ~e WaJ1fed to have her ex•boyftlend Matt Robinson killed; Cargill USed
Garner's credit BJ)d' ~·cards withou~·a\Mori~on; Cargill tiled ~u~t ~l$.ges
~ainst G.aro~ f9r a.Q. indde.nt `` oceur:red ~onths prior to n~r contacting the
pnlice Simply bec.a~ he would.. n:«. reWm h~ c.~l.$;· c~u $,few ``i;r i``~ son
J.,``~ aroun~ m. )iis c~ sea~ ~atrie.r; C~i.ll threw )lo~ cQffee on G~er; <;::.argill
aliEmt.tted O:am~ from his ~other; Ca,rg1l:l threatened to burn Garner's mother and
son in their h~me; and C~gi)l .secretly m:ade herself a {cey to Garner's· apart;rftem.
{63 RR at 102-'19.)
Garner ~ned thtn every time h~ c~ed me po,lice to file a report
regartfing cargill's behavior nothing was do·ne because of hls prior`` for
as~lting her~ (63 RR ~ 1)3•14,) ·The cro$S!"~jnaQ.on of"Gamet by defense
counsel focused on Gamer·'s .subStance abuse issu:es and h~Qty of t,reatment ~4
the fact.that.he,continued to. cail and text Cargill with relative frequency .despite the
bad ac:ts·he alleged were c.~tted agaix:V¢him.30 (63.R,Ra~ l35.-48.)
on re--direct examination Gamer teStified that he believed Cargill was bi-
pol.ar ~11$! her mood c.~e4 lll<,e "·flippi.r.lg ·a sWitc.h;" he l)ever knew Cargill to
have m1y sigruficant medical issues; Cargill violated a custody agJ;Cement by
picl9oo I,.Uke up ~ d~e~te in MJ,y 20 I o·; G~- fe_.ed reta.l.i``o.n trom Ca:rgi.U
With tegatd to hls agreement to let Cargill's mother take temporary ctistody of
Luke; Cargill fax~ his· atrest ~.rts to J:tj$ employer; $t:ld h~ w~ not aware Cargill
re``d bit:n to CPS for ''abaodoru:nen~" (63 RR at 148-60..) On re-crQ$.s
ex~nation Gamer testjfj._ed th.!il~ be ~· n..`` sure i.f t;l:l.e p~l.i~e offlce_t who
.50 Tri~ cotmsel cJj4 QOt a.uth:~ticau.: t;be re<:OI$ re6.~Jtg the text messages
betWeen Catgil1 a:nd Garnet and were prohibl.ted from introducing them as
evide!J.~e. Trial colli)Sel was limi~ to asking Garner only if he remem~
m:akin.g or recel.ving the relevam wx~ me~c;.s. (63 RR a~ l3S.-39, 14·3~)
135
" 148··· ... ..
• •
respOnded to one of the domestic violence calls between himself and Cargill
accused 1Wn Qfinj~ ~1{.· (63 RR `` 161..,63.)
B. Trial Counsel Failed to Imp.eadl Garner with Information RegardiiJ.g
How IUs· Crimina) Convidio_ns for ~.ault Were V``-ted
~g ~ e``inatio:Q.; .Gatn~r testified that be was never tl:ie ~r
in altercations With Cargill, but only did things t.o her in ord~ to c;fefen.d blmself
(63 RR a~ 71.) He claimed that back in 2007, Cargill "filed o® felony an~ two
misdemeanor:s of (~ily ~.sault vipl``~ agsn_nst him and h~ and his family spent
ovet-:$27,000 defendirig.the cases. Oa:rner testified it was upsetting to him tp ~ch
~is e:lqerly p•~nl! Iw.v~ to gp back to work in order to help him fiiiailcially. (63
RR at 77·13.) Gamer·teltified that he ultimately entered a plea agre:ement tQ baye
aii ofth,e cases"dlsp~--;, (63 RR at 78.)
District Auorney Bin~ gkec) ~er w`` the ple.a agreemen~ he en~d
· int_o w~ claiming "I don't know"--1 don't know·who handled the case._.,sl ~
s.ai4 th~ dw W$~ that if" he ~led guilty to two misdemeanors the felony would ~­
dtop.ped and he would be sentenced to two yems of probation. '(63 RR at 78_.)
Gamer claimed that his attorney Bobby Mlms wanted lilin to go ~ trial but he did
not becau:se he was ~:us`` financi~lly; ~ scared for Qte s~fety of himselfan4
hjs kids·; m:td ~ fe_IQ~Y c<>_nvic_tioJ.:t woul4jeop:ard`` bis ~bi_lity to. ·S\lppo"- b_i_$ 1948..
Gamet was ultimately conVicted of assault family violence in ·2001 and sentenced
to two fe·ars o_f pro~on anc;l cq!Ji_lli4nif:Y .service-. DA Binghairt told the jury, "I
didn't handle· those cases" and said he never talked to Gamer before ~ c;f_ay of
Gatner's.teStill)oriyat Catgiil's· trial.. (63 RR at 79-80.)
1
' Even if District Attorney Bingham did not in fact handle Gamer's guilty
pleas bac}t in 2'007, l_ti$ ~ertion. tbaJ he did ppt know wh9 bandle4 the c.~
sugg~d to the jtey th$ he ~so h~d nothing al a_ll to do wim the ~onVi~tior;a_s
be-ing va~a~ed i,p 2911, whic.h WS:s dtsingen~ous at best MJ"; Bingham himseiffiied
Gamer's writ of habeas carplls~. (See, Ex. 28 (Jomt.Applic·ation].)
136
149
• •
Mr. Bingham further proVided that in AUgUst 2011 "one of his assiStants
went dpwn" wit,ti M,r. Mli;P,S @,Ild had tl;Le ~ult conviction removed from CJ&n)~'s·
· record.. Gainer testified he ne·e.ded the conViction removed b«a~ b~ cou_l4 n.o~
g~t. ~tobi:s respiratory th¢rapy school program With an assault conviction r Wri~ of tl_~as Co.rpl,IS See~ ~ljc;f w~ 6led in
the 7tr. Judicial District in Sniith County. It was signed by· District AttOrney
Bingham and Gamet's .attorney.. (See- Ex. is [Joint Application].) the application
asserted the· sam~ ~tionale that Gamer testified to at Cargill's trial-that he_ was in
fact th.e victim, nQt th~ aggr~·ssor; ~ pled gu_ilty t() the assaun ch`` be~:Q$e he
w~ in fear of C~glu. (/d. ) there was no support for these· allegations fn the
application 'itself~ other than the a.SSertion by G.amer of un·s:ubstantiated bad acts
cqmriiitted by~gill in the years prior to.and after his gtillty pleas. (id.)
137
150
•• •
The very nex:t day, August 19, 20U, a hearlng was held. in front of Oistrict
CoUrt .Judge Kerry Russell. Jq_dge R,~U w~ imm¢
reasons did not present evidence of the strange proceeding and unique restJlt,. The
JllrY shoUld have been provided with the infOnna.tion ~- it is exceedihgly rate for
th~ Di_sm``- A#omey's Office (and unb~ard of in Judge R~ll~s court) t9
in``e beh;;lif of ~ i"divi.d~ wh~ pled gwlcy and SlJccessfully completed
Ql)
probation .several years before seeking to vacate their c·onviction. There was po
newly discoVered evidence preser:1ted. aijd no re-opening of the invest.igati_on
r~santing me !.:U)Qerj_yips ``-`` wim f~.i.ly viol~ce ``,S.•
. Gamer's testilnoily was integral to the State's presentation at pu,nisl:un~r1t; as
he: tesnfied to the· ir_ttense an<,i p~rvasive 11``- of C~gtll' s aJleg~ ~tra~ic ~d
violent ~vior~ IP.$t¢.ad of ~haJ:a*riZing th~ rel~OilShip for \Vha~ it truly W.Cl$-a
vol~tiie and dys.functi()D_~ m~.age WTQUgh~· with m~tual physical and emotional
139
152
• •
abuse, Gamer wu portrayed as an unsusj>ecting vi~m of Ca.rsill '·s ~e ~4
jn,stabilil:)'. If tri.~ ~()1;111Sel ~:ad h:n~h~d Ga:rP~ wi$ `` Ml de~ls of ~ow his
conYictiQns were ultima~e,ly v~t~d 'il ~ m(Jre l,ikely t,h,an J.1()t tha,t tb.e jury would
have c:llscre4he4 the reroa,ipJimenezt 364 S.W.3d at 88·3.. To establish deficiency~
Cargill must ·show tha:t. her cowis'el•s repr~en.``on fell below an objective
standard of re·asonableness. Strickland, 466 U$. at 688. 'The ~-~lenes.s of
coW~sc=l' s p~o~ce- is· ~easured by the prevailing professional norms at the
tirne of trial as ~fleet~ in tbe American B.tJr Assod~,rt~0n standards and the lfke.
14 To es~bU.~.h prej~dice, Cargill ``t ~ww ~ ··``le propab.i~ity .tha.t, but
for coun.sel's unprofe$sj'onal errors, me ~.lt of the pi'()Ceeding would have b~
different.;' /d. at694; thompson, 9 S-.W.3d at 812.
141
154
• •
Trial coWisel has a. dUty to object to inadmiSsible ·eVidence or im~r
atgilm.ent at1d ~t.abUsb :3 re'!ord r~flectlng ~dverse· rulings by the cOUJ't See All.A.
GUidelines, GUideline 10.8, cmt. ("One e>f the most fimc:lamen~ dmi~ qf ·~
aJ:.torn.ey 4ef~g ~ capi~ case at trial is the p~ation pf any and: ~U
conceivable errors for· ea-ch stage of appellat~ and p:ost-convictlo~ reyi~ • • •"');
ABA Standards fot. Criminal Justice~ ~feme FunctJqn,. ~7.1 (d) ("defens:e co~J
~ • dUty to ~ve tbe ·reeord reflect adverse rulingS"}. In order to estabiish thai
counsel was ineffeCtive for fa.ililt'g ta object, Cargill mlist show that the tria.l j~cl,ge
wowc;i lu,.v.e c·oninlitted error had the objection been ma.de and overruled.
Mr.irliilez, 330 S'.W.3d at 901.
Hearsay teStimony is not only i.tiadmi'ssible uader Texas Rul~ of EVidence
80~ b"!J.J ~ v.iQ@te$ C~'s rights und-er the Confrantation Cla~se of the SiXth
Amendment 'The Confrontation Clause guarantees crimin.al c;iefen~:ts '-~e right .
... • to be confronted. With the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI. In
Crawford v. Wc4h:ingtcm, the. Su:preme C.o1,Irt belc:J tb~t o~-,of'"'C9urt, testimoriial
statemeiltS. are 'inadmissible Un.der the COnfrontatiOI;l Clause unleS:S the wi~ is
u~v~labl_e ~fhis o~ I:Jl.O~er. (Itt a~ 93:.94. )
.Za~b's .tl~ n~ ``- ~elJ, whi)e ~t ve`` ~ression$,.cl'early ~ify
as '·'nonverbal conduct of·a per8on .•. ·intended by the person as a .subStitUte for
verb~lexp.-ession/' See. r.e,(. R. ·Evid·. 801(a)(2).. Had trla1 counsel objected to
Lowe's statements either on hearsay or Confrontation c·la~ .gr()Unds, tl;le ttW ·
coutt ·woUld have erred in ovenuHng the objection. Thus, trlal counsel's failure to
o~jec~ conS``~ d~fh:if:i:l~ ~orm~ce. See Martinez, 33.0 S.W"3d at 90L
C:. Cargill was Prejud.iced by Trial Counsel's Fallu.r'' to Obj¢d to ~be
Hearsay Stat~ments · ·
Trial couns:el's failure to object to the hearsay statementS offered by LQwe
prejuc:ijc~ Cargill's cons:timtional ri$lJts. Lowe still would have be¢n able to
t_estify t.o the more geJ'lc::ral ~:vat4tg i~su.e.s sucn ~ ~ lde.n.tJ~ thej\ an4 seeing
bruises on Jamie when lie. was a child. However,_ the. mote specific stones
regarding· Carii'Il' $ ~Hege.d al;)U.se of ~u.ke an,d ``b were f~ t:n.9re 4.~-~iJ.lg ~
145.
158
• •
Catgiil·'s case. Lowe's aceo\int of Luke saying that he believed Cargill wo:uld hurt.
hUn be:ca'U$e hebroke a thermoll)~t~pa,i,l)~ed $.vivid !m``ofC~U as someone
who would .abilse her children for .seemingly 'insignificant a`` The impac;:t of
Lowe'·s t~ony was ampfified by Lowe's repeating, ''My mama is goingw kill
m:e."
Moreover, i.owe·;s hearsay testimony regarding Zach .successfully p·ainteci
him as· a roeek and helpless ·subject of C.m:glil'·s ·~.gry S!)d ®usive ten4eficies.
Trial coi.msel was give multiple opportUnities to prevelit the jury frOm hemi.ng
LQwe'$ ``~of Z~h, paJ,e and~<* on her couch, telling Lowe that he was
afraid to go home with his own. rp.o~¢r~ By.simply objecting w Lowe's h~y
a.ccOUfits,counsei could have relegated her testimony to general obserVations that
she JlUUie over the )'eats·~ She knew Cargill. I~ ~ S~ was allowed to
present oompefling aggravating evidence without ch:a.ilenge from the def~.
C~i's (~we. tO cha.llel';lge th~ State's presentation in these areas constituted
meffective assis.talic:e· and p~jtidic.ed Ca1gj.U's right$ und~ the sta,te a:n4 fedC:r$.1.
ConstitUtions~ state statUtOry law, and United. States Supreme CoUrt. a:nd state case
l~w. Fcir the:$e ~011$, Cargill's Ser$mpe should be ~v``
CLAiM ELEvEN
CARGILL'S DEATii SE.NTENcE WAS AR.B:trAIULY AND ·
CA.P~IO.OUSJ.,Y ASS~GNE.P ``S~:O ON TilE JURY·,s· ANSWE:R TO ~
UNCONSTrlti'I'IONALL'Y VAGuE FIRST SPECIAL iSSUE
Texas employs a unique sent~cing scheme whi~ requires t,he ju.cy ~
pre4i~t "'wheth~· th~ is ·~ pro~bility that the defendant would commit criJ:nii;J.al
act.s of vi~I~ce m~t would c``Me ~continuing th~t to society/' Tex:. Cpde·
146
159
• •
Crim. Proc_, M 37.071 § 2(b)(l).53 rh~ .Ameri~ Bar·As,sod_atio~ \-'ABA") has
long recognized the probl~ms with this ~ special ~SSI,l~. See Qarej'oot ~· ~telle,
463 U$. 880, 930 (i98.3) (Bla~k:¢~ -1.,., Q.i$.sei)fJng) (ci#l:lg the ABA amieus bdef
f~r the dai.ro .tblJ.t j~ are t)oi w~JJ.,sW.ted to pred,ict tP.e· probability of a defendant
committing cril_nin:al acts of viol~ce .io the fim.u"e). Most ~ntly, dle ABA
rel~ The "Texas Capital.~sl)m`` ~-8$.$~1)! Rq10rt whi~h called on Tex~
to "abandon. altogether·the .u~ of the·~ :t1mn"e c:lang~e_$s' $Peci~ i_ssye'~ -~ i~ and
oth~ ~pectS of the Texas sentencing scheme "place liinitS on a juror's ·ability to
giVe fuil consid~J"Stion tO any evid,~ce that ~ght ~rve as a basis for a sentence-
less than death.;~ ABA Death Penalty Due Process Review Proj~ EvaJ71!1#ng-
Fai'nt$$ an4 Accuracy in Stat~ Death Pe1JQ/ty Systems~· 'Tb!!· T~ Q:zpital
P'iii:tUhment .Assessment Report, at viii, ~ (S.ep~be.r· 201.3) (!-.CAlJA Te~-~:
Ass~s8ment Repc:nf').
Among d)e ABA's con~rns· wi~ tbe T`` SCQ$e is that the key tetlns of
the fitst special issue are liildefihed. See. ABA Texa$ As~.smei.lt Report ~ 30$.
Ad41tionai.Iy, the ABA notes that jUries ~list una.njmous.ly ('mc;l ,a probability tll`` a
defendant will corrunit fu~ ..a~ of" Viol~c~ befQre ~hjns the 'N~$.tj9_n of
mitigation, thu_s placing the first ~ial is§li~ "at the ~ter of the jm'y' s
punislunent decision." ABA Texas ~ssmentR~rt `` 307.
The ooncerns raised by the ABA are con.si``t wi~ viola~ions of Cargill's
Eighth and Fo.tirteenth Amendment rights a:s articulated in Supreme Cowt doctti~.
The first spe:cial issu:e ·is iinc:Onstitu:tlanally vagtie, fails to narrow the class of
d~dl-eligible defend.an:ts, le:&d$ tC) th~ a;rbi~ l!ll" c"'priciol,IS imposition of the
~3 If jurors answer this qliestl'on, referred to as Sp@ia1 I~su.e On:e, with a
·~ves," jurors are as~ed to answer anQt4er SpecW ``\le . •ft;l)_~ j~rors ~wer "No;'
to this. question, the defendant is automatically seiiteiiced tO a term of Hfe wi_thout
tbe po_ssi)lility o.fp·arole.
147
160
• •
dea~ ``' and llmjtS th~ jmy'·s ~bUicy to fPVe W:ll. con,slderation to evidence
that ~Y .serve as a. basis for a. senten@ less than death. .As su.c11, Cargill''$ d.e.a1h
sentence· was unlawfully and _un¢onmrutiona.lly im~ in Violatic;n o.f b~
appll~able· sta`` &J~d fedeJ"al Co``«m.al righ~· and lJni`` St#es S``e Co~
and state case ·Iaw., and must therefore be reversed.
A,.. fi.e Fint SJ"-C_i-.1 .b&Jie is Uuoonst;i_tutionally' Vague aud Fails to Narrow
the Cl.aa. of``.,;Ell~i"~le n·eteadaats
Article 37.071, S¢tion 2(b)(l) ofthe T~as Co4.e ofC~i~ Proced~ is
uncon~ttiY.Oilally vague i~ ~ itfai.l:S tO defi.ne any Qf the key t`` ~ the. first
sp~j~ i.ss``• .Nl. ~ re!;l~}~ ~'U]l!f.Or:s ~ le(t to comprehend [these, terms] so broadly
~a deatb sem.~ee \YOW.d be Q.e`` ~ ~ ~ly every c~i1;al mW'dei'
c~e." ABATe~ ~sm`` Rq:,ort ~ -vi.~i.
The Supreme CQU;rt h:liS long held th$ j11ror 4i``on, m~t be ``lecl iJ)
capjta) c.~s. Gregg v. GerJtgia, 4:28· tJ.s·. L53, i89 (1976) (cit.fug FU17!lfUI v.
Geq~, 4:08 v~s. 2:38 (1972) (per CuP~) (~·When, dis~re~ion Is a(fotded a
sen.tencing bo.dy on a~-~. grave·~ the detet;m``on ofwh~1ber ·a`` iife
should be taken ot spared, that discretion must be sUitably diretted and limited so
as tQ mi.n.unJze-:-tb~ ri_s~ «,>f"wholly ~i~ ~d c~prlcious action~,.'). In Godfrey v.
Georgia, the Court heid ·that a .state's aggravating fa:ct6rs must not be d~tm,ed in
such. a way ~ people of otdina:i_y sensibilities couid find that. nearly every murder
m~t tl).e stated criteria" 446 U.S. 420; 428:.29 ( 1980). In ord~r t9 E,iv~id tb~
arbit11:uy ~d capriciol.J.S· iplposjtion of t4~ Q.eath pep~.Jty ·s1;ruc~ down ~ Ftff111an,
states· must narrow the class of death'-el1gfble defen:dant.s "by providlng speci.fic
and detaHed gUidance to the sentencer:" McCieskey v. Kemp, 48i U.S. 279, 303
( 1981} (internal citations and quotation Qmitted); see al$() Mf;l)H!.a.rd v. Cartwrigh_t,
486 U.$. 35(;, 36,4 (l988) ("Since Furf1.Ul.n, our
\ . c.~
. have i'ris.isted th,at- the
.. ' .
channeling and limiting of the senten:cer' $ d'scretio.n in iJnpQsing th'e· d¢ath perl.:;Lity
X48
161
• •
i.$ .a ```` cm,.sti~oll!:ll req~,nt for suf:licient)y miiiimi:zlng the· risk of
wholiy atbi~ and c:.apiicio$ ~on/').
While the first. speer~ issue is not·p~ed to thejmy unu1 th_e Plmi.``t
phas¢ of r,ial, :it ll)Ust be found beyond a te$3Qnable douht before· (D.itig~mg
eVidence may be c:onSidered.. Tex. Code· Crlln. Proc. Art~ 37.~071 § 2(bKe).
Accorc(ingly, "It. acts as a de facto determin.aJ:lt of death-ellgibiiity an,d therefore
must mea:nlngfu.ily ria'rrow th.e clas$ of death-eUS,ible defendants..
Tex.as does not stamWri\y detme the key terms in ·the first special i~e.
Ratiber, the t~ItD.S ·~ left to be, int~:rpreted ~ng tp their ordinaey i;il``i~g~
s~ Druery v. State, 22:5 S.W.Jd 491, 509 (T`` Crim. App~ 2"()'07). Absenl a
$1:atlltory d.~tu,.~tiQr.l t9 1;h._e cont,raryt Ute ter:t:n· ''j)rob``li.ty" i,s ~naQ~Y understood
to r.nean somt=· '·'lilcelih.ood of th~ oc®Jro)Ce Qf ~Y l'W`` fcmt:l of~ event;'
Grqnvi!!/ .,, St.D!e, 552. S.W.2d i07, 111 ~ 6 (T~ Ctjm. App. 1976); see also
Jurekv. Stqi{J; -522 S..W.2d 934,945 (Tex.• Cnm. App. 1975) (Odom, J., dissenting)
ajfd sub -,pm. Jurek v. r~,428 tJ.S. 262 (1976) (~e Stante does nqt.reqliire~ .
partic:Ula:r degree. of probabilitY hut oidy directs that 5ome probability need b.e
fotii14..").
Neith.et is the degree of violence specified. "Criminal acts of violence"
could re·asonably range· from capital murder all the way doWil to simple assault.
See CJ:ujstopher Slobo&i.~ 1 Cq.pital Punishment and Dangerousness, in MENTAL
DIS.ORDER AND CRiMINAL L.AW: RE$PO~SIBILITY AN.D COMPrrr£NCE 119, 121, 12:5
(Robert F .. Schopp et al. eds"7 2009) (questioning what qualifies as "dangerousness"
and ''~inal acts of violence"). Thjs prayed t9 be proplem:at1c for CarSiil '$
ju,ors. Duri.ng the~ plll1ishmei1~ ph~e deli:heratio:r:tS. th~ f~ se.r.~ Q\lt ~rote
s~at:ing, "W~· have a disagreement on what Criminal ,violence cQnst.itut:eS. A few
jl,rror want this c,iefined~" (5 CR 978.) Th~ note requ~ examples in ~djtion to
a definition. Despite the jurors' apparent confusion over what, in fa.c~ the first
14.9
162
• •
sp:e:cial lssu~ was asking of th_em, th~ CQw.t s.imply ~f~4 t,h¢rn back to the
CoiJrt's ``~ ~d ~cted them to contin~· dellb'et$on:t (()9· RR ~t US.)
Esseiltiaiiy, Cargill's jury was asked to determine whether there. is any likelihQQd
that CBfSiU ~igh~ ~ml~ a.iiy ~.ofviole(l~ in the·tuture·~t poses a comiij.umg
threat to so.ciety. P~chiatris.ts, however, are ~le to completely I'1,1le ~ the
possfbll1ty of ~:~ny person collllliitting futUre acts of violence; much less a person
m. was jUst. canvlcted of· a Violent ctime.. ~ M.i~ha;el L. Ra,d.elet & Jam~ W.
Marq~. Asseasing Nondangerolisnw Durttag Penalty' Phmuis ofCapital ·Trials,
54 AI.B,. L.. REv. 84,, 849 (1989-1990) ("'l"redic:tion;s Qf Violen~ behavipr are
difficUlt because the pro
· · babilities
. . in the prediction
considered .. are
' conditional.
... ,, '. . ...
~ iS; e~ of Wi; giv@.. c~ circumstances_~ might engage In violent he~viQt
·m the futUre; thus, each ofu.s has a.non-zero probability ofkiUin.g ~other."). E.V~
when predictions are· based on actuarial data, which are now CQnsideted to be
slisbtly m()re ~<=:c:tu"a~ U'J..~ clui.i~ ~:tions, ~ defep~t's ~ of
comnii:tt.h.:l$ a:cts of' criitliillil violen"9e iS phrased in tern'ls Qf non-zero
~e
probabiliti~. See, e.g., L~ura S. Gtiy, et at, Aisessing /lisle of V'wlence Using
S~ctured Profe~siQnal JudgmeJZt Guidelines, 1.• FOREN:SIC PsYCHQL•. PR,Ac~-. May
2012, at 2~2 ("lMental Health ProfesSionals] ate encouraged to communicate level
of risk using cra~egori~ level_s of low, rno®,J11,te, ~d high.'').
Th:C f~.t ~ every ``~ ~ ~ g91:1~:;r;~ FQ~:biJ.ity of comll').i~jn~ ``
acts of viole·nce shows tlt'at th¢· fnt.speci~ ``e {ails to ~w the class of de:ath-
efigih1e- defendants. Moreover., the fact that any capital defendant is found iiDt to
be a, futu;re ~ge, Is· evi~ce ~.the 4``on i.s based on c~pri·ce ~'th~·than
reason.. In Cargill's case, the fa:ct that this dubious determiilation had to be mad~
b~yon4 ·~ r``o~ble 4.o~bt before t,he ·jW)' was .p;re$``t~ witb, ``- ``ti~tion.
special issue llmited the Jury's. -ability to give full consideration to eVidence that
might serve as. a b~l.s for-~ se,ntence less than cleatb. See tennard v. iJretke, 542
150
163
• •
U.S. 274, 278 ("I~ 'is· not; ``gb ~roply to 11llow ~e 4efe~d~t. to present
Illitigating evidence to the sen~ncei. the serttencer mQ;S.t also be able tO c:oMder
and _give; effeCt to that evidence in imposUig the sentence.").
As a result, C.argil1~s d~ sentence w~ \ln]Q;wfull)' ~d unconsti~tional)y
in1.p0Sed in viol_ation of her applicable state and federal Constitutional. rightS, and
therefore·m~ be revet:Sed.
CLAIM 'lWEi.VE
CARGILL'S RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH, EliG:iiTB, .ANJ)
FOURTEENTH .MIENDMtNTS TO THE UNlTEJ) STATI;_S
Cc)NS1JTtrtiON WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT WAs
PROHIBITED FROM INSTRU~G THE JURY TIJAT A. ·voTE BY
ONE·JVROR WOVIJ) ~SUL.T IN .A LIFt S~NCE
Diitlng the pWiisrunetit phase deHberatlons of catg~Il's trial, the jmy
foreman
. . .. sent
. out. a. QO.
··· te ihdlcati
. .... ' .. 118 . ... the
· that. · --. was
. J~ . ui:l@le · ee on
. .. ' to ~- ' first
. 1he '. ,.
s~ iSsue and.fuqliiring-as to what thejury's options were at that pc)fut. the_
Court responded, consi'stent with the texas "10•12 Rule/i that th~ j'Uiy s.Aolitcj
contin1,le to delibera~. AfWr further deli~on.s-, the jury u,l~hn~ly se.n.t~.:ec;l
Cargill to d~.
Und~ Texas law-; up to thre.e spec_ial i_ssues ~ subn)i~ t9 the jury d~
t_b.~ ser,teg¢i.:ng p~e of a C$pi~al ``-~=' (l) :whetb~r mere is a prol).ability tb;at the
defendant co:nsti.tutes a contiiluing threat to soeiety' [hetelnafter ..first..s~_ial
iS.S~,l; (~) wh:e,ti:J.~ ~e· ~fejidai_lt actually c~us~, in``d.e4, or· at:ttj~ip~ $e
d~ of the d'*~c;l (h~i.na.6er· ''p~ ~n,tpl_icity· speci_al jS$u~'-~]; 0) ~d
whether, cc;nslcteriftg all the: ev1dence, there: are sufficient mitigatln-g Circ.ums:tanCes
tO wmtaiit.a sentence of iife· imprisonment Without paroie (hereinafter- "mi~gating
CircumStances sp«i~ iSsl.J,e"l. Tex. Cod_e Crlm. Proc. art. 31•.071, § 2(b)(l)-(i)~
(e)( 1). The court mUst seilte,nce ·a defet:t`` to deatl:t if th~ Jury ``t_rul~ly
~swers "Yes~ to thf Ute
consequenc_es should 'lt tail to ll(lSwer ~ spec.ia.l l~u,e·: ·'111e court, the attorney
~ting the stat~, the ®,f`` Qt tb~ ·4efeJtdAA~'s co~· `` not mform a
juror or a prosp«.tive j~r o( the effect of ~ ~qre of ~ j~. to agree an [the
spe~i.~.l] j``-·-~ T~i CQ486 U.S. 361 (198:8), and
McKoy v. North CflJ"'lina, 494 U.S ..433 (I990H~d for tbe proposition that a
capital s¢rit:encmg scbe,m¢ ~9t ~dli.ly bu:rc:ten a sentencer before he finds the
presence Qf~•ni.~tig~g ``~e..
In Mills.. the Court c.onsidered a capiW. se_nt``i,ng scheme that reqUired
juror:s to ~m_ously ~e· oo. initigating faetOts. The Matyiand sCheme
consiste:d C)f ~ verd.lct fQJ11:1 i~ three s~cdons: In Section ., the jury was asked
Wh¢dter 1~ foliild WJ.afiin'lo'u$1y _on~ ox: .i,nOre aggravating factorS (out of' ten
````ng (Q..c:tors li.``4), Mi.l~, 486 u._s. ~t 385;..86~ In Section Ii. the jury ·was
asked. Whether it found tlna.Iliin,ously- Qne or D;Jore ~_tigatin:g factors~. id. at 386-8.8;·
i,n S~o.Q I:Q, ~e jl,U)' was asked _ to balan9e the aggravating factor(s) it folDld
against the niitigatiilg fac.itor(s) it fo1,lllcJ, i4 a~ 388-89. . To`` w Seetion II,
the jt.try bad ~ fil.t4 ~9~ly one or more .aggravating it no~ a life
faetpts;
s~m1~ce wauJ4 result. Jd- at 386.-88. To proceed to Section nt upon completing
Se·ctiOI1 ij, the j\IJ')' b.`` t9 t.U!d ~jrnol.lsly on.e or more mitigating (actors; if I)Ot,
ad~ ``~e woul.c;l ~$l)_lt l(i. a~ 389. Because-a reasonable juror e.owd have
in`` fbej``ti()n Md ac;comp~ying verdict fonn as requiring una:nimous
_agreement respecting each mitigating circumstartce9 the M#ls Court'·adjudged this
s:cheme unc~nstit"Utioruil.. 14 at 184 (~Under our cases, t.b.~ seJ;l``cer· m:ust be
permi¢.00 t_o consider ~IJ m:#iga~g evidence. the possi~llity that a singl~ juror
cc;ruld block ~ch con~i<,i~tjQn,, an~ col)~\,l``y r~q~jre the j~ to impose the
death penalty, is one w~ ~_l;lo~ ri.s~''). lncieed, the Maryland scheme bore the
ad.d.ition~l ri$lc. th~t, .even i.f all twelve jWQrs· ~lieved some mi~ipt_ipg <;ircums``e
15.4
167
•• •
~xiSt~, the jury would be prev.eu~d from ~g ~tfeci tQ &l')Y $``11 circl,Ims~.ce
llP.l``s tl1c:y Ulia.Iiimously agreed on which cifc(Uilstance(s) eXI~Q.
In McKoy, the Court ilkewlse confronted a sentencing .scheme that unduly"
bqr.dened the )'ucy's abUitr to rea¢h a life . sen~ce. Th~ Nortb C~!iml set:t``ing
scl;l~I;rte-:--tfiOre ~o
than tlie Maryland one at issue In Mills-explicitly reqtiir.ed the
jWY tp find unammously the p`` ·of a i:i:ihig``g fa.ctm. 1.4. at 43~. l)lls
l,(napi!;njty ~lljre.~ent prevent[ed] the jury &om c6nsideiiilg, ih deciding whethe.r
t(.) impose the death penaltY1 ilriy mitigating factOr that the Ju::ty does ilot
un.~mbn:QU$ly find~" ~U$ d-id the $tllte Violate the Eigbt;b -~ FQQrt~Jh
Amendments "by preventing the sentenCe~" from considering all mitigating
evid~ce.;' id.
C. 'l'esas's i0-12 Seateadag &heme Imp-airs the Albffity of a Majority of
JurQn w``-~- a Life ~a_t~nce.
Incons~t With Mi#s- 3I)d }4cKtl)', te``'s -~o.. i2 Rule petmits a minori~y
o.fa_c~i~.j~ ~P impe_nni~sibly sway meve_rd.ict tow~ ~·~I:l~9e:ofde~. It iS
perfectly within the realm of _pOssibility that each ofcatgill's· twelve jl.U'Ors would
l)•ve; -a~ some-. point in the pen_altj' phase deilberations, vo~ far a lite· sentence, but
th~ a. d~ath sentence would have reslilted by operation Of the lQ-12 R"¢e.
Consid~r the folloWing hypothetic·aH i~ I through 5 ·imtially woUld answer
"No'' to the futlire dangerousness special 'issue but, fearing a mistrial, they change
the~ vQt.e$· ~ "'! ~s," w})ile Jurors 6 ``f#.t 10 n,j.t:i~Mly '!Voulc;l ~-s~ "'Y~" to the
mitlgatillg circUinstances Special tsslie but.. also fearing a mistrial, they change their
votes to ..No.',-; At each stage of the deliberations, both lllinorities-of•five are well
short of t;h~ ten votes r:aeeded to ~ch a ljfe sentence, y~ togeth~ th.
Foglia,. Stl_Il $i1igu)arly 4go~i;ing: Law's Failure to Purge Arhitrtirine.3S ..frol!l
Capital ~g, 39 C~. L. B~J.,.. 51, 68; 71, 12•73 (2003). that Cargill's
jurors woul4 presume ~ Q.)i_stli_al upog. t.heir failure to agree at ~enten.d.Pg ;;.s tl9~
n_terel·y think® I~, jt i;~ pf'()bqble. the T~ sentencing scheme, by hiding from the
jW)' t}le COil$qUe.,c~·for falllng shOrt often and twelve, gives rise-to the very riSk
which .aiiiii'iated ·the Court 'in MUla and McKoy. The 10-12. Rule, tb.$1. serve.$ as· an
·impediment m even a majority of jurors Who desire a life s«428 U.S. 262 (1976),
1-59
172
• •
In the mtervenfug decades~ the Supteme Coun has continued to de811iin~
capjtal ~c;ii)g ~emes tQ d~jp.~ ·wfl~ther tbey .ll.l~1"4-d~ ``ble saf~
to prevent the arbitracy ass.ignment Qf deatb s.ent~n`` &e~ e.g.·; CaJifomJ4 V;
Brown., 479 U.S. 538, SAl (I9S7);- M#(s. l/; Marylan4, 4$6 tJ..S.~ 361, 3.74 (1988)..
At the $8Ule tjin·~, the' CCJUI1 fla.s rejected m_an`` sm.~_ciog d~.a~OJl:S 1n
capital cases· because "the f\n:ldamcmtal ~pect for h``ity un4¢rlying $~ ij_i$htll
N:nendment req~ conslc;l~.nJ.tion of Ul~ clt.~ct~· ~d re.c.ord of the mdivi_dl,lal
offender and the circumstances of the particular offense." Woodson v. North
Carolina, 4:2a u~sf 280, 304 (1976) (internal ~itations omitted}; su iilso.Penrjl v.
Lyna~gh, 492 U.S. 302, 805 (1989) (Pertry I) ("Edding.t [:v~ 0.kl~ho.1!l!l, 4.55 U$.
104 (1982),] mak~ cle_ar· that it i_s not enou:gh simply 'to allow the defendant to
presen~ rniti~ e;v~clence to th~ sen~cer; The s``~er must alSo be •ble to
co_nsid~ 81ld giye effect to that eVi``l:l~ in i~sfug· se.nt~c:e.. fl_itchc~t ~·
~gger-. [481 U.-S. 393 (1987)],,;). Far- from being conmdlctory, tl:ie sititwtan.eou:s
pursu:it of th.* objecnves· en:s:ures that ~ i$ a.. penalty neithe;r wanton nor
freakish.
. ... .. . while
And . . . .. p·rocedlinii
certain . . . tefoi'InS-bi:fi.Xrcated
. . .- cap·ita.l trials at
ngrrowi:gg Qf ``tb-eljgible crime_s, ~p~llate r.ev1ew fo:r sen~n4;ing
propo.rtio~O~!Je b) pass co_nstitutioo~ Q.t~, o~ers ~ve proven
th``lves il:t.a4equate ~o the·~ of'~m_iQ.im,iz[ingl tbe ri_$1( of wbolly -~itrary and
capri_ci()~ ~oQ.." ·Gregg-, 428 u~s. at 189 .. Compare Jurelc, 428 u~s. at 275
(approving Texas's guided-di5¢r¢tjon .s~tut¢), wi!h Pe_ilry 1, 49.2 U.S. ~ .3-:28
(disapproving same); comft!ue Gregg, 428 U.S. at 189 (approving Georgia's
guided-discretion sta~te), with G()(}frey v. Geor.gia~ 446 tJ..S~ 420, 43Z-33 0980)
(plurality opinh:m) (disapprovj11g ·same).~
In a m.rtshell, then, c_apltal punishment schemes m·ust have "objective
standards to ~de, regularize·, and· make rationally· reviewab1e the process for
injposiilg a sentence of death-." Woodson; 428 U$~ at 303. When th~ s~l)~mes
160
173
• •
l~k ~<;1;1 s``_s,- or wh~n such standards fail in their- appiication, ot when
~-[t]-.here is no pnnd"
. pled. vi · · ·to di ~-""''C._
. ay Qhfta-nish [a]
. case, .. . which
· in . death
... the · · alty
. .. . per:t. - was
Imposed, from the ·many cases in which it was not,'' it ¢annot b·e m:aintalned tba~
tb.e ih)poshiOI) Qf a death sentence was 66based on reason rather than caprice ot
emotion.~· Godfrey, 446 u.S. at 433.
!I~ T``'s l)ea_t_b p~._at~ Sche~e Is t,Jnccn,l_~ti~tion~i
The Supreme:C()urt Upheld Texas~s death penalty·~nne inJ1ire_l(v.. T~as in
1976, h.~v41g c;:~nc.:l.~4e4· ~t th~ ~'s bi``on of th~ gtilltrmno~ce .an~
penalty pba:ses and rnurowiJ;tg of d~aUl.,eJj~ble crime$ ~vi4e.cl 1,1 m.~ ~o
. .. evenhanded
· ote. the
prom . ...... J rational and consistent imposl'tiort of death
. . . ' . . . . . senten~
. . ..
t.m4~ l.a:w:" Jf!re.k; 42_8·(J.S. $. 276. This j~$Illen~ has g.ot withstood the ~y
of later- cases. See, e;g., Penry I, 492. U.S. at 302- (mvalidating Texa5's statute fOr'
``g ~o htstru~ juries that th~y Ill3Y cor;Wder mitigating evidence)~ Penry v.
JQ.brzs.on, 532 U.S. 78:2-. 782 (20 11) (Penry fl) (invalidating Texas·'·s StWlfm'),~n~
~ctj_® em gjjgg``on for f~li_fi$ to ptoyid~ th~ j~ wi~ a ·su:fiicie)l~ m~echanism
to cf
Te``s- c~i.ta)._ p~i_~hn_l`` ~ ~t woul4 fin~ the same "struck by lightning",
ph_~9roe.~on wbi:~.lt so troubl_~ the: Caurt in FUI1!la.n.
In _20_tz, 1;089 ntwd~ Wtm=· ~tj_e.d in Te,cas.. Tex.. Dep'-t Pul;J~ S~f~;
Inde:i: Crime Analysis. 2011, http://WWW..txdps.state.tx~u:slcriln:erew$/ll/
citCh3.pdf (last yisited July 18, 2014). And _yet, only nine death sentences were
-~-~-~- byTe~j~rj~ in t_h~t s_`` _Y~-:;.5 Tex. Dep't Ctiin~ Just., Offenders on
Death Row, http·s;//www .t~cl.s~e..tx..:u~cJeadl_I'Owldr.:.._offend.~_on_dr. .hunl 0~
ss $i_milarly disparilte StatiStics are expected fot 2013 arid :io 14. As of this
filing, however, crime statiStics for 2013 have not yet been publi~ed:•
161
174
• •
visi~d Aug.- l~-. 2014).~ The· number of death sentences asses·sed thrOUghout ~­
sU¢e b.~ d~clm.e4. sigg,i_fic~tly in the past three deca.d~s_. ~e Tex~ Dep;t 'C~1_i_ii).
JUst., Offenders on De4th Row, id. . Within these ·st,atistic~. bowev~, one fl.n4s ~
work factors that have no place in the "evenhanded, rational, and consistent
iritp:ositio~ of death." Jurek; 428 U.S. ~ 276~
1. Geog~pJ!y
Since 1976, 1,069 d~en~have.been ~n~cmced tQ d~$l.n Tex.as~ Te~.
Dep't .Crlm. JuStice; Total NW!I.her of Ojf~a $-tm~c'el/ tiJ l)eath .from Each
County,
http://wWV.V.tdcJ.state``.us/death_rpw/dr_c~nmty_®nvictior;t._ offen4ers~tllll 0~
vilJlte4 1\lJg. l~, 2014).. ColJectively, less than half of Texas's 25.4 countieS
account for these· 1,069 sentences. /d. (lisful$ ll9 Texas c®J]ti~). Few·
counties:--=-Harrls, Dallas, Bexar, and Ta.rtant-ilteount fot over SO% of these
defen~, as well-~ for 48% Qfth~ w.h9 b~e b~ exc=c~ Te.~:~ Pep't.Cr:im.:;
Justice, Coio#y ofCo.nVictiQnfor ~ecU/_ed Offend.ers, btq>s:l/~:td~J . stat~. :f.Jic·.~.s/
death_row/dr.,..C9wny_cQI.IVlction_ex``t~LhtmJ (last visited Aug-. l2, 2014) (249
out of515).. In the pasttliirty-s.even years. 216 ofTexas~s 254 counties (SS%)have
sentenced someone to death tlu'ee tUnes or less, ot not at all. tex.. Dep't Crim..
J!,lSti~. Totp} N7.!.'f!lbe.r qf Ojf~r~ S``erzc.~t! to Deat.b fror.n Epqh Cowr_ty;
bttp:i/Ww.W.tdcj._Stat¢~tx:~s/d~.....row/~_~Wtiber.:.:_ser.i:ter_ice4_d~th_couri~,Ptr:D,l
(last viSited Aug. 12, 2014)
· 56 No d<'"a,th rQw i~a`` was botb t;_on~d¢t~ and e.xecu~ed in 201.2:~ See T~.
Dep't Crim. JUst.-, Executed Offenders, httpst//www.tdcj.state.tX.usldeath.....row/dr__
executed"_pftenders.httnl (last viSited Apr•. 30; 2014). ~ addition, no dea:tb row
i_hroa.te·was b:oth convicted and removed fi'Qm death row- ir). 2012. ~e T~x. Dep't
Crim. Just.., Of!enders No Longer on Death Row,
https://www.tdcj .state.titi.S/death_row/dr_offen:ders._no_longer_on_,dr.html (last
visited Aug. 12, 2014).
175
• •
Texas is not aione in th1s pheiu.>menon. MUltiple stildie·s cOilducted
thro\lgho~ Ul# ¢oli)'Ur,y b~ve ider;ttitied ~.-SJ~te geo~phi.c 4is:cre.p``ies. ~ tl,.~
imp.osition ofthe death penalty~s' See, e.g., Jt,J.)es Eps.tej.n, De41h-Wt;~rt.h.f!zes.s ~TMI
Proset:iittJrlpl Discretion zn CQpitiil Case Chl;zrging, i 9 'TEMpLE PoL. & Cjy. Rrs. .
L. REv. 389 (2010) (discussing studies· in AriZona, MiSWuri, Pennsylv;mj~ ~d
South Caroiina); Adam. Gershowitz, Statewide Capittil Ptinishm~,.:· The Cas.e F_9r
E.lln#nati~g CQwz.tj'es • ~(Jle ir.z (b_e. ~(l!h Pe~a/ty; b~p://wQrks~bepress.com/
adam_gel'ShoWit21.S (i009). In one, stu.dy, the· researcb~ (o\md ~, qv~r a. four,..
year petiQId. at 309. As
thrOughOUt the state m.~e the d~Sion no~ wseek ~th in 9S% of ®aUt-eligible
cases. Id. ThiS cfi5crerlon was not spread evenly, however, as prosecutors· ·in the
City of St. Lows an,d J~ori, Co\IJ:lt)' (w~te K@s~ ·City .i$. lo~ed) charged
capital ~s far less frequently (6.5%) than proseCutors·. in the rest of the s.tate
(20%)." ld. at:344.
57
these obserVations. are, of course; di'Stinct from the inter-state geographic
dfsqepancies in the 'i.inpqs.iticm of" tbe d`` pet:~al~; $ee Jeffl'ey Kj_rchme.i~;
Aggra,ating and Mitigating Factors-.: The Para~x of Today·~ A_tbitrary dild
Mand!;z!c)ry Ct;ipit.alPUii.ishfrz~t Schtmt.e, 6 WM. & MARY BILL RTS~ J. 345,.386-87
( 1998) ("Beca-use each Jurisdiction creates it.S own death penalty statUte, each.
s~.e is Ullique. The res:u:l~ i:s that.,.,..-not ~I)Jy d·o~ pw;iisbme.P.t diff~ bet;wee.Q
de.ath p:elUI,lt;.yj\llisdictions and jUrisdictipru; witboO,t ~he d~a~ p~rtalty........-5jgn.i.ti``l
discreP.ancie.s e.~st amol)g `` deaUl penal~y jtJri.sdicd~ns. ").. ·· · ··
58
A commission created tO examine the fairness of New .Jers~y's. capital
puniSluil.ent system l_ikewi~e noted its co.nce~ regarding ~e e.xlste.nce Qf
163
176
• •
1%) Jure.bmd in Gregg, the Supreme Court considered ~hethet imp.etmissible
ar;bjtrariness ~ c.apiW sen``cing re.$Ulted .fro~ prosecutollial discretion to cboose
those ca.ses in Whi~ a death sentene:e would be sought.. Gregg, 42.8 u.s-. $t 199;
J:wek, 428 t; . s. ~t 274. The· Caurt determined tha:t this decision-making served to
remove defendants frOm the fisk of death and did not viola.te the u~s~ C~U.~dcm;
provided the "deciSion toimpose (a death sentence was] guided by standards .so
that the semenci,ng ~thori~ wowd fo·cus on the particularized circulnstances of
the crime and the defendant." Gregg, 428 U.S. at 199. Justiee WIUW, in his
conc~ce, Q.9te4 th• the decision of prosecutors woUld likely reflect that of
juries and be rooted 1n the .seriousness oftb:e offen5e:
Absent facts tO the colltl"3iY, it cannot be assumed that
pro~utors wj.ll be ID.O~Va~e.~ with Penry- I, 492
u._s_. at 3 I 8 (fin4ing inaci~ ~;~Pd tbere.(Qre uncon``cm~ the ,``t,Qry spe_~_i~
iS.s1,1~)_. l'h~ geographic d)sparitj~ in the imp.Qsj~on Q(the·death ~nalty mTe~
offer eqw.tlly ~elling $I'QWJfJs to ~b~4on the belief that ~u~prial
diScteti9n will produce a consistent applieanc;m of'the law.
~:· ~ee
geography, Studies- continue to show that race is a motivating
In addition to
factor behind jury verdicts in capital cases. See; e.g., David B.aldus, et al., Rac.e
q.,_4 Propo.T!fo.1Jl4.ity Since McCles~ey v. ``p (1987)~· Di./lere1JI Actl)rs -..y~th
Mixed Strategies ofbenial and Avoidanct. 39 COLUM.• HuM:. Rrs. L. ~V.. 143
(2007); Isaac Unah, Choosing those- who Wili Die: The Effect of Race, Gender,
qn# !4w (n ProseCUforial DeciSion to Seek the Death Penalty in Durham County;
North Carolina, 15.MICH. J. RACE & L. 135 (200'9) (finding tha.l prqse¢.;J~or5· were
more likely to piirsue capital cases for white Victims than black victims).
On'e swdy speeific to Texas examm«t ~e:influen:ce of race io H.ams Coun~
capital ca,ses UQm 1994 t~ 1999. Sco~ Pblnips, Ra.c.ial Disparifies in (he Capital
165'
17_8_
• •
ofCapita.l Punishment, 45 Hous. L. REV. 807 (20.08). Using Statistical teclinlques
. fo:r PQ
· tential
to control confuunders59 the stUd showed that ~black defendants
. . .. ' .. . y .. .. .. . .. . .
who coiil111itted crim:es leu like~y to lead to a de,atb. trial ~ded to face a capital
m.& 17Jdre ``y Ulan their white and fftspanic counterparts." AM. BAR Ass 'N, .
· THE TExAs CAPITAL. PuNisHMENT AssESSMENT REPORT (2013) (citing Phillips, 45
Hous. t.. REv. at 830). A defendant also faced inCreased odds of receiving a death
sentence if he was bla4 t,h~ if he was Wb.i~ or Hispan.lc; PJ:I{IJips, 45 l;lous. L..
REv. at 834. the stUdy also confirmed that, in H.atris County within: the eight-year
~00, th~ col'lvi~ of l.d:I.Ji.ng a ~hite Vic~ were inore· likely te receive a.
death .sentence than those c·onvicted Qfkilimg a black victlm.. /d.
A subseqtJen~ study conducted largely the same analysis for the penod
· · · • ·· . iami
b egmrung .. $1')' 1' 2001' and
. endin
.. g Fe'-"·"'._.,
VA~i/ IS 2008. , Scott p·.'nHii_ps,
. . ..
Contiiiued Racial Disparities in t~ Capital. of Capilli/ PUnishment: the Roa.e~tthal
~TQ., SO Ho:us.• L.. REv. U 1., 134 (2012). While the race of the def'endarit.no longer
appeared to influence the prosecution's charging decisions and. the jt,Iries'
~tencing decisions, the race' of the victim still proved to b:e a controlling factor..
Id at 148.. Sp:ecificaUy, thi.s ~dy foUnd ~·"the d.~ penalty was impo~d on
behalf of white victimS at more than twice the rate one woUld expett if the system
w~ bl4ld to r~ ·~d ··. • . on behalf of white female victims at. mote than five
times tlte ~e one would ``pect if\tle syst.~ were bl.iJl.d ~o ~ce @~ ge.J)4er;., 14 ~
150.
In a third study-one that Used a controfled experiment tO examine the
S\.l~tle influ~ce of~e c>Pjl,l_ror 4ec~$ion-maki~ers ~phe Univetsizy of
Califomi·a at B.erkeley found that members of a random sample of276 adults were
~ 9 P-ot~t:i~ co:n.fo®4ers jt~ch.u:J~ ffen; as· a b.a,sis for ·a se``~e
less tban ~tb--" i.Pc_}fett v~ Ohio, 438 U.:S. 586, 604 (197"8) (pluralitY. opmi9J1)
(``p~i~- jJJ: QJj~), qffd; F44.i_ngs v~ Ok/.q/to_IJI(J-; 4$-5 u.s_. 104, 113-14 (1_9~2).
The Lockett Cowt·'s dee~:on was ``ted by '+the tiS~ that the d.eatb ~alty wi_U
be- imposedmspite· of ~ors w}»_ch may ca~l for ~ I~ Severe pet:Wty/' m.d it
~cordlngly fo((Q,ntin~ing tlli'ea~ to soc.lety;· (2) and wh_e:ther, consi@zin.¥
all the evidence, ~·are ~fficien~ m._itiPting c``~ to ``a sentenc~·
Qflife i;tiprisonm:ent Without· parole .. Tex. Cod~ Crim. Proc. art; 37.07·1, § 2(b)(l),.
(e)(l). With re$pect 19 the mitigating circumstanc~· S'p«.ial issue, the court in'Ust
instruc;i th~ jmy that, jfit answers Wit a circums~ w8IT81¢.S a $e.U~c.e of life
hnprisonment Witho:ut parole rather than a sentenc.e of death, the defendam Will
~ei~ a life ·$el)Jen.~ ~4 will nQt be iJ;J,eligible f'or ~le. Id at § ~(eX2)(A}{B).
Furth~ore, the ¢olirt must instruct the j\.n}' ·to answer this spe¢ihl iSSpe "Ye$" or
"No;;,. that it ~Y not answer "No" unless ey· unanimous agreement, tha~ it may not
answ~·"'Y e_s" unless t~ orrnore jurQJ'$ ~e, and that the jurors n~n:ot agree on
which evidene<= in particular is .tnitigatihg. Id at§ 2(t)(i)-(3)..
In addi"tjon to these proc.ed.~ ms~cti:on:s, T~ l.aw reqW,res the co~ to
il;l$Uct the jury that it ·uShall consider mitigating evidence to be evi~ence that a
jUtot might regard as reducing the defendant's. moral blame-Norlhiness.." Tex.
Cod~ Crim. Proc. ~•. 11..071~ § 2(f)(4) (emphasi·s ~ddei{). No defuiltlon of'•motal
blameworthi,n~" is provided, not are addition_al instructions $iven a;s to th~
re.J,ationsh_ip betwe¢1'1 this instni.ction and the demands of the special issue itself.
As; directed by the $tu~e, th~·~al co1,1rt in C311Pll's case gave the statutorily
require.550 U.S. 233, 260 (2007). ''[S]uch consideratio.nt
' .
t,h.e Co'9rt }Mls e,q,I~, ''Would be ``mgless ~e_s~ t.he jmy P,pt o~y [bas] sucb
evid`` ~v&:ilable t9 it, b:ut @;_o Hs] pen:n.it.ted ~o giye th_a.t evid~ce m~i.ngfqJ,
¢itigati))g e_(f~t .lJ1. imposiJ)g `` ul``te sente_n~.'' 1_4 (mten:ull quotations
omitted). Esc* j~·is emi~led tQ bro~ di_sc~iOJl. ~n. ,~s~in.~ tb~ ip:J.pm:t ~f tlt.a$.
mitj.g2;tipg eviden¢e ~l)_i`` `` defe~_e proff~r.s; -~t ttl~ -$~e ijme, d.le $tate n;1ay no.t
iimjt t_hjs evidence to t_h~se -categQ``s w``b. th~ S~ deetj:ls as niit.lgating. As
·s~d Ute: Coun in temtard v. Dre(~: "[A) S~ate calu)ot bar the consideratj~ of .. ,
eviden~ Tftf:r.e st;nt~n.cer c:oul_d ~Q.nably find thafit·wammts a ~en.~:·e les$ tban
death.;' 542 U.S. 274, '285 (2004) (in~mal quoiati~ omitted). See also
M_cCiiUicey v. Kenip, 481 U.S .. 279, -304 (1987) e'[T]he Co~tutioii ilm1ts a State-;s
abilicy to narrow a sentenc:er's discretion to consider relevant evidenc;e th~ f?ltght
cause. it to decline to impose the· death .sentenc~").
Consistent wim thi~ Jwi~pruc:ien~e, th_~ ~v~:U~$· of roi_tjg~t.iLo!;kett, 438 U.S. at 604). Importantly, th;e· ~ ·Court
obs~rved `` the proffered evidence--the testimony of two guards and a pri_s()n
viSitol"-"would no.t relate sp«ifically to petitioner~s cqlpabi_lity for the crime he
c:ommit:ted." ld at 4. Ev~ $til.l, it c~uld "hardly be disptit~ ~ the evi9en.c;e's
exclusion ~-'deprived petition~ qf bi.$ right t9 pl~ before the selit~ce.r re.Ievallt
eyidence in mitigation of punishment."'-' Id at 4. See also Abd.ul-[(q_lii.r, SSO U•. s. a~
2.59 ('~Like Peo,r)"~ ev.~denc~; CQle'·s eVi:``nce: of cbli4hP04. deptiva~Q.n `` ~-`` Qf
s~lf~ntro.I d,i4 ppt 1;e))ut eith¢r del.i~en.tWn~ or f.uJ;qre ~S`` J,u~ was
i)lten~ed ~ pro``e tb~ jucy With an enti_rely different rea:son for not imposing a
d~th ~tence./')..
At the ~en~ p~, ~a:rgill ~s~te4 at le.!~St se:;r_ne evidei:i~ that bore
no reJadQnship to her legal or mofal blameworthiness for the capital crime.
Spec.i.5.~_ly, .J~en~ Boyd,-~ fellow 1nm``e ~t Srnitb Councy· 1~1, t¢s~Ule4 ~-she
and CargiU were iit the s~e pod tog``r:~d th~t they got along well. (68 RR at
Z3.) She teStified that CargHI would do B.oyd's hair som-etimes ;,md would share
b~ food wjtlt SQy4.. (14.} Th.js· eyi_4.eDce, t_h``&h u_nreJ~ed ~o Cargi"U's lege!l Qr
mo.ral blamewortbiness fot the crime, bolstered the argument that Cargill
neverthel~s.s was a worthwhile pe:rsOil u;nI, 492 U.S. at
311 ("[S]o long as the class of .llllJl'derer5 snbject to capital pttnish:rn~i i$
nmowed, there is no constitutional inf.mnity in a ~ure that a.Ilows ·Q. ju;t;y t.o
recommend mercy ba:sed on the mitigating evidence introduced by a defendant").
Texas's statutorily-mandated inst,nlction fatally undern)ines the jul;y's
capacity to give effect·to thiS broad¢t type of mitigating evident¢ by callfug Up.On
jl.ll'OJ'S tp "consi_der mi,ti.p~_ng eviden~·to be evicJ.ence 11\• a juror njigb.~ ~gard as
redZ(c_mg the defendant ~a m.otal blam.ew.onhiness;" T~ Code Cdrn. Proc. ;,ut_._
37.()71, § 2(1)(4) (emphasis ·add_ed). (See al$Q CR at 968.) Ptit differently, this
iJ:l$1,Jcti01_1 prec.lu4.e4 juro~ from cQl_lS•d~n.g mitigatilig evi~c~ ~l.a:t~ to
· "ll's ~moral
C argl_ ' ' ' blameworthiness-~
' ' ' ' .. ' ' a ' .,, ' ' whoU
' limitation ' .. y at . -- With
·-· oddS . .. three
. decades
-
of U ..S. Sl)preine Court precedent:. W~: ~Y of Cm:gi_l_l's j~ to ~it such
eVidence-that is, eVidence they foUild to warrant a iife sentenee but that did nOt
reduce carglli's moral blameworthiness fOr the cnme--tha(}uror- nece5satlly and
. unt¢nably would Violate the court's im~ttu¢tlon.s.. Penry v: Jo~o"i), 532 u~.s. 7SZ.
800 (2001) (Penry 11). Becaiise "[w]e generally presume that jutoi'S foilow their
i.nstNc~ol).S," tl;l~ e:~s(.s .a t``~Ie proballilicy -~t t,he te!ult ·ofC~iPU's tri.~
woUld have been different had a constitutionaily adequate instruction been given.
See !d.. at 799..
C. Conc:lilsioa
"(W]heri the jury is not pemiitted to give meaningful effect or a 'reasoned
moral iesponse' to a defendant~ s mitigating evideilc~·at~se· It Is forbidden
from doing $0 by st,a~e or a judicial. int~tpretation of a statlj,~e s~.Q.t.~cin$
process is fatally flawed." AbduJ-Kabir, 550 U.S. at 264. At Catgiii's trial,_ the
ju,y w~ proWbit~. from giVing effect-m~anjnsful or othet'WI~ rtUtigating
evidence faJiliig outSide the boundaries specified i~ their ilJ,structi()ns; and this
172
185
• •
prohibition thereby uncon$ti``lly limi~. dYe j\JJ'Y'$ ·~ilit.Y to give theit
"reas.oned moral response~'' See also Sltippet~ 476 u:s. at 8 (~The excl"Qsion by the
state trial court of relevant mitigating evidence impeded the sente)lcing jury'·s
abi~lity to carry- out its t$Sk of cQ~dering all relevant ~s of the cb~ct~ an4
record of the mdividUal offender.").
Althp~ the Suprente Co~ lw.i J;lpheld Tt;~' s capiW pUAi$llmer;Jt. .s~tute;
it did so "on the basis of assurances that tht special issues wotild be interpreted
bro$4ly enO(,lgb to ~le sen~ing juries to consider ali· of the relevant
mitigating evidence a.-defendant might present." Peti.Tjl I, 492 U_.S, at. 318.~ Since
then-, the Court has repeatedly expressed
concems "regarding the extent to
its
Wb.ieb. the J\UY mu.s:t he allQwed ~ot only w CO'n$ider Sl.;;ch. evlc;ien~, or t,O ~ye such
evid,ence ~.fQre. i~. butto resp.®,d to it in a reasone:d,. I:nQral. m,.anne.t and to weigh
suc;:b evid`` ilJ i~ ~culW,l.of c;iecidi!tg ~ether ~ defe.ndm.t i_s ~y d~sei'Vi.J:tg of
death." Brewet v. QuartermCD2, 550 l;J.S:. ~86, 296 (2007). :U:,. t.hjs ~. appli,cation
of ~e T~ ea:PJtal p·tu:U.``t -`` i,inp_~ C~l's rjght to l)ave a:Il
miu``~g evidfmc~ c~id~ by tbe jUJOt:S ~they ~d ~b`` h~ 4e~erve4.
a life Qr d`` seil~_ce_.. P~ i, 49Z U.S. a~ 320 (~[T]be T~ deatb penaiD'
statl,l`` WfiS ~pplied iA ~ unconstituti~ ~er by prec_lud:ing th~ jury from
acting "itJ»n the particular mitiga.tmg eVidenc·e [the defendant] iht,rool,lce4. .")~
Th~fore, C~i.ll ~s death s¢ruen~:should be revers:e:d.
CLAW: FIFI'EJ!!N
I .
TRIAL CO~SEL WERE INEFFEctiVE FQR.FAILiNG TO PREsERVE
THE RECORD FOR APPEAL
CargilPs conViction and sentence e>f dea~ was unl~wfi,tl.ly ~d
unconstitutionally imposed in violation of her £tppllcable State aiJ~ fe4eral
Co(lstitu~Qn.~ rigl)_ts, ~te ~ory l_aw, and Unit~ Stat~s Supreme Coun and
173
186
•• •
su.,~e ~ l~w, bee~ trilll co~l failed to preserve the. record for appeal ~y
acquiescing to a multitude:ofoff•the-reeord con.f~ce.s.
~ GiV~• the· Illlpottance of Preserving Issues for Appeal and the Cltar
Mandate of th·e ABA Gaide.liu~ to Do So, F~U.-.re ~o P~rve ~h' Trial
Rec:·ont.
. . Constitutes lilefi"ediVe
. . Assista·n~:e
. of
. Counsel
Under Texas RUle of Appeilate PrOcedure 13.1 ~ a c·ourt reporter· is requ.ire4
to record $ll ~¢h <;or;t;fe~c~ that occ·ur a:.fter the trial proceedings are underWay.
See1 e~g., Tanguma v.. State, 47 S ..W~3d 663, 670 (Tex. App.-Co~ .ChriSti
·2001). ;Howev~, if the: defendan:t fa.lls to make a pretdai motion to record beiieh
C:Ortferenc~s, the issue i,s not·preserved Qn a~ sh.Quld t,hc; ~ repo~r :fail t9 d9
so. Vaile v.. State, Io9 S.W.Jd 500, 50.8-09 (Tex. Crlm. .App.. 2003) (holding that
violati~$· of~e 13 :~ not preserveQ. fo:r. appeal unless defense· counsel objeCts to
each indiVidual unrecorded b.eDCb. conference at trial).
The clarity and integrity of the trlal record is vital to preserVing the
possibUity .of meaningful ~nate, revi~. $.e.e, ~.g., Mich~l C$.1~Q, ``
~d Preserving· the ~Q~ ..,. Ol>jecti(JllS, 6 Am~ 11#. Tr.i.$ 60S (1.967); see (!#o
Moos(IYi v. Sta,!e, 711. S. W:•.Z4. 53, 54 (T~·· Clitn. App. 1986) (no~ng that '·'enor
m.iJ.st b:e properly p~:e,rved d.uring trjal so that ~ co~pleie reconJ of tb,e eqor c.an.
be rev~ewed on~''); Maihews v. $!ate, 6js· S.W·.:2d Sj2, ·53·1 (Te~. Cri~.• App.
1·982) (ijotiilg ~ ''tbe tecor4 a;il~t be coli)plete on t,he issue UFged [on appeaij").
I~ Ts me d.uty of def~se C:O\U:ise.l t(,) "lce:ep the t:rj~l r«Qrd cl~r~ co~, an:d
compiete, so ~t at the end of U:te tt.i~ UI~re wilJ be ~ accur~ .bj$tocy of the
proceedings." Gatalano, 6 Am. JUI'~ Trials a:t
is of paramount
605. This duty
importance in a capital murde'r tri:al, as the im~ition of the 4e.at;h pel)alo/ i_s
s·ubject to a:momatic appeal. Tex. Crim. Pta. art. 37.071 .§ 2(h).
·The ABA Guidelines highlight the importance of' preserving the reeord,
stating that COUilsel must "ensure· tltat a full rCcOrd lS `` of alJle~ pfbceedi~gs
174
187
•• •
-. ~- .." ABA Guidelints;, Guideline 10.8(BX2). The ·commen~ provid:es fu.t:tbc;r
``ce, ~Qti.ns tb.~;_
ofte, of the 11.tost fim~n.;tal duti~:~ oJ ~- ~tt<:»tn~Y d_ef``g a capital
at trial is the preservation of any a.nd all conceiva,.ble ·errot:~ for
cas¢
~ch Stage of -appellate and poSt-conviction review. F~lwe tO
preserve a:n is~ may result i_l;l tbe ~U~ 'being- ``¢-ut.ed even th!.)ugil
rev~ble ~r ~at trial, For thi.s r~n, Vi.al cougsel ir,l ~
death penaltY. we· tiiiist be especially aware not o~b' ofs~gies for
wi.tu:img ~ `` b~ ~-SQ oftl1e t,._e~gb~e~e4 peed to fillly ~e all
pot~:tial i.S$9es {or lat~ review.
Id (commentary) •. Based on these go:idelineS, afailure to preserve the _record in a
capital trial should be considerec.f, defici~;mt perfor.m$P.~·:
The CCA.b.a:.s n:ever ditectly addressed the issue of ineffective assistan-ce of
cqunsel for null.~ to ensure t;h~ preservation of a complete and cl~ record.
However, there ·a(e a number of 'indidltions that failure t.o do so satis.ti~ the
deficient performan~- pto[lg of Stricldoi_id. FirSt,. iii consicLmn.g these clait.ns, a
nmnber C>f lower· ~llat~ ~ in T~ have moved di~ly ~o t;h,e Stric.kltmtl
ptejUc:tl~e 15rt>ng,_ implicitly finding tru¢ fail_ure t9 ens_ure a. COJJipl`` record Iglly
ccm.~M~ d_eflcjem pe;rfqrmance_._ See. e.g._, }ft;n,t~ti_rt/ ~- $t{lfe, 2;39 S:.W.J·d 3-59, 3~7
(Tex. App;`` Antonio 2097) (notiJ)g ·
tJ!a~ '·'co~et~nt trial counsel should
eilSUre all tuliilgs [oecu.rrlng- duiiilg bench cOnferences] appear In the record");
. .
Me¢ina \1• State,- 2004 WL 764444, *6 (Tex.- App.-.Texarkana 2004)
(1,UJ.p1.1Pli~hed) ("~summs, arp~d_q, th.# tri~ co~l ~ by f2PJ.i~ t<:» ~$.1P'e
that the court reporter recorded all bench confere.nce:s).
The Fifth circ·uit. haS done the same in similar cases. See; e.g., Green v.
Jo.hnso_n, 16.0 K3d 1029, H>42-43 (5th Cir_, l.998).. NQ Tex~, $1¢, ot fed~ col)rt
has ever rejected the claim that defense counsel's failure w eti'su:re a complete
record may coristjtute deficient performan:ce. Given the importance ofpreservi.iig ~
complete an4 c_i~ rec~rd fQr appe.al, a,-t4 the AB_A Guide.iiiles' ~xpJicit
175
188
• •
teqilitements oil thls peilit, failure to e:n$1I'e that <>ff-the-retotd discQ"S$ions ·are
``D)Qri.alized constjtutes defi~ent perfor:mance trod~ $triekl!11U/.
li. Even if Failure to Preserve the· Trial Reeord Will N:(Jt Ah,JY"
.A..Ut(Jmsdt~J.Iy S•Q.stY ~ l)e6.d``t Perfor•ance Prong of' Striddaitd,
tiie Deficient C.ondiit.t of CargO's Cou.nsel in 'l'hi.s Case W~r~_nts ~
Findiilg of Defid'eilt Penonn:anee
BefQre the start of Cargill's capital trial, defense counsel failed to request that
the court re¢rter record .an proceeding! mch.iding, bUt IiQt limiu,eeedip.gs, `` g\iil~ ``~. arid tb,e pwri5hm~t phase,~
Cargill's ceilnsel coritinuaily failed te object to this practice, and ot\en times even
reql,lesttxi tbe Qff.:.the-record conferen.ee d.te~seives, sjmul~eoll$1y allowing
significant gaps in the trial transcript and failing to preserve the is~e. for app~..
60 .. . . . . . - . . . ·- .
(8 RR at 78, 106; 9 RR.at 216, 219,.222, 233;· 12 RR at l67; 13 Jm,.at l19~·
14 RR at 17~ l·S RR at 110; 136~ 16 RR at 76~ 17 RR at 21, 44; 19 R.R at 158; 20
RR at 120;.24 RR·at 117-; 25 RR at 8, 51, 82·; 26 RR a( 17l, 179;· 27 RR ~t 7, 27;- .~s·
RR ~ 19; 29 AA ~t l20, .136, 174, 247; 3Z RR ~.t 46, 1~9; 1'32·; 19); 34 AA ~10, a.t
295~ .35RRat 62, 68; .36 RR;at 121, 123; 3.7 RR at 29; 38 RR at 104,. 146, 204; 39
RR a.t 71; 40 Jm at 4; 4~ RR·• 173, 194.; 43 AA a~ 10; 44 Mat 20; 45 RR a~ 43,
182; 46 RR at 75·, 120~ 47 AA at2');7; 48 RR at. 56, i3.4~ 49 RR at 84; SO RRat 43;
53 RR at 5, ~; 51.AA a~ 3, 12, 14, 28:; 58 RR a.t 38, 263 (twice): 60 RR ~ 69; ~3
RRat164;and65RRa:t7.) .
176
189
• •
See Valie, 109 s. . w. Jd at sos-.09 (bo14itl$ th_at ViQlaUo)l_$ ~f R~e 13 are not
~ed for ``l `` d~.fe~ coun~l objec~s to· each individual mii'eCOrded
~c.b c.QJ'l{~e' ``- n,i~)..
ll') s~, ·trial co~ei'·~ (ailure to request that bench conferences be recorded
in orc;ler to ~e 'the recc;mi m~· be .consid~