BIAS

Issues

Did the Fifth Circuit use an improper standard to deny Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) on his motion to reopen the judgment against him?

Court below

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

This case addresses the correct standard to be applied in granting a Certificate of Appealability
(“COA”) on a motion to reopen a judgment. As per the standard, Petitioner Duane Buck argues that he deserved a COA, as a reasonable juror could consider his ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be valid, as well as debate the validity of the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion. In opposition, Respondent Lorie Davis, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, contends that Buck’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was meritless and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. This case will settle the correct standard for granting a COA, while also addressing issues of implicit racial biases against African American defendants.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Duane Buck’s death penalty case raises a pressing issue of national importance: whether and to what extent the criminal justice system tolerates racial bias and discrimination. Specifically, did the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit impose an improper and unduly burdensome Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard that contravenes this Court’s precedent and deepens two circuit splits when it denied Mr. Buck a COA on his motion to reopen the judgment and obtain merits review of his claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for knowingly presenting an “expert” who testified that Mr. Buck was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he is Black, where future dangerousness was both a prerequisite for a death sentence and the central issue at sentencing?

Petitioner Duane Buck was convicted of capital murder for the July 1995 deaths of his ex-girlfriend Debra Gardner and her friend Kenneth Butler. See Buck v. Stephens, No.14-70030 at *2 (5th Cir., filed Aug 20, 2015). During the sentencing phase, Buck’s counsel called Walter Quijano, a clinical psychologist, to testify regarding Buck’s future dangerousness.

Written by

cdesjourdy

wfang

Edited by

ryammine

Additional Resources

Adam Liptak, Supreme Court to Hear Death Penalty Cases, The New York Times (June 6, 2015).
Ariane de Vogue and Tal Kopan, Supreme Court takes up death penalty cases for next term, CNN politics (June 6, 2016).

Submit for publication

Read more about Buck v. Davis

Williams v. Pennsylvania

Issues

Do the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require an appellate judge’s recusal in a capital punishment appeal when the judge, previously a district attorney, oversaw the office that prosecuted the same case?

Court below

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In 1984, Terrance Williams was sentenced to death for the murder of Amos Norwood. After successfully receiving post-conviction sentencing relief in 2012, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed and reinstated Williams’ sentence. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require the recusal of an appellate judge—here Pennsylvania Chief Justice Ronald Castille—from participation in a capital punishment appeal when the judge led the District Attorney’s Office that prosecuted the same case. Williams argues that due process compels recusal, given the risk of potential bias and partiality that may taint both the judge’s decision-making and the reviewing tribunal’s impartiality. However, Pennsylvania argues that Justice Castille’s recusal was not constitutionally required under the Court’s holding in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), nor was his presence on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. This case will impact an appellate judge’s ability to make discretionary determinations regarding his or her own recusal.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated where the presiding Chief Justice of a state supreme court declines to recuse himself in a capital case where he had personally approved the decision to pursue capital punishment against Petitioner in his prior capacity as elected District Attorney and continued to head the District Attorney’s office that defended the death verdict on appeal; where, in his state supreme court election campaign, the Chief Justice expressed strong support for capital punishment, with reference to the number of defendants he had “sent” to death row, including Petitioner; and where he then, as Chief Justice, reviewed a ruling by the state post-conviction court that his office committed prosecutorial misconduct under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it prosecuted and sought death against Petitioner?
Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated by the participation of a potentially biased jurist on a multimember tribunal deciding a capital case, regardless of whether his vote is ultimately decisive?

On June 11, 1984, Terrance Williams and Marc Draper robbed and murdered Amos Norwood. See Brief for Petitioner at 4. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, under the leadership of then-District Attorney Ronald Castille, prosecuted the defendants.