NO. AP-75634 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN ADRIAN ...

211 Pages·2008·0.93 MB·English

NO. AP-75,634

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

ADRIAN ESTRADA,
Appellant,
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee.

Trial Court Cause No. 2006CR2079
Appeal from the 226th Judicial District
Bexar County, Texas

The Honorable SID HARLE, Judge, presiding

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

CYNTHIA ORR
Bar No. 15313350
Email: [email protected]
Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley
310 S. St. Mary’s Street
29th Fl. Tower Life Bldg.
San Antonio, TX 78205
Voice: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

BRIAN W. STULL
Practicing Pro Hac Vice
Email: [email protected]
ACLU Capital Punishment Project
201 W. Main Street, Suite 402
Durham, NC 27701
Voice: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
ORAL ARGUMENT
REQUESTED
Identity of Parties and Counsel

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a) (2005), the parties to this suit are as
follows: (1) ADRIAN ESTRADA, TDCJ # 999521, TDCJ Polunsky Unit, 3872
FM 30 South, Livingston, Texas 77351, is the appellant and was the defendant in
the trial court. 2)The STATE OF TEXAS, by and through the Bexar County
District Attorney’s Office, 300 Dolorosa Street, San Antonio, TX 78205, is the
appelle and prosecuted this case in the trial court.
The trial attorneys were as follows: (1) ADRIAN ESTRADA was
represented by SUZANNE KRAMER, 101 Strumberg, San Antonio, TX 78204
and CELESTE RAMIREZ, 115 E Travis; Ste 431 San Antonio, TX, 78205.
(2) The State of Texas was represented by SUSAN REED, District Attorney, and
SCOTT SIMPSON and KRISTA MELTON, Assistant District Attorneys, 300
Dolorosa Street, San Antonio, TX 78205.
The appellate attorneys are as follows: (1) ADRIAN ESTRADA is
represented by BRIAN W. STULL of the American Civil Liberties Union Capital
Punishment Project, 201 W. Main Street, Suite 402, Durham, NC 27707, and
CYNTHIA ORR of Goldstein, Goldstein, and Goldstein, Goldstein, & Hilley, 310
S. St. Mary’s St., 29th Fl. Tower Life Bldg., San Antonio, TX 78205. (2) The
State of Texas was represented by SUSAN REED, District Attorney, and
CRYSTAL CHANDLER, Assistant District Attorney, 300 Dolorosa Street, San
Antonio, TX 78205.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................................................viiii

STATEMENT CONCERNING ORAL ARGUMENT..............................................xxxvii

INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................2

POINTS OF ERROR:.......................................................................................................14

ADRIAN ESTRADA POSES NO THREAT OF FUTURE DANGER...........................14

1. Remorseful, Peaceful, Non-violent, And A Model Prisoner Subject to Lifetime
Incarceration if Not Executed, Adrian Estrada Poses Absolutely No Threat of Future
Danger and the State’s Showing of Future Dangerousness Was Legally Insufficient.....14

2. By Presenting False and Highly Misleading Testimony on a Crucial Issue at the
Penalty Phase of His Trial, The State Violated Mr. Estrada’s Constitutional Rights Under
The Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.....................................................23

3. Trial Counsel Failed to Provide Constitutionally-Required Effective Assistance of
Counsel When She Failed to Correct the Record by Introducing the Current TDCJ
Classification Policy.........................................................................................................37

4. The trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury that the mere
fact that a capital offense is committed is insufficient in itself to warrant a finding of
future dangerousness.........................................................................................................43

5. The Death Sentence for Appellant, Remorseful, Peaceful, and Respectful, Lacks
Support by Factually Sufficient Evidence........................................................................45

6. The Texas Future Dangerousness Scheme Results in the Arbitrary and
Disproportionate Imposition of the Death Penalty, Violating the Eighth Amendment....54

7. The Texas Future Dangerousness Scheme Violates Texas’s Constitutional Proscription
Against Cruel or Unusual Punishment.............................................................................61

UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED STATEMENTS..............................................................64

8. The Police failed to scrupulously honor Adrian Estrada's invocation of the right to
remain silent during custodial interrogation.....................................................................72

9. The Detectives’ misleading statements about Adrian Estrada’s right to counsel
rendered his waiver unknowing, involuntary and unintelligent........................................83
iii
10. The Police Violated Adrian Estrada’s Fifth Amendment and due process rights by
coercing a confession........................................................................................................84

11. The trial court committed reversible error by admitting Appellant’s oral statements in
violation of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 38.22 § 6 and 38.21..............................85

12. The trial court committed reversible error by admitting Appellant’s oral
statements in violation of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 38.22 §§ 2-3....................86

13. The Trial Court Denied Mr. Estrada a Fair Trial By Failing to Instruct the Jury on the
Voluntariness of His Statements and on the Attendant Miranda Issue............................87

OTHER ERRORS OCCURRING DURING GUILT PHASE.........................................90

14. The State’s Unnecessary Introduction of an Inflammatory and Repetitive 911
Recording Denied Appellant a Fair Trial..........................................................................91

15. The State’s Unnecessary Introduction of Gruesome Fetal Autopsy Photographs
Denied Appellant a Fair Trial...........................................................................................93

16. The State’s Failure to Honor its Promise to Redact from Appellant’s Recorded
Interrogation References to the Age of Denied Appellant a Fair Trial.
...........................................................................................................................................95

17. The Prosecution Deprived Appellant of a Fair Trial Through Repeated Misconduct in
Opening and Closing Statements at the Guilt-Innocence Phase.......................................96

18. The Court Denied Adrian Estrada a Fair Trial By Failing to Include in the Jury
Charge the Statutory Definition of “Death” of an Unborn Child...................................101

19. Without Evidence that Appellant Knowingly or Intentionally Killed the Fetus, the
Conviction Lacks Support by Legally and Factually Sufficient Evidence and Violates
Due Process.....................................................................................................................104

20. By Purposefully Intruding Into Mr. Estrada’s Attorney-Client................................106

ERRORS OCCURRING DURING SENTENCING PHASE........................................108
21. The Trial Court Violated Appellant’s Right to Present Mitigation Evidence..........108

22. The Court Committed Reversible Error by Permitting Well More than a “Quick
Glimpse” of Victim Impact Evidence.............................................................................110

23. The prosecution violated Adrian Estrada’s constitutional rights through repeated
instances of misconduct during its sentencing phase summation...................................111

iv
INSTRUCTIONAL ERRORS AT SENTENCING........................................................117

24. The jury instructions in Mr. Estrada’s case violated his federal and state constitutional
rights by impermissibly interfering with the jurors’ ability to consider and give effect to
mitigating evidence and by coercing the jury into reaching a verdict............................117

25. Applying an Unconstitutional Statute, the Trial Court Committed Reversible Error by
Charging the Jurors that They Had Discretion to Decide Whether a Circumstance was
Mitigating........................................................................................................................124

26. Applying an Unconstitutional Statute, the Trial Court Committed Reversible Error by
Charging the Jury on Special Issue One (i.e., future dangerousness).............................126

27. Applying an Unconstitutional Statute, the Trial Court’s Instruction Presuming a
Death Sentence Constituted Reversible Error.................................................................127

28. Applying an Unconstitutional Statute, the Trial Court Committed Reversible Error by
Instructing the Jury to Consider Mitigating Evidence in its Future Danger Decision....128

29. The trial court committed reversible error by refusing to charge on residual doubt as
mitigating evidence.........................................................................................................129

30. The Court Committed Reversible Error by Instructing the Jury that it Could Consider
Mr. Estrada’s Prior Bad Acts in Determining the Answer to the Mitigation Special Issue
.........................................................................................................................................131

31. The Trial Court Committed Reversible Error By Instructing the Jury it Could not
Rely on Sympathy to Reach a Life Sentence..................................................................133

32. The Trial Court Committed Reversible Error by Denying the Appellant’s Written and
Oral Objections to the Court’s Charge and Verdict Form on the Ground that the
Indictment did not Allege Special Issue One..................................................................133

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO FETAL HOMICIDE STATUTE...............135

33. Texas Penal Code 1.07(a)(26) Violates the Due Process and Supremacy Clauses by
Defining Fertilized Eggs, Embryos, and Fetuses as Persons..........................................137

34. Texas Penal Code 1.07(a)(26) Violates the Establishment Clause by Defining Life as
Beginning at Fertilization...............................................................................................142

35. Texas Penal Code 1.07(a)(26) is an Arbitrary Classification and Violates the Equal
Protection Clause............................................................................................................144

v
36. Texas Penal Code 1.07(a)(26) permits the arbitrary imposition of the death penalty
and is unconstitutional under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the United
States Constitution..........................................................................................................145

37. Appellant=s Conviction Violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States
Constitution Because ' 19.06 Discriminates on the Basis of Gender.............................146

38. Appellant=s Conviction Violates the Texas Equal Rights Amendment....................150

39. Texas Penal Code 1.07(a)(26) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness under the 14th
and 8th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution................................................................151

OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR.........................................................................155

40. Appellant Was Denied the Effective Assistance of Counsel....................................155

41. This Court should reverse due to the cumulative harm of the errors........................164

42. Adrian Estrada’s Death Sentence is Clearly an Arbitrary, Freakish, and
Disproportionate Outlier, Entirely Unsupported by the Evidence; Furthermore, to the
Extent that TEX. CRIM. PROC. art. 37.071 Precludes Review of this Claim, It Violates the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Both on Its Face
and as Applied in this Case.............................................................................................164

43. An Arbitrary, Freakish, Disproportionate Outlier, Entirely Unsupported by the
Evidence, this Death Sentence Violates the Texas Constitution....................................172

44. Prosecutors’ unfettered, standardless and unreviewable discretion under article 37.071
violates Equal Protection, Due Process and the Eighth Amendment.............................172

Conclusion and Prayer....................................................................................................175

Certificate of Service......................................................................................................175

vi
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

FEDERAL CASES

Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233, 127 S. Ct. 1654 (2007)...............................115

Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896)....................................................................123

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).........................................106, 125, 134, 137

Arnold v. Board of Educ. of Escambia County Ala., 880 F.2d 305 (11th
Cir. 1989)...................................................................................................................142

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).....................................................60, 165, 167, 174

BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)............................................170

Baze v. Rees, __ U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 1520 (2008)..............................................61, 115, 129

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)...............................................................26, 41

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)...................................................................134

Blackmon v. Scott, 22 F.3d 560 (5th Cir. 1994).................................................................28

Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987).........................................................................117

Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964).............................................................134

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)............................................................................30

Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983).............................................................................36

Brown v. Sanders, 546 U.S. 212 (2006)..........................................................................151

Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269 (1998)...................................................................125

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)....................................................................................173

Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990)............................................................................126

Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979)....................................................................148

Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985)............................................................36, 133

vii
California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538 (1987)...............................................................133, 168

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967)..............................................................passim

Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1997)............................................................32

Carpenter v. Vaughn, 296 F.3d 138 (3rd Cir. 2002)..........................................................42

Charles v. Smith, 894 F.2d 718 (5th Cir. 1990).................................................................75

Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (1990)....................................................................48

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)....................................145

Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 (1961)............................................................84, 85

Curran v. Delaware, 259 F.2d 707 (3d Cir. 1958)............................................................35

Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 (1992).......................................................................97

DeGarmo v. Texas, 474 U.S. 973 (1985).........................................................................174

Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)........................................................................64

Dupart v. United States, 541 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1976)....................................................28

Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982)....................................................................120

Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982)..........................................................................60

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).........................................................................78

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991)...................................................................121, 125

Flores v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2000)................................................................57

Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (1985)........................................................................121

Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 (1988)..............................................................115, 129

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)..................................................................passim

Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) ...................................................................36, 56

Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484 (1974)..................................................................147, 148

viii
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)....................................................................28

Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980)........................................................................152

Gonzales v. Carhart, 555 U.S.124 (2007).......................................................................140

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)....................................................................passim

Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 (1979).............................................................................109

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965)........................................................................99

Guerra v. Collins, 916 F. Supp. 620 (S.D.Tex. 1995), aff'd, 90 F.3d 1075
(5th Cir. 1996)..............................................................................................................58

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).....................................................................47

Harris v. Texas, 467 U.S. 1261 (1984)..............................................................................59

Harris v. Phelps, 550 F. Supp. 2d 551 (D. Del. 2008)....................................................171

Hopkins v. Cockrell, 325 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 2003)..........................................................163

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979)................................................................104, 105

Jacobs v. Horn, 395 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 2005).....................................................................40

Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445 (1965).........................................................123, 159

Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (1999)...................................................................122

Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1980)...................................................36, 151, 167

Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976)..................................................................................36

Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163,......................................................................................128

Kennedy v. Louisiana, __ U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2641 (2008).......................................passim

Kohler v. Englade, 470 F.3d 1104 (5th Cir. 2006)..........................................................163

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).......................................................................155

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).........................................................................30, 32

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).......................................................................142
ix
Levin v. Katzenbach, 363 F.2d 287 (D.C. Cir. 1966)........................................................35

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978)........................................................................passim

Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988).....................................................................123

Love v. Johnson, 57 F.3d 1305 (4th Cir. 1995)..................................................................32

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)..............................................................................145

Luchenburg v. Smith, 79 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 1996)..........................................................161

Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)....................................................................174

Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988)..........................................................151, 152

McCambridge v. Hall, 303 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2002)...........................................................32

McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)...........................................................59, 64, 109

McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991)..........................................................106

McGraw v. Holland, 257 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2001)...........................................................76

McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990)........................................................passim

McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986)...............................................................137

Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986)........................................................................73

Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975)...........................................................................76

Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005)..........................................................................59

Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988)............................................................................36

Miranda v. Arizona, 484 U.S. 386 (1966)...................................................................72, 84

Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004)....................................................................82, 83

Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975)................................................................137, 140

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)......................................................................passim

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972)...............................................................................163
x