CAPITAL CASES DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE MARK STEVENS 310 S. ST. MARY'S STREET, SUITE 1505 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 (210) 226-1433 [email protected] State Bar of Texas 31ST ANNUAL ADVANCED CRIMINAL LAW COURSE July 18 - 21, 2005 Corpus Christi CHAPTER 40 Capital Cases: Defense Perspective Chapter 40 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SCOPE OF ARTICLE ................................................................. 1 II. BAIL ............................................................................. 1 A. Denial Of Bail When Proof Is Evident .................................................. 1 B. Proof Must Be Evident Both That Defendant Is Guilty And That The Special Issues Will Be Answered Affirmatively .................................................................... 1 C. What Amount Is Reasonable? ........................................................ 1 D. Jurisdiction Of The District Court ..................................................... 2 E. Statutory Entitlement To Bail Where State Receives Continuances ............................... 2 F. Article 17.151 In Capital Cases ....................................................... 2 G. Appeal From Denial Of Bail ......................................................... 2 H. Collateral Estoppel ................................................................ 2 I. Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus ................................................. 2 III. EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL .................................................. 3 A. Ex parte Duffy: Reasonably Effective Assistance Of Counsel ................................. 3 B. Strickland v. Washington: Performance And Prejudice ...................................... 3 C. Ineffective Assistance In Capital Trials ................................................. 3 D. Wiggins v. Smith And The Duty To Investigate ............................................ 6 E. Denial of Counsel Is Presumptively Prejudicial ............................................ 6 F. Prejudice Is Presumed From Conflict of Interest ........................................... 7 G. Ineffective Assistance On Appeal ..................................................... 7 H. Motion For New Trial ............................................................. 8 I. Post-Conviction Assistance ......................................................... 8 J. One Lawyer, Or Two? ............................................................. 8 K. Time To Prepare ................................................................. 8 L. Self-Representation ............................................................... 8 M. Delay In Appointment ............................................................. 9 N. When Should Ineffectiveness Be Raised? ................................................ 9 O. Article 26.052 “Standards” ......................................................... 10 P. In DNA Hearings ................................................................ 10 IV. THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO PAY FOR EXPERT ASSISTANCE REQUIRED BY INDIGENT CAPITAL DEFENDANTS ............................................................. 10 A. Article 26.052 .................................................................. 10 B. The Holding In Ake v. Oklahoma .................................................... 10 C. The Implications Of Ake ........................................................... 10 1. A disinterested expert does not satisfy Ake ........................................... 10 2. Ake is not limited to psychatric experts .............................................. 11 3. Ake guarantees a competent expert ................................................. 11 4. Ake does not guarantee the right to choose an expert .................................... 11 5. Ake guarantees the right to an ex parte hearing ......................................... 11 6. Ake is not limited to capital cases .................................................. 12 8. A motion for continuance must be timely ............................................ 12 9. Ake and DNA ................................................................ 12 D. Ake Error Cannot Be Harmless ....................................................... 12 V. MOTION TO SET ASIDE INDICTMENT ................................................. 13 A. In General ..................................................................... 13 i Capital Cases: Defense Perspective Chapter 40 B. Unconstitutionality Of The Statute ..................................................... 13 C. Lack of Notice .................................................................. 16 D. Violation of Agreement Not To Prosecute ............................................... 17 E. Today's Frivolous Issue Is Tomorrow's Reversible Error ................................... 18 VI. MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE .................................................... 18 A. Substance ...................................................................... 18 B. Procedure ..................................................................... 19 VII. VOIR DIRE--WAINWRIGHT V. WITT: EXCLUSION FOR CAUSE BECAUSE OF VIEWS ON DEATH PENALTY .............................................................. 19 A. Witt, Not Witherspoon, Is The Law ................................................... 19 B. “Equivocating” And “Vacillating” Venirepersons .......................................... 19 C. Reversible Error Is Almost Inconceivable ............................................... 19 D. Trial Court's Ruling Is Not Presumptively Correct In Texas .................................. 20 E. Post-Witt Reversals .............................................................. 20 F. Willingness To Set Aside Beliefs ...................................................... 22 G. The Contemporaneous Objection Rule .................................................. 22 H. Witt Error Is Not Harmless .......................................................... 23 I. Commutation .................................................................... 23 J. Collateral Attack .................................................................. 23 K. No Batson/Witherspoon Synthesis ..................................................... 23 L. The Remedy For A Witt Violation ..................................................... 23 M. Ineffective Counsel ............................................................... 23 VIII. VOIR DIRE--BATSON V. KENTUCKY: RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY USE OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES ..................................................... 24 A. The Holding In Batson ............................................................ 24 B. Opposition To The Death Penalty May Be A Neutral Reason ................................. 24 C. The Contemporaneous Objection ...................................................... 24 D. Article 35.261 In Capital Cases ....................................................... 25 E. Does Batson Extend To Jury Shuffles? ................................................. 25 IX. VOIR DIRE--CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE ................................................. 26 A. By The Defendant ................................................................ 26 B. By The State .................................................................... 29 X. EXCUSES FROM JURY SERVICE ....................................................... 32 A. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 35.03 ............................................... 32 B. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 62.110 .................................................... 33 C. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 62.1041 ................................................... 33 XI. VOIR DIRE--SUA SPONTE EXCUSAL BY THE COURT ...................................... 33 A. Sua Sponte Excusal Of The Absolutely Disqualified Is Permissible ............................. 33 B. Preservation of Error When Judge Excuses Disqualified and Qualified Venirepersons ................ 34 XII. VOIR DIRE--MISCELLANEOUS ....................................................... 34 A. When Must Peremptory Strikes Be Made ................................................ 34 B. When May Challenges For Cause Be Made .............................................. 36 C. Scope Of Voir Dire ............................................................... 36 1. In general .................................................................. 36 2. Mitigation .................................................................. 38 ii Capital Cases: Defense Perspective Chapter 40 3. Time limits .................................................................. 39 4. Harm ...................................................................... 39 D. Misleading Hypotheticals ........................................................... 39 E. § 12.31(b) Oath .................................................................. 40 F. The Right To Individual Voir Dire ..................................................... 40 G. Shuffle ........................................................................ 41 H. Jury List Must Be Provided At Least Two Days In Advance ................................. 41 I. Number of Peremptory Challenges ..................................................... 41 J. Special Venire ................................................................... 42 K. Alternate Jurors .................................................................. 42 L. Presence Of The Defendant ......................................................... 42 M. Videotaping The Proceedings .......................................................