             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. Sttm<Jen Ll)atoo
           Co~-~~~d Deficient Performance ................................................ _............- 39

                          2_:. ·T·"at     ... 1·,.., F ··1 --- Pte··.-•..a'ced Car '1.1
                                . n.. eo·unse.   0    81.Jl~ _· ~~· -           ... :gJ, ..·:~-:-...e.•:t:•:··:·:~··:·:··~:·:•...:•:•··•:•...··:·~··-·
                                                                                                                                                       41

CLAIM TWO TRIAL COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR, FAILlNG TO
OBJEct tO VIctiM IMPAct l;.VIPENCE PRESENTED DuRING THE
GUILT/1iNN~C.e PlV\S_E.· OF·~ •:·:···~··•:•·•:•··:·:·.··:-:..:·:···:•··:·:··:·:···~:••·:·:···:~···.•···~:···:·:····44
                   A.            Tri:ai Co:unsel Has a DQty to ~~e Eqor by ~ PJ;oper·
     Obj e'¢l;,ioJ,lS.           ·~:·,:~··.·:·:• •.• ·~~···:·:·:· ....7~••~. ·:• ............ •:· • .-...-••-. ..........i .-•••-..................................... , •••••••••.•••• -44.
                                                                               ,,    '
                  :a..           Victim                  Impact                     Evidence                    is        lnadmlsSible                          during                 the
     G~l~o~n~ Phase of Tri•J·:~•..:.-.·.·.•·:~ ·~·:·:·.·•:.- ··:•·.· ·~o.··-·:•.·-•:o.··:"-· .·.·:·:~ ·:·:·'-·:·:··:••.•.• :·:· ·:·:·:·:••:•·:·:•·:· •:-:• .-..•.•:•• 4 S
                  C.             Trial CQunsel Fajled to Object tp ~e Victim Impact Testimcmy of
     Walker;s ·Stepmoth.er as mdev.a:n:t ...................................._.._.._............._.............................!.·· 46
                  D.             Trial Co~l Faile_d to Object tQ th~ lrrelev311t Testimony Offered
     by Joseph.Mayo ..•-..........................................................................................'................ 48-
                  E:.  ·-was Prejudiced by Trial Couns¢l's Failure t9 Qbje~ to
                                 Cargill
     I~l~van~ Testimony and.Ptes·erve Error for. Appeal.. .............~ .....-................. so

CLAiM 'tHREE TRIAL COUNSEL WERE. INEFFECtiVE FOR FAILING to
OBJECT TO IMPROPER LAY TESTIMONY liY BR;ENDA WHITAKER
DURING 11:1E Gl)JtT/INN.OCEN<$ PHA_SE Of TRIAL.-.:·•:..-·:·:-:······;.-...-.. .-.................... S1
        A. Tri~ Counsel H~ a Duty to Preserve Error by Making Ptope·r
  Obj-ections ···································~································· .................-..................-.-...-....-•. s1




                                                                                                                                                                                                  3
                                                 •                                                                                           •
                             1. L4ni~on o~ ~Y Witne$$ Opinions .......................................... ;52

                             2. .Counsel May Not Engage in Arguinentative Questionihg ....... ·~-····53
                      B.             Trial Counsel Failed to Object                                                   ~ ~e              Jtpproper Lay 9J'iriion
       EJj·~ited ftom·a.~n_diJ 'Wil.itek,er~·:··········•·•·············· ...-..·t· .-............ -.......... ·············-·-··-·-·":··-·-·· ••••_•.54

                      c.             dargfJ:l was Prejudiced by Trial COunsei's ·Fwlu:re to ObJect to the
       .Improper 4Y Te:sfun.ony of B~n¢1. Whi~~-·:·.-.·:~··.•:o.·.·:·:..:-.......... ·:··.·~···· -:i..:·:·=··:~··:~··:;·~·:·······.. 57
CLAIM FOUR TRIAL CO~S:EL WERE JNEFfEctrvE FOR FAILlTRE TO
REQUEST A CHANGE· OF· VENUE OUE TO INPLAM1\1ATORY PRE-TRIAL
PUBLICITY., .... '..............................-...............-.. '..... .-...._.-.._.-. _...•.• ._.-. ,_. ·-· ·-~ ._._.,..!~! ·-· •.•: ··-· ·:•··-··:~·!':··:r€• ··~=--. ·:··:~··· 5·8
         A.    The Media Coverage o.f C~giU's ~s:t and Tria.l W3.!l Exten.siye
  -.~d lnfl&I:Ii~r)' ........................... ~.................................,..........................................- ..........59

                   Cqtll Was Preju4,ice4 by T$.J Co~Ps Fail~ to Move for· a
                      B.
       Change. of Ven~· ._..·.··~-·-··· ·~-· ~-·-·:~·-·.··:~· ... -:~ ·.·) ~:~ ·:•·•:(• ··~:~. i.··~· ·~·. ·•· · · -~·· ...........). -.·~··:(·.•··.•· ·:·:· . . . . . . (._. ..-:·:· ._._.. 65:·
                      C..            Conchisi9n ................................................·.··•·····•·· ............~ .........:.................................. 69
CLAIM FIVE· CARGILi.. RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
DIRECT APPEAL COUN.S~I. REGAAP.ING THE IMPROPER AND
PREJUDICIAL ADMISSION OF AN AutOPSY PHOTOGRAPH ..................... 69
      • ....      •     '       I~                  •   .           •                                                                               .       .   .. •   • ••   ••   •.   •.



                  APPellate Co\iiisel Perfotmed Ineffectively When Faillng tQ
                      A.
       ~ppeal Jri~ Co1:1JlSeVs Ovet:~Vl~ Qbje~on. tp th~ Awm.~~cm of tb.~ J.\"l~~op~y
       Ph<>t9pph 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. $i<l.ebar C:o~-ents and Other ~~ons· of"Personal opinion. 8.7
                       5. Misrepresentation ofthe S~~'SR9le_;·,:•·:·.··•·•··•·•···•··•• ...................... 8:8
                       (j. Improper C~~ging of an Expert's QUalificaP.()ns ......:.:.. •:•··:·:•·•:·:~·· 8"9

                       7. $yq1pathetic Referetices to the Victim ..............................................:.. ·:•· 91
                       8. DII:n.in;lshing the Magti.it;ude of the Jtg:y's Res~il;Jil"ity--:.·;,.y..-.......92
               c.
CLAJM. S~VEN TRIAL COUNSEJ., WEjtE INEFFEcTIVE· FOR FAILING TO
PRESENT                   MITIGATING
                             LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY AT TiiE
PtiNtSHMEN"r" PHASE OF CARGILL'S CAPITAL TRil\L. . .~~--·:~-=~·. ··:· ..· ·:· ..·..·;..-...... 95·
        A. Trial Co~~~ F~led to ~nt a Comptehensiv:e Picture of
   Ca®.lPs Lif~ mstory During the PuniShtnent Phas.e of Her Capital Trial:-:·:·.·:·:··· 9~
               B.              Cargill Sufte·red From trauma DUring Chil.dbQo<J.                                                                                 A49les~~ncet
   a:n.d Early Adult])QOc;l ••.•!:~"·:•~-~··:·.•·:~·.·:·:-:~···.·:·~····~-•:·•·····:·•···:•··············•··•···•···················-··············99
               1.:.- Khn.be.rly ~ Born 4lto a Ch.aotic and Unstable Fatnily
        EilVirotirilent ................. ·.··· .._...... ···-···-· .•_._......._._..•._._ .._._......_.~. . ·~·-·.· .•.•:· _...-.i·:._..-... ~-·:-:·:·:·-~:·: •·:·:·:·~:·:~ -·~ ·:.:·~!.. ·:· 99
             .2:, Klm~~IY;~· Childhood and Adolescertce are Wrought With
        Oysfuilction and FeeHngs of AbandOriinelit........................................,. ... -:......~. 10 i

                       3..      Kimb.eriy's First bivoree Tal<;¢s                                                        ~ Signi_ficant Toil on Her
        ~~9tional                 Heait:lt .-.-.•-.-..-.--.-..-.............. .-.-.. .-.. .-.-..•-.. ~-.-...... .-...-......-...•. ~-.............................. _....":. 1os·
        C. Despite Assertions to the ContrarY, Th~re \VQ$ ~ Posi~ve and
   Comp3$Sion~e S.id~ to Kbnb~ly C~IL:.:•-:·:··~·:··..:·:·.•.-:,•·:·:·•:-:··:-:..:·:~··:..·:~··:·..~:~···:.. ·:-:..•:·..·•· 107
         D. Tri.a.l COl:I:Q$el ~sen~ an. Expert Who testified That Cargill
   Suffeyed Fro.m Bortierline PetSOnal.i~ Disorder Witb0\1~ ln.dqlel1den~
   Corroboration of-Environmental Factors· ..........•.·-~·...................~···.·:-:~·-··:~..:·~:~·:··~:..:-·:-:·•··:~···:-:·· 110


                                                                                                  v



                                                                                                                                                                                                    5
                                               •                                                                                               •
                   E~             ~rial        Co\itASel's F(iilure Prejudi~d t~U ........................................ t.i4
CLAIM EIGHT TRIAL cot1Ns·a \VERE INNEFFEctiVE FOR FAILING TO
REBUT "mE STATE'S. CAS.E IN AGGRAVATION OUJUNG ~

             A:. 'i'n.al Gounsel Has a Duty to Rebut the Prosecution's Case in Favor
    of tb.:e O.e:atll Penalty ··~······~-······~. . ···-~··.4.1111 t.····-~-···-·-·····-·-····~-·-···········.·-·-·-~-·---·~·-·-·-·ll.····-·-~·-···-·!':·.·.··:.~··-·-·~·-· 115
             B.       Tria.l Co~l F~led ~o R~b\Jt the. Aggravating Testimony of
    Severai State Witnesses DUring the Pl.itiishment Pha:s~ of'Trial ...................... i 16
             1.. Trial C~l Failed t() Rebut M)ke WeSt's Accom:~t of tbe
           C~· B.B:ttl:e Re~a~i.hg to Their So:r:t, Dav.i~ -~..:·.•:•·:~·~:·•··:•·•.·····:..·•·••..:····:· ·•·•:·········:~· I i 7

                          z.       So-Qj~ WeSt ~ci4.en:~.·~·:-:•·:·~~:••···~··..·····•·········•·•·.•············.................................. 122
                          -3. Ir,l.Jl.Jzy to.~ Otfl<J C}:tt!lge lt~tll"-g ~ Z~b R,obil\SQJ:l•:·:···~:··:·:·:·•·:·l2:7
                  C,             Cargill was Prejudicc;d                                     ~Y       T:tial Co:unsePs Fai!ure ~ Rebu~ the

CLAJM            NINE· tRIAL                            COuNS'l~:L                    WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAtt..ING TO
IMPEACH FO~T G~_R WITII THE TRUE N:A11JRE OF' HOW HIS
CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS WERE VACATEP' .~..··:···•·,:···..:-:-·:-·;;•...-...................-....... 132
               Forrest Gamer's testimony at the PuniShment Phase of Catgiil's
                  ~
    Trial Was Detrilnental and Highi.y Prej~diCi~ ·:·:~..:·:..:·:·...:•..:·:···:•..•:.. ·:··•:·:·•·:o:..:.-. .•...~•..:·:·,.134
         IJ,. Trj~ Co~l Failed t9 I,mpe~ Qal:I)e.r with Infon:rtation
  . Regardlhg How His CriiJ;imal Convictions fot Assault Were Vacated............ 13.6
                  c.             Tri~           Cmmsel 's Failure tQ                                    Ir:npea~h               f'oz:rest           G~¢r                 PrejtJdice(J
    Car'U
     -S1.                          -~·-····:·-~~--·······:·.··· .·, . . . . . . . . . . .:.............-....-.-............................................... lltlllllll············ .139
                  D.             ConeIu!ion ................................ _..._............- ................. ,_.......... 140

CL.AlM 'TEN 11UAL COUNSE~ WERE INNE.FFECllVE FOR FAILING TO
OBJECT to HE.ARSAY·StATEMEN!S OFFERED BY Jll..L LOwE ............ 141
           A.     Trial Counsel Has a ~ty to Pre~e Er.ror by ~g Proper·
   Obje_cij_'OI)_ .•.• ·~:~.·-·~·-· ·:·.··-·~·-~· I:_. •.•.• •.··:~ ·-····:-:. ••.• ~:·. ·-·-~~:.o!•.• •.(~· •.• .•:........:-:··:··~~,/.. ~:-··· ·:._..... ··=· ···:·:·•· -~:···..:;. ........ f41
                                                            '!'.• ....:•.•.




                  B.             Trial Cotm~l Palled tp Objec~ to M~.ltiple H~y St,atemer:tts
 . . Offered by Jiil Lowe.•.....-..............-..-..-...................-.·................................................-............... 142.




                                                                                                                                                                                                      6
                                                      •                                                                                                     •
                                 l. H~yTe·stimQny ~ing LUke GarneJ";,;.•;.:·:o···.··:~···•=•·•··:o••·w •.-... i43
                                2. H~.~Y Te.~pny Re~di,ng ~ch Robinson ......................_...:•····· 143

               G~II was Prejudiced by trial Co.urtsel's Failure to Object to the
                        c..
        H~-y Sta~~~ ·~~. ·-•:·~··:·:~·~:·:·•!:·•·:·:·-~:··-·:·:··:·:~.·-···:·.·~:·:·.·:·~·-· ..:·:•.·:·:·.·•:·:··:•~:·.~:...~:··:·:·:~-:.;·~:·:•··~:..:·:.;_.:.;•.. ·~:·.··t··:· 145
CLAIM'ELEVEN CARGILL'·s DEATH SENTENCE WAS A.UrtARitY AND
CAPIUCIOUSLY ASSIGNED BASED ON tHE .JURY'S ANSWER TO THE
UNCONStrruTIONALLY VAGUE FIRST S.PECIAL I_SSUE:•·.·:•o:·:·:··~:~·-·•:-:•·:·:··:•..-•·•·146
         A.    Th:e· First Special Issue 'is Unco~tionally Vague aild Fails to
  Na,rrow the Ciass oft>eath•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.tsi<i.e Intlu~mce on
       Jury- D~-~-~~~s .•:•·(··~~. ·:·.·~··•:. ••-·:·:•.·:·.···:·.·:·~:·:···~·-·•·:·(··-·-··-·:.··:······:··-·:~··:·~··~..--.•._.:...:.:···:····:·.···=-:··~:...:.:..:·:~ 1:56-


C~AlM   THIRTEEN       CAAQJU.'S DEATH S_ENTENCE iS
UNCONS11TtrtiONAL BECAUSE IT WAS ASSIGNED BASED ON TEXAS'S
ARBITRARY SYSTEM OF ADM.INIS-TERING tH;E DEATH PENALTY ........ 158
             A. SupteR.l~ Cc;lurt Precedert~ Mandates That the Death PenaltY Not Be
       Applied Arbitrarity··.:..······""•·'""'"" ......................................................................... 159



                                                                                                             vii



                                                                                                                                                                                                                       7
                                                                     •                                                                                                                                                                            •
~ FOURTEEN                        CARGILL'S DEATH SENTENCE SHOULD BE
VACATED BECAUS~                THE PuNISl(ME;NT PaA,S;E -~Y IN$1RUCTION
RESTRICTED nm .EVIDENCE THAT ntE JURY COULD DETI;RMINE
WAS l\IIITIGAt.ING ... -.-.................-;~ ......... ~
     ••••            -          .....        ••
                                                           ~0
                                                             ~.-     168. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                             4
                                                                                                                              . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -....p . . . . . . .: .• • - • • •- • •
                                                                                                                                                  -·    ....              •              ••             ••
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    .....................




                         AJ                       The T~ S~ and Carsill's Jury Iilstrtl~ons....:.-.......:.:.-.......:._.._.. 169
        . B. _t~~s StatUte .. Unconstitutionally Limits th'e· .ea~·gories of
    Evidence: a Capital Jury M:ay Find Mit_i~g ~d to Wmant a Life Sentence.......
           t   ~·-   1 • -.·:   ~   111' ..... t 1 Ill t Ill 1   ~- "i -~Ill - ~
                                                                          <11   1   • • e • • Ill •_'."   ~-   •.': 1 1 II Ill Ill 1 1 t·l_ 1 _1_ I            ~_,f.. t·:~ ,··· •·,;, • ~~~~ _,;., .•.                            ••:Ill • •·• e .•: 111 :•:·I            ~:   •.•:-. , : . 111 •·• • •·• •:• ..: . . .   1.7()

                         C.                                                   .
                                                  Conclusion .................................._.......                                                                                                 fl •••••• _•••••••_••_••••                                   _._.~-~·-·~·-·····-~··.··-~··.·                      l7·Z
CLAIM FIFtEEN TRIAL COUNSEL WERE INEFf£CnVE= FOR F~INO
TO PRESERVE 1llE RECORD FOR APPEAL.-.•:•..:·•··•·•••·:·•·:·:··•.o.··-:-:.._.:.. •:~ ...:....:~.. ·:·:..~:··173
        A    Given the Importance. of Preserving IsSUes for ~ and. the
  Clear Man4ate of'-~e ABA Guideli.nes to Do· So, FS:ilure to ~e the Trial
  ~~or9 ~i~es Ineff®tive Ass~ce ofCo~sel...... ~:.......:..........:......~ .. ~:.:..:.:.-174

           B.     Even if Failute to Preserve the Trial ~rd Will ·Not Always
    AtitOinaticaily Satisfy the Deficient P~on.n_ance Prong of Stricklan4., ih~
    DetJei.en~ CQl1dp~ of Cargll's CoW)~ in This Case Warrants a Fit:tdit:J.g of
    Deficient PerforQ'lallce ••••..•.·.-·-········-····-···············•···········!'············-········~··-··~~-··-· 176
                         c.
                   Thls Inquiry Mu.st t~ ~Account. the Inherent DifficUlties of
   £stablishilig PrejUdice Wh.ei1 a "Substantial and -Cnieial Po~on" 9f the
   Tiiln:$Cript is Mi.~$ing .-....:.- ._.;.- ..:·~·...;......-.-... ·:·:...-.~:-:~··:· •:·: ~---· !:·~·~..··~~-.-..·.:. ••·:·:..... ·:~·· •~•:• ····:·:·•· .~.......-.-.-~·· -.~.-.-............ 177




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  8
                                                •                                                                                        •
                                                                  TA,.BL~              OF AtmiOlUt~S
Federal
B#taker v. Woodford, 331 F'.Jd 115 (9th Clr. 2003)...-·-········--···············-·······-·-··-·-·-· 20
Bobby v. Van H.oPic, 558 u.s. 4- (2009)-:. -~:-:·.·.-:·:··:·:•.·.•·...:·:··.·~-··:·.·~:··.··:~··:·.·='·-~·:·:·····:·:·•·•'····:-:·•········15
Cul/eft v. Pi!!M~ter, U..S. _; l11 S. Ct 13-88 (2011) ...:~···-···:~··:·.··:·:··•:··:-:-:· ..:·:··:·:~··:•·•:·:· lS
E~ltjJ· v~ Lt.!cey, 469 u.s-.. 387 (1985:).:...................._............_...•._.._.._..,_.._..,_.._."!'·"···-·:··... 18, 73
Harrington v.. Richter, __ .U$. _, l3l S_. Ct. 770 (20 11) .·.:..-• ..:·•:·~·····d·:········· ............ 15, 11
fn re Nqt'l Mortg. Equitjl Corp. Mong. Pool Certificates Sec..Lltig., 120 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~, ~· ~e<l) .•:Sl;
           ·~-·     ._..._.._.               ..                                               .
                    ~··~i··-~ ··~-··.··:..··.-:.:•:--.·~·-·~·:~·---··~-···~~ _,-.'!"~~ .-••_-.:·• .... ~·.,·,;.··:• t.·.,· ·:• .... -=-····.................................-.........;.:-. 57
                                                         s.
 8_iqht.zrc#on V.: S~t!, ~51 w._i4 308 (Tex. C~iro:- App. 1953) •:o_..:.;_-•:.;_..:·:·.·•:.;_• ..'f··:·:• ..•-·•:•:• 7-5'
 Roilgeau v.. State, 73:8:S.W.2d 651 (Tex.. Cr:im.App:.I987)•. ~ ...............................~··......._. 89
 S,t;l/.~a.r v. S.tqte, ~ ~ S·:W. :~4 J41_ (Tex. Cri.m.~: APP.• 200 lJ-:·:·•:•.•·:·:·:·:·:..:-:..:•_·····:·•:•_·····:·~~····~:·:-:·:·:• :s9
                                                                                                    X




                                                                                                                                                                                             10
                                                •                                                                                        •
 Steln ~- Stt:Jtti; 492 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<l an evi.d~ti_ary hearing. in -Ql"d~
                              qr, at                                                                   far
eviden:c¢ to~ presented on Waiker's aCtual ca:use of' death...




                                                                                                          14
                              •                                                         •
                                        P~.OC.g>~ 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.•) <m M~y J8, Z.Ol.Z.; th~ j~ ~iveti ~e
chqe ofth,e C9~ &r.ld \loth_ sid~ p~t~ cl~Sing ar~~~                           (~(;   R.R ~ 9-135.. )
J'h~ c~ ~ ~b_mj(ttXJ ~o tA~            jW)' f9r giJJltrmn~~ d~t~rrn41~~ 91]. M~y 18,.
20i2; &;nd t,he jury retamt~ a verdi~ o.f~ilt qre $&me d,ay. (5~ RR. ~t 137-4~:-)
        l'h~-   Sf:S:W began it.s   p~shm~J)J ~~         o.:n May 21 ~ 201 ~   ~d c()n¢1~         on
M~     45, 2.012, ~ft~ nve ~Y!ll of ~~m~_ey. Tbe de_fe~ ~ besan on M~ 29,
.7014-, ~ cQ~l~®4 the neXt ~y. 1)1.~ State ~ted· w.itn~ses in ·rebu#al and
 rested tb.~i.r c~ 011 ~Y 30j 2012:;. (58 AA. ~ 14-69 RR at 4.) .JQ)y d~IJ.~eraf'Jons·
'commenced on ~y 31, 2012-, and the jury remn;e4· ~e· verc:Uct ~~-"Yes" t()
 5pee!a.t issUe one ·and "No" to ~ial issue tWo.. (69 RR 114:. .2;5.. ) Ca,rgi)I was
subsecw,¢nt.ly sei:l~ce<l ~ dc;.~Ul. (69 R,R a.t     13~""35.)

   B. State Ap~Uate Proceed.ia.p
        On May 31, 20 12·, the co~ a~inted Douglas· PSJ"ks to represent Cargill for
putposes of the direct .appeal. (~at 9.87, 991.) On December 2, 2013, Cargill
fil~d h~ o~_b.lg ~~I.m.,t~ bri~f, l(imb~rly Carg{ll               v. The: State   of Texas·, with
call$e nurotJe.r j\.p-7(;,,819 in tbe Te"~ Cc;»Jm of Ctitni:nal Appeal$ ("CCA")_. The
State filed     atS reSpOnse on April        7~·2014. On May 9, 2014, o~ ~~t                    W8$

waived by Mr· Parks. A deCision ·by the CCA ts cuttently pending.
   C... State     . .. . ... Proceedi
        . . .... Habeas·                ·
                                  . . .ngs
       Oil Jl:me 16, 20ti, tliis coUrt. appointed the Office of Capital Writs to
re~e.r:at Cargi.ll     "in her p~-~oQvi¢ti(>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<msiSted of testii:tlo~;ty from (otty-five
 ... . .. p. resented
WitnesSes       . .. .. . to
                           . advance
                             ·-· ... . the   .. . r::y that
                                        . . theo              . . . . '/. CWI."ll kllled
                                                        . ... Klmberl             . -·· . Cherry
                                                                                             · .
Walker on June 18, 2010, in order to prevent Walker from testifying at a child
custody l;learing involving Cargill's son Luke.
       The S't.lne asserte:d that Cbe:rry Walker was intellec~y diSabled a1ld visi~
daily by a caretaker named Paula Wheeler. Despite her limitations, and the fact
tha.t she suffered from a · sei.iure c;fi_~, Wa!.ker b~ys• sevefal ~hl.ldten
including Cargill's Sbn Luke •. (42 RR at li3.; 44 RR at 33-40, 120-25; 50 RR at
2*25, 113•14.) In Match 2010, C.arglll's son Zach was removed from her CUStody
d.~.~ t~ ~leM.tl()ns of p.hysj~l ~.!P';Ise~ :Sased QI1 the aUegati()~ reg&J,jj_ng Z~ in.

~ly June 2010 Cargill's roungest sQtl LUke             was alsort:mloved from C.argill's··care.
(49 RR 41; 1. 04J   W~P.t .SJJPPort ~    Lu,ke's fa;ther F~t ~~. C'P"giU 's mother
~h.,el   Wil_$or:t so~$h~ custody of Luke. A h~g ~as set on June 23.• 201 O, fo.r a
detemiination ofLuke's c~.stody. (49        RR a..t 104:..,09.) Car&iil wa.s dls~M$1rt. ~~ Ul~
prospect oflQsing cu.S.tody ofhe.r .fo\U1b ch(ld, and Mked :fiier,tds and a~quaintances
to Write letters to the coUrt and/or·testfty on her behalf;. (43 RR at 17<>-72; .so R.R
a:t 143--6.0.)
       June 18,·.2010
       on Friday, June 18, 2010, Cargill work~:d over twe_lve-ho.nt:s as ~ l.ir;ensed
vocational n1ii'Se ·at-a ho!lpital in Athens, Texas. She started her shift at       6~45   a.m.
and ~n4~ it ·~l7:.30 p,m... ~spite it being agaii\S• h0$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<f ~at. C~I_l'off.ered to pay her a lot of money to clean Cargill's houSe. Wa1ket
had already eaten an4 d_id not w~~ to go to clit:mer, b~t ~ t.e> 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.urger<King- and~~ c~ ~p~d to be ~~ly cl~. (4;3 .RR ~~ ~l:J .. JS.• )
       ~t-~e ~y, ~body ~ f<i'imd by a ~erl;Jy                      o.n tbe $ide-of a i\ir3lrQil({ ii:l
s~m CoUQ~.         (45   M   ~t 60.-68~)    The ~ was ~e             4QWD. 1A14 ~ Qr-e ~ 1?.~ ·
~with an inCendiary liquid. (4~ RR at 124, 13"7.)                          A.   P~ Fr:esh c:oftee
ereamet contaiiiet was found between the legs of the body. (47 RR at 37-.) Aii
~tOpsy    was perfortn.e4 the. neXt day. (51 RR at 3'9,) ·There was no discemable
cause of death. and no appan;n
                        ··· · · t fatal iri"~ury     . . manner
                                             · ·· ·. The           . death
                                                          - . . . of  ......was
                                                                              -- deterinlned
                                                                                  . . ......
to be b.orrucidal Viol~~~~~- m~~~ ~owl). Th.e·d~~at;i~ of hQm.icid<;
was based oil pe_teehial hemorrhage:~ the eye .and col_l~e-~ infot:maqol), il'_l~l.Q.~
the loeation whete the       body was found and the preseil,ce of th~ hums~ (5'1 RR
34.-89, 102:-) there were no def~ve. wounds, no ligature ~ Qr bru_ises· to the
neck, and no ihju~:y'to. the Windpipe. (51 AA at 95.)
       On   Suo4y-, JW:l¢ 20,           W~er'·s ~JAotb~ ~-~~concern~ b~P$e
Wal_ker d_i(J   ~c;>t: 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.<i :as. a contributQr to tbe
inbrture. Cargill coUld not be excluded. as. a contnbutor to the D~A on the creazp~r
®.Q~.er..     th.e liJCelihood that.somec;me who~ not Ca.gi.ll woul~ }:lave tp~ :~e
DNA profile was 1 in itt,ooo.2 (48 RR. at 155-63.)
       Walker's body wa:s cencl~velY identified by her d:enta.l reco~ ot:1 June 43.
(46 RR at 23-29.) The medical exam1n:et reViewed Waiker's medical}ll.story and
tecOrdS (Wbieh inclUded a documented hiStory of seiZUres) and opined tbat
Walker"'·s:d~th was c;lue to      hoiidddal vfolence_. (Sl RR at 127.;29.) The same q~y,
Cargill's house was searched and investigators removed a variety ofitems. (47 RR
at64-96.•)
       C~gill w~ !J.lti)n~~ely ~sted               on the il;ljury to a child. watriUlt. After her
ai:rest,. Catgiil called a   fiiend from jail anci asked h_er to coil~ ptrsonal effects and
memeiitps· from Cargill's hoUs'e. Cargill also asked her frle_nd to cl)ange h~r ell)!l:il
a,nci ·~~aJ    medi~ ~cou11..t p~swor$., ~d                 ad4resse8     oil h~r· bank and otber




       2
           Cargill ·volinita:riiy ~b~t~~4 to i!, blJc® swab t~ oil J-une 28, 2010. (48
RR at 106,)
                                                        7



                                                                                                 20
                          •                                           •
 accounts. (50 RR at '218•2'0.) Cargill's fii~nd wa~ ~ti~.ately c~~ed with a
 feiony c;h~e ofta:mperlrt:g with evidence.. (,50 RR at 133.)
     B. Guilt:Phase Pt$.ntation by the Defense
          Cargill teStified In her oWil defe~. C~l testified tha.t WaUc~r ballysa,t
 somewhat ~giilatly for her. son L..~ apd s.he· wa~ the oil~ wh9 provi4ed CPS witi;J.
 Wa,l~¢r's i!$e ·~d cori~~ ~.fcmpat,ion. (~3          AA ~ 15-70.).   C~ a~J,u:low~~c:iged
 that she knew Walker was s·u}Jpo~ 19 ~fY at tl)e June Z3 h~g because
 Walker ~led her immediately after ~~v~ th~ ~bpo~ C.~U to~4 Wallter
 she did iiot     have tO teStifY   and she would take Walk~ to ~~r ~ they could
. disc·iJSs· the matter. Cargill aiso tOld ·walker that she would U1lk to tt~ ~ey an~
 "'fi~   i.t" ·so that Waij{~ did not have to t~fy. (53 RR at 2l-24.) Cargill did not
 di8pute the numb:r of calls she made on June 18. She was. attempting tO get
 irt.fonna,tion that her attorney needed.(~r the u}'CQm~ beating. (53 ~ a~ 23-26.)
          C~ll      finished her work shift. at. approximately 7:30 . p.m., arnving at
 W~_ket's apart;nleil~ ~approximately 8:l0 p.m} Cargill picked lip Walker               and
 tb.ey cJ.rove to   C~lP$     home in Whjt!ehou~, ~ving aroWld 8:45 p.m. Cargill
 wan~ to ~P 'by her· ho.use because She. tholl:ght her friend      William Selmon might
 be there ~owing the l_awl).- CargUl ~ted Sel¢on ~o ~~fy ·~~ the Jw,;e 2:3 b.~¥
 and believed be w.oul(f have a ~~ ti:rne telling her "no" if .she a:sk.ed hUn in
 person. Cargill p·ufled into her driveway,                     in th~ c~, and went
                                                   le~ving Wal,ket
 il\Side tl:i~ l)Q~e to use the res.trQom and plug h~ cellular ph.on,e it:t'o a ch.~~­
 Walk~ did ~t ~eto1,1t of~e c~~. (53 R:R, ~ 27-36.) Leaving her phone at home m
 otrl~.r to   chatge it, Cargill drove Walker tO Posadas C~.f~ i.IJ. TYl.et, s.topping along



         C~ll.l got~ wenn11gticket a~· about 8:00p.m. ·for sp~eding as she drove
          3

 through Chat).(ilet, ·which was on the way froll) ~e hospi~l to WaJ.~ey'·s -~cnt.~
 (53 RR. ~t 30;: 45· RR ~~ 40-54.)
                                                  8




                                                                                               21
                         •                                         •
the way for ~~U ~o .g~t g~ ·a)l_d ¢aSh far dinner.4 The two women ·ate dinner
tQg~~ ~.d C!iJ'8ill pro¢~~ ij) drive Wall~er ho~ne. (53 RR a~· 3&;3'9.) Whi1e in
the~; Walker-~ked          Cargill to drive h¢t·ic> 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 aroun<l tn a panic for ~ppro"hnately
(q11}'-flve ~Jn.utes and ended up .out oil a ru:ral toad.. Catgnl pUlled Walker's body

      4
        Cargill'$ rep~n.tation that: she stopped for· cash was corroborated by bank
records that showed she Withdrew $3$ frorn }:ler ~~CQum ~t 9:16 p.m. ·on tbe night
ofJ~c: 18~ (47 RR at 14-lS.)                                                     ·
                                                  9



                                                                                                22
                          •                                                  •
Q~t_   Q.f bet ¢ir o~t9 tJte $f0®4- C8!$iU -us.~             ligh~ fluid tp bum Walke_r's sl;ii!t
becaiise she knew her DNA i'n the form of tears; sweat, and saliva, would he-
p~t on w~~'s·clotli.¢.S.. (53 ~ ~ 48-52.)
         cargitl   adlil.ltted   to   wa:siling   her car   on   JUile 19   In   order 'to de·moy any
evidence. She alsa confessed to .gQing tO the WhltehOO!e p6llce- Station, also on
June 19, to attempt to ge.t ·fnfurmation abOUt Walker JX)temially being fotJnd.
Cargill adamantly denied killing Waiker. (5·3 RR. at 5:3-s:~q
                                                 at sre• l¢ngth tegai:ding tbe
         DUring cross-e>u¢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 Supr<mte Court          has
 rep-edly as.sessed the          Il;:SS~nablene$s   of cQ~l's perf<mnance by l.ooki,t)$ to
 '-'[p]reva_iHng ncmns of practice        a.s   reflect~      41 (the] Amefi~ :Ba:r A.ssoci~9n
 stan,~/' .S.tri.~lc!,;m4, 466       U ..S~: at 688;   -$~e   qiso Pt#l.il/q v. l(emyc,/f;y;_ 559 U.S.
· 356,   ~66   (201.0) (ABA st;al)dar$ t,'l.l)_ay
                                               . be        v~lia})le m~wes          of !be preva:i_ij,ng·
                                                                                                        .


 profe~i9I:taJ. nqm;ts of effective represenJ,ation")~ Rompilia, 545 U.S. at -387 (""[W]e
 long ~ve ie(erred [to. the 4114- Standards for Cri,i!l,iJr(l,/ ·Jus#ce]                 8$   gui4,e$ to
 determ.inihg what is         re:asona:bie."    (internal quotations and citations Qiriitte'd)).
 Bee~ a~eq1.1aq i.s h:ased upop. "c:ounsel'$ perspe«iye at the time," Stri!;ldand,

 466 u~s. a~      fi89,   co~~ lOQk. to-Ut~ guic;ielirt~ th«m              i" e.ffeet. See Bobby v.;
 Van Hook, SS8 U.S. 4 (2009).
      At the time of Cargill's trial, her attomey·s• obligatiolis were governed by the
 ·'·'prevailing profession~ np~," eve.n if ~bose gonl)S did t:tot a1igp with a 1~
 iigorou_s 4-efens.e based ol:J "most c_ommon customs." Harrington v. Ric/iter, , i31
 S. Ct, 770, 788 (201.1). The Supreme Court instructs c·ourts to Io.ok at tbe "nonns
                                                       1.5


                                                                                                            28
                            •                                             •
                                   .     .
  ofpra,c~¢e   $.5   reflected in Anl~~~ B~ Asso~ia~iQD standards ~~ th~ Ole~(; ~d to
  c~nsi4et   "al_l the cl~c;:es" Qf ~ ~-      StriqkJ.an4, 466 u.s. at 688. Tltese.
  sources of nof.rils incl~de ~e AJJ4 Gf!ii!e!ines for the 4piXJintment and
  Performance ofDefeJ't$e Counsel ~" De!J.tb Ptma#y CtMes 2()03, 31 liOFS'i'R:A ·L..
  REv..9i3 (2003) ("ABA Guidefma") and the ABA Sttm,dardsforC.rimi~l J~t_ice
  (3d ed. 1993) ("4BA S!.an.t/fzrf/3"); ·see also State B~ T~_.., Guideli.ires                   an4
  Sf~ds for T~              Cll]Jital Co·Z!f#_e.l (April 21, ZOO~) (~-T~ G.uft!~#nes").
         Defe_nse counsel h.~          a dt:Jty to il:i~~ re~le inve.·stiganons or to makie a
  re;aso~ble· ~siPn ~makes parti~~ im-~~g~~ wm~es_s~.                                     Wiggins,
  539 U..S... ·at 5.21;   S.~kltiiiiJ,   466 U..S. at 690.91:. "[Th.e]    0\Ade~es·    applied   ~e

  clear requirer:n~nts for ~ny~ga.tiOl;l set forth in th~· ~.i~r S~4a'tds t~ dt:~~
  penalty C.l$e.S ·an:d. ·imposed ... ~jmi.larly forc;:~@ll 4i~_ve[~]." /~.p,p(lla; 545 U.:S.
  ~ 381 n/1.. Purs~~ to tb.e ABA G~t.l¢.liD~ co.~l is reql#te:d to c:onduct
  ~prough ~d htd~tm~ b.tv~tjptl~ns rel~g t9 ~e· iSsues of both                           guilt and
  penal~.n     ABA Guidelines; G.uidelihe 10.7. A court til~               con.Si.der not only 1;h¢·
·· quantiun of evidence already knoWn to counsel, bUt also whether the known
  eVidence w.ouid I~ a rea.Sonable ·a.tt.Pmey            tQ !nv~pte ~~r.             Wiggins, 539
  U.S. at :521;· Milier v. Dretki!, 42.0 F.'.Jd 356, 3lH (5th Cit. 2.005).. When defens.e·
  cotm:sel is nOt aware of the relevant mitigating evidence, "the issue is not whether
  h~ w~ i.n.dfecijv~       fQr wi.~s· to ~t [th~] evjd,ence ...• bu~ @Jh~ wl1,eth~ l)e
  failed to conduct a reasonable investigation ~o uncover n;aiti'gatirtg evidencel' &
 parte Gonzales, 204 S.W.3d 391,39.6 (Tex. Crim. App.. 2006).
         Similarly-, t,he ABA Standards         State   that cOWisel "should    conduct. a prompt
  investigation of the circumstances· of the case            ~d   '"'Pl.ore all avenli¢s le.aQin~   t9

  facts relevant to the merits ofthe case. and the penaity.·" ABA Standatds, Standard
 44.1;· Texas   Guide/fnes, GUideline 1Ll. Most sign,ificantly, ~[t]he dmy to
• ~vesti~~e ~xJ~t;s ~~n:Uess of the a.ccused's admi.ssl~ or sta~lllellts to d~.fense
                                                        16



                                                                                                    29
                            •                                         •
cotm8~1 off~. ~nstlruting          guflt or the accused's .stated desire to plead guilty."
Jd Similarly,. the duty t9 investigate may e,xist         d_~jt~ the accu_s~'s fail~. t~

mention potentially miti,gating evidence or .the accused's afinmatiVe denial that
such evicJ.ence ~-s~. Ro-mpi)JQ., 54~ U.:S .. ~ 377·;· Ex piirle Gonzmea, 204 S-~W.Jd
at396.
        Once capitai trial coiinsel ®mpletes the :neceS:Sary p~al ·inveStigation, he
must th~ formulate a de~nse the.ory "th~t will be eff~ve in C4:>nnecdo~ 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"'(<N:~ Str~ckJtmc/, 466 U.S. at 69:l-94). Cargill need
n~     show ~ cQu:nsel's deficient condu~· '·'more J.i)c_ely ~-~ r.tQ~ ~tel'¢ the
oUtcome,, in her caae, Stncldand,. 4.6.6 U.S.      at 691, but she   :m-ust demonstrate that
~the   Iikeilhood of a dlffete_nt t~sult [i's] substantial, not just conceivable." Richter,
131 S.    Gt.   -a~ 79~-.   St;at~ co~ '·'ft!~t 4E!C.id.~ w.h~d.l~   the u.!Jdi~9vered     a.p4
unoffeted evidence would have created a re·ason$le probabi_ijty that, had th~ jury
b~ it, the jw.y's vercU~ wo~l4 ~v~ bee_n 4.ifferel).t_~':' Ex part?            Marf.ine:z,. 195"
S.W.3d 713, 731 (TeX. Ctiin. App. 2006).


                                                  17



                                                                                               30
                             •                                                   •
         State post~con:viction coUI't$ must                   atialyze     a capital peiiWJty plialJe
in·effectiv~ess· claim by -~weigh[i~$] tl)e evidcm~e ~ :~gravatian agailtst:- .the·
totality   of available      tnitiga~g ~vi~~~~l'           Wiggi.ns,        539 U.S. at 534.        ft ·Is not
nccess:ary     for t.h~ pe~~oner· to d~oll:$: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¢. $e;r\iices- to~-~ cli~t . , -. between the; eli~~ .- .. and the· cfient's
l.a'INYer.-':t)~   ·tJ?.~
              privileged rtature of communications betWeen client arid a®rn~
remains- i~~ evcm ~pon the te~on 9f the attorney-Client relationShip.. See
MarylaridAm. <kn. ins. v. Blacicmon,.639 S.W.2d 455, 458 (Tex. 1982).
      The privll~ betWeen attOrney ·a:nd client 1s llOt ·absolute. It is "Well-
~lished            ... _, Ulat when. an    auC>mey~s   profe:$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 .~ te<w..~ so as to be fait to the opposing .side; the rationale:
only supp:orts a waiver broad en:o:ugh·tQ s~e th~t'purpose. COUJts, i~_lq~g.~
that have impOsed waivers liilder the fairness. pdnciple have therefore Closeiy
tailored the scope of~e wajver to th'e needs ofthe oppo!ing party irt litigating. the
cl.~ i.n q~estiOJt.");' J~,lmson v. A.lt1ht:l17lfl, 2:~6 f:~:3d l 1.56, 1179 (11th Cir. ZOOl)
("[!\.] hab¢as. petitionet alleging that his co_unsel made unreasonable· strategic
deds1ons waives any cbum ofprivU~e ov~ the colltet:l~ of commiu;ii~ons With
counsei reJevQ!II tO asse;ssing the re:&sQnabltmess of th~s.e decWqhs i,n tJ;l.e
cirCumstan"CeS . " (emphasiS added)); United States· v. Basham, 2012 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<m~ oftb.~e
Witnesses had any beating on cargill's testimony regard-ing Walkei;s death.
       11
           At tht= time of h~r d~ Walker was under the care of Dr.. George
~arop~a @:t the Ttiility Clime in Tyler, t~. It 1s unclear why the Sta.te
~_h95e to prese~~ Or; Ulrich to testify reg~d.ing· Walker's medical history rath~­
th.an her then-treating neurologist.
                                            23


                                                                                            36
                          •                                          •
       Dr.. Ulrich    ~$0 te.stifi'~ W~~t suij'~d trQ~ "general~d                toruc-cloriic
seiZure$,. but that her· cc;m-c;lition was· not    ~e ~ ~·           lQIJg 8:$   ~~ too~ h~

·preseribed.·medicatio:n,. t egtetol, 12 she did not have any probl'ems. (5.5 RR a~ 11.-
lZ.) TQ ~;>,.. 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~.<m. ~ (55 RR. a~ 13.) There· was a. iline Walker hSd been out ofrne41.ca,tiQ(l
for: a week and another time for a month and she did net suffer- frmn a sejZ:UJ"e.~ (5.5
RR. at 15.) Dr. Ulrich read from Walker's a,utop.sy·repot:t tha,t indi~~ tQ~re were
no b~ @no~iti~s· det~ed ·mxd she bJ+.\ ·a CO.I)C.~~()I} of 4.. 7 ~ll!gramS per
lit¢r of Tegretql    refl~         in the   to~co'lo$)' repo~   wtJ.icb., wou}d have been a
therapeutic dose at the.tjm~ of h~ ~t:b. (55 RR ~ 16- f7.)
       On cross-examination, Dr:;. Ulrich        indi~~d tb~     h.e ·was 11.()t aware that in
:?01(} W;l,lker "$elf~~rtedt:'        seiitires to her do.ctor. (55 RR at 19.) He abo
~9knowledged      tha:t   ~ctors   such Q.S {IlisseQ. medi~on, ~uate .sleep, chronic
tatigtie, and sttess·eould pos:sib~y btiilg on .seiZures. (55 RR at 19-20,) Dr. Ulrich
testified that he   was aware of the eXistence ofSUOEP but claimed that it was rate
and he C(n,lld not evet ~~11 seems li seizu,re ~tient w:ltbou:t other COIII.pHca.tiOils be
mote predlsposecho d~ than s.Omebne Witho.ut a s¢imte disorder. (55 RR at .20...
21:;) De(ense     c~el ~sk~ ],)r.       Ulrich to ~11 the jtey wb~t SUDEP         ~   an.d be
~t,i,fiecb

                WeU,le:t,me give you a short. rundown on it. When yo~ have a
       sei:ii.Jie, you don't breathe.. Ifyou.doJ;t't get oxygen for a lo~ enough
       time, because you're not breathing, or i'f you swafiow food and the
       food goes doWJ.l ~~o YO\P" J.w:tgs ~d st9ps your oxyg~ from. g~tpng
       i~ your IU1tgs, or if you have a seizure and you hit your hea4 CIDd
       you have bleeding, if you. have a:n infection that. increases your chance
       t9 h~ve· s~ir?wes, you cou.I~yc;>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; unexpecte<l, witne$Sed or unWitn~ noil,-
t!'aum~ic ai).d   nen-4rowning dea~ in a pat_ielit with epilepsy With or Without
eviden;ce of a ~~~cludins d~en~ $tus eJ)llep\ieus-in W:hich
postinortem examination does       not reveal a tax1cologj.cal or anatomical            ~ of
death. (Ex. 1 at 6 [Aft: of Dr. LhatoO].) It is believed SUDEP occ'urS by one ot
more of three     mec;:~jsms,   ocC\ll'J,ing   indepen~tly   or 'in   cQnjl,ln~c;m    with   e~

oth¢r: (1) the deceased's breathing Stops due t9 a fiita1 dys_functiOI:L in tl;t~
lmiinstem, w.bi~b cotrtrQls ~ing; (2) h~- heart myth.tu ls fi$lly                djJ;~4 (~_so

~own ~         ~y:tbliliA);   al'ldiQr (3) she     experi~~~ ~ to~               electro-cerebral
:shutdown. (/d.)
       In the Uriited States alone· It Is estim:ated that between 3,000 and 5,000
epi_lepsy pa#ep.~- die thml SUDEP ev~ry ye4_r~ (fd) F~~l\ Sl,JDEP occ~ in
approXimately 1 in 3,000 epilepsy-sufferers_ per year. (Id.. at 3:4.) In fact, SUDEP
is: the Ie~ing c:;tuse·ofdeath in peopie with chrome imcontroileti epilepsy. (Ex .. 26.
at I   [Dr. Tomson Art.]~) the rille further increases ·~n patients who haVe "frequent



                                                  27



                                                                                                40
                         •                                          •
se_izu"CeS,"-16 ~SQlti~$ in abou~ on~ d~~ 200 patien~ Jlef y~$:1. (Ex:. l at 6 [Aft·
of Dr. Lhatoo].) The concemiDg tate of Su.bEP mepilepsy .patients b,_as led to
considerable     research   in the field   as well   as fundraisiilg and   awaren@S-nii_sing
carnp_aign!;\ 1n the United S~ and oth~ cotmtrie·s~ .(Itt. a~ 6-7; -~e~ q_/s.o E~. 25 at 9
[Dt. Devlrtsky Art.] (noti'ng that natiQrta~ gUidelines iD the United Kingdom
   . .. . .. that
recommend          all ~..·nerits
              .. .....              ....e·P.U--
                             . . With        ep8)'. and
                                                     . their
                                                        ..   families
                                                              . .     be· prt>Vided 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 medlcati<m and being between the ages of tWenty and forty. (Id at 7.)
       a. Wai.ker .Suffered from Gel'lera.iized Tooic-Cioiii¢ Seizure&
       Sl,ltf~ri"g   from geti~lized tom~clonic seizu,res i_s· wi:d.ely col)sjd~ to be
one of th~ most significant risk factors for SUD;e.P_. '($ee E_x. 1 at 6 [Aft· of Dt,.
i...hatoOl; Ex. 26 at 3 (Dr.. Tomson Art.].) In moSt. stu.d1ed cases, SUDEP occur!
after, or ~in th~ rontext or', a ronk·clon:ic ·seizUre. (Ex. 2.5 at 2, 6 [Dr~ Devin~ky
Art.]~ Ex. 26 at l, 3 [Dr:.. Tomson Art.].) One stUdy has eve·n reported that the.risk

       16
          Seiiilres are: considered "frequent~' when they oce·Ur at. least monthiy. . (Ex.
1 at 6 [AfT.. ofbr. thatoo].)
                                                  28


                                                                                            41
                        •                                        •
of SUDEP to be about twenty-~ times higher i_IJ epi_lepsy p1ti~t,s who had
experienced a, seizure in the preceding:y~·comp~ t9 ~-~.free p:atien:ts. (Ex.
26 ~ J   [Or~   Tomson Art):.)
      Walker's m:edic:al ~nls and t~~o:Q.y from h~ fonney neurologi~
establish that she s:uff~ ~ get)~lized tonic"cloriic seiZUres. Dr. Ulrich,
indicated in a Fel;mlary 20Q3 lett_er to Dr~ J~~ R..y<Jer th~ W~lker suffered from
"generalized tome-clonic .sei~ withou; ~,, and that Walker· began haVU:lg
sudl s~izUr~ at the ·age of ~en.. (SS RR at lli Ex:- 37 [E_~ 'te~as Neuro,logy
Records]; see also Ex. 1 at 2 [Aft ofDr:       L~oo].) Lat~;     m2004 ~d 20Q6, ~~
Ui.rich c()nclu~ two electtoen~h,!;llo~ ('-'BEG'~)'~ QJ;J. Walker, both ofwhich
in.di~      abnormalities     CQnsjstent wi~ ge;netjc- g~~_i~           epilepsy, whlch
eommonly        manifests in general_iZed tQnic-c::'loriic se~$.~- ~~ 37 [East      Texas
N~IQgy Reco~]~ see q!so (E~~ 1 ~~·3 [Aft of' Dr~ Uu~~o].) As m~tioned
                          '
above, tonic-clonic seizures have the stronge_st assQ:ciation wi.tb the pb~QIP~~ of
SUDEP. (E~~ 1 a~ j [Aft of Or; Lbawa].)
      JJ•· W • .l.ke.-~s Epii~PM' ~~ Acttve
      Desp·ite the fact. that Walketwu
                                  -       - ·-·hed medication
                                          prescn   .. . . .. -. to          . epi1 ~~.
                                                                      . . . her
                                                                .. . treat          -
th~    is evidenc.e tb.;;~t sh.e C<>ntinu!: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,~<mvw.9AAt me<t:i~on,                                   when she
be~ l)aviij$ 5¢1~ :at the .age of sixteen,, and c~ntihued on that pre~pti'QI) .~tll

her death. (Ex. 1 at 3 [Aft of- Dt. Lhatoo];) Walker.'s neurological recordS.
indicate ~t she ~ her t~~ol level$ t.e.~d ·Q~ ~· le.~~. t:wo occ~j~ns pri<=»r ta.
ii¢t   dea~,   and on both occasion.S her levels·             wete     sub-thetap:eutic.       (Id:)
Tlt~1,J,t.ic l~veb         e>f T~$N~l ~$~ fr'Qm ei$h~ t:(> twelve m.ierQgrams. per
ti;ii:llilit¢t. 18 in September 20.04, Dt. U1rlch ~rted that Walker's leVei ofTegretol
w~ .~..:5.2 mJ¢rq~s per .~{lliljterj and ·m November .2007 he reported 4.1
micro-·
 . gram   ·· · milliliter.
        . per                  (ld '·a.e.e also   .. . 37 n:o'<>m-·'Texas
                                             . . Ex.      L~~         .   'Neurol
                                                                            . . ..   · Records]-.)
                                                                                   .Qf/,Y .. . . .: .
these levels suggest that Walker was either non-®mplim~ With l'ser IUe.di~~
i-~- not ~g th~· M1 a.m.Q\I:Il.t p~~-<l tQ b~~r she· Wo\1~ not prescn~ ep.9ugb
medication. (J£x. 1 at:.) [Aff~ ofDr~ Lhatoo].) Or; Ulri'(;h no:t~·cl in ~ J~e 200.6
i~er th~ W~~ ~ hi~Qry              o_f- rec:~g ~-~s wi;l~ .11er Tegt$lle:Vels were
l:ow or·alt.ogem~r al?_~,nt, st$ing· t)lat wh~n W~er ~ay~ o.ffm.~~~o~ for lopger
th.an a month, .she had sei·zures. (ld;. see abo EX. 37 [East Texas Neurology
R,eco~sl.) F)~ OQ. t.J.'Us in.fq~<m, Dr~ Lhatoo concludes "that [Walkerl Was on
inadequate Tegretol dosages and .she was therefore at ~going risk; fot :fiirtllet
.seli::uies." (Ex. 1 at 3 [Aft.. ofl>t~ Lbatoo.j.)
       A~ th~ ti_rP,e 9f' W~'$ 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$.ust; these :tn.edi~"~<ms·
were also low, their presence would not have offset the P®r cover$"ge by th~ s~b-·
Uterape®.c T~gre~l dasq~. (/d.) The low level$ of epilepsy medi~on routinely
found in Walker'.s.system threatened to perpetuate her epilepsy rath~ than treat it.
Low levels of epilepsy medication in patients is associated with SUDEP. (Jd. :at 7.)
       d.. Oth¢r .R,isk Fa·ctol'$ E~.(bited by W•l.~·r·
       The   most coriunon age group ·in which stJt>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~ <icfense pre•t~ ~ ~Qre

wltn~es, t:tOIJ.e ofwh.m:n were ~le w t~fy to })ow W.@lk¢r ti:iigh:t ~ve cUed.. Tb~
deferi,se ih~ r~e.d i~ ~e, bavi,n~ wh.olly tailed tO supp()rt Cargill's teStimony
and explain. how it was even pe5Sfhle.. 20



        ~0 There· we~ other thingS trial coUnSel could have done to co)ibborate
Cargl.ll's testimony. For exampl~, the State cl_lallenged. C~gi)l'$ expl;mation UJ.a~
sb.e lqlpcke.d 011 do:or:s ~~ tb.e: ~p;mro~n~ ~mplex b~t no on.e responded·. (See· 54 RR
                                       s
at 18~) The dooi'S at Wiiker' apartment con:tple~ were unique by vi$e of th.~ fact
that ~:ch individu:al apartment. ha:d its own front door that ·Jo:cked, a stnall patio,
an<J then ~ he~Vy woodet:t door that also locke4.. Tb~(Qre, Cargill WQ1:1.1.4 Qot h,aye
bea.~ ~.ble to kilock d.irectly on anyone's front door. Rather, she would have been
                                                 39


                                                                                                                  52
                             ••                                                  •
     It wm; OlllY dWjng the State's rebuttal that trial ®uiiSel intro:du¢e4 the
p~ssibiliey    that Walter die.d of SUDEP. Tbis                    w~ ad~              4uf.il)g   rb~ cro~
 ·· · · .......+:· · of Dt.
                        . Richard Ulrich, USl,Ilg
                                          ··      an internet ·arficie that
                                                                         . .counsel
                                                                             . . . .. had
                                                         4

exanu.-""J.on                                           .                             ...

printed fro~ a JJ;le4.ic:al websj~~- ~ 31 [Medscape Art. on St]i)EP].) Couns~i~s
efforts were limited to estabHsbing c.ertaili ri'sk fact~rs for ~i'zures and ~l:owi~g
Dr. Ulrich to provtde an inac.C;Unrte and misleadin$ acco)J.tlt of St.IDEP. By the
time Dr.. Ulti,ch        l~tt·   t)le   ~4,   tbe jury }Wd        ~       left wjth the i.mpressjOJ:l   trnrt
SUDEP     was "very., very rare.."                (55 RR at 24.) Desplte ·the incoherenc~· of Dr:.
Ulrich's ~lalia.tiOr) of SUDEP on the standl~ C()unsei did hot challenge him ..
InStead, eounselrefemd tp the phenomeQon aS a "medic;al myst.ezy."                          (/d.~~   2S.)
      Counsel's failure to develop SUDEP as a plaU$ible explanation fo'r W8lket' s
d.e.ath ~ only be ¢,e ~~ of an unre.~ble p~tria.I ·btve:stigadon. the· f~
that COlillSel used the M~ article .during· its cross-ex~tiOJ) QfOr: m.ri~h
$h~ws thal       they were, at the 'very l~ a~ of SUDEP. Counsel mUst ~ye
noted Ul~ Walk.~· ane.t the exa.ct defurition of SUI?EP ·$.s li.ste.cJ "in the M~dsc::~
a,Tticle;· tJuit W~':s au~sy was CQnsi~t-with a SUDEP autopsy,, inclu:ding n~
ca:use ef4~ and evid~ce of J;J)od~~~ p~lrniJJ:lao' ec;l~n:ta; .and 1;h_~ W~~er gJ.et
s~eral    of the     l~          ri.sk factors,   ii.l~ludi.ng· ra~~; m~~~ re~QJ), s~~                type,
antiepileptic-drug. polytherapy, m,d                w~   jut oa.rt,$i~e   t,Jl~ C()~o~;t ~e ~ge.        @t·.
31 [Med.Scape Art. on SliDEP).) Considerliig that counsel believed the condition to
be ~e.ry,     very~,"            they shqul4 hav~ oo!l~ted ~o~eone ·wl,o specj.aliied 1.n t:he·


~oc.ki.J.1g   or   po~~g ~n tlt~ h~vy                 ot4.sjde wooden door.        Tti~   counsel should
have pfilvided the juiy with photographs of how the individUal apartment doors
looked to torroborate Ca.rgilJ's eJ.(pl~~i.o.n of how~ wlty it. w.a.s re8$011~ble th~•
no one respopded to .1_1~ ~Ql~~g. (See~~.· 3S [Ph,otogt¥1,. of Walke~'s Outer
DoqrJ.)       ·         .                                   ·
       il See Claim One(B)(l), ante, .fot the. aeruaJ. definition <>f SUDEP and an
expl_ana~on       of it:s lll~~hm.isl)l.$.
                                                             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 provi<led through.       di~veyy, ~~ ~~~~ repQ~, ~
Ca:rgill'.s   -·a.cCOWlt.   of the eventS, the jUry would have b.een              ~S¢1Ited    with
~ve ev14e~ce ~.not                      only was Cargill's account of the· events plaQ8ible, it
was actwilly qUite likeb'. Trial coUnSei'.s failure to do so                ®nstituted deficient
performart® under- the prevafling norms ~-the time ofCargili's·trial.
     :z.Trial Cou.-l's FaiJQre Prej~4i~ed Ca.~n
     Trial counsel's tailure· to cail an expert 1n SUDEP deprived Cargill of a
compelling ~.e for inn~enc·~, and, therefore, prejQd.ic:e:d h~ co~tl,l;tion.~               righ~.

In or~er· tp    estapHsh prejudi'ce.; Car$ill        ro~ ~ll~w ~t     a   ~gle   Juror would have
voted d'iifetently but f9f'coun.~f~s deficient performance. See Strickland, 466 U.S.
at 694.    ~n rt:i~~~ ~ d¢4!rmin.a:tjon, the Court ~~ces ~e ~ti.ng evidence                     of
Cargill'$ 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<U~an.. After review of Walker's medical records, the autopsy report,
a:nd Ca:rglli's ajjlanatian of'the ev¢nt$, such an expert co\Jld bav~ testjijed tha~
"Cherry Walker's death is likely       tO have   been a SODEP death." If co.\Jll#l had
J)resented s\lch ·an ·~ ~ is a ~~o~le prob:abi_licy that at least one· juror
would have harbored        reas~;mable. dou~t ~~   Ca.rgjU   c~u..s~d   WaJker's   d~~ by~

~own         fort:J;l of h~tnicida.l viol~ce... Trial. co.u:P,sel '.s failure to call ~ SUDEP
expert constitutes Ineffective assistance, prejudicing Cargill's rights under the State
~:9 (~qal. Co~tJMioliS,.$~~ Sli.t~tocy l.~W; ~d Urt_i~ed. S~tes           Supreme Co.urt and
.state case law.. As :a.tesuJt, Cargill's conviction and resulting death sentence mu·st
bereve~.




                                                 43


                                                                                             56
                       •                                         •
                                        CUil\fTWO

TRIAL COUNSEL WERE iNEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING 1'0 dBJEcr T()
      VIctlM IMJIA.Cf ~VUJENCE P~:S:&.NTED JllURING THE·
              GUILTIINNOCtN~ PllASE OF TRIAL

       ~g the guiltllnnocence: phase      of Cargill's trlal, the·. State presented twO
witne8Ses· ~ho offered a sigrtjfican.t amount of tesWnony ittel.ev~t ·to Cargill's
alleged criminal tespoiiSibiiity. Chmy Walker's stepm:other and ·boylijend
testlfie4 ~bou~ -a range. 9f toples. that can oniy be classified as vie:tim iiJtpa~~
evidence, meludilig disc)iSSion ofVialker spending her last Chri.s.PnS$ ·al.oD;e,- h~
hobby of collecting .stUffed aiiiittals, and the location of her grave.. Cargill's trial
couns.el repe.atedly failed to   obj~       thus 3.11Qwi,ng th.e juey to h.- ~ ~~iVe
a:mou:nt.ofirrelevant-and preJudicial testimony. Trial ®unsel's failure tQ object t9
this testimony constitutes lrieftective· 8$S.iS.tance, prejudicing Catgill;s ij~ts ~
the state and federal Con.stiwti(ms, state $lt:utorY law, and Un.ited    S~ S~~

CoUrt aiid State case.Ia:w. Accordingly, Cargill's conViction sho:uld. b~ rev~ed.

   A. Tris,ll CooD_s~l HI\IS     ~ DlJ,ty    to   Pre~rve ~rro.D" by Ma~~g Pro~.r
      Objections
       An ineffective as$istance of cQllij$el clai¢. requires a shtrwijiS ~ ~
counseP.s petfotm:ance 'Was, defiCient and that the deficiency ptejudiced Cargill,
Strickland, 466. U.S. at 6_87; Jimenez, 3.64 S_.W.Jd at 883. In o_rd_er.. to    m.e.e.t th~
d_efi:c;i.~cy req~j~m~~. C~ll IDJl~· ~how ~ h~r coWt.sel' $ represcm~.OJ:l            fe.li
below .an objec.~ve sfal:ldard of rea:s~:n1~Ie~ess. $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            $t    testifie.<J th~ M.~)'Q
                                                                13-14..) She
 had a driver's license bUt Cherry was ·unable to drive, and that Cherry very mucb
 Watited a red cai if she ~i11$y got h¢ li.e¢nse• (ld) She also ~il~ th~
 Cherty ai1d Mayo liked to exchange CDs, DVDs, and clo.thing with ~b Qth.er.
 .(ld.. at 16-1'7.) This· 'W3.S ~ an -atte~pt by the State to buiid Cltetn''s ~e as a
 kind a:nd pli'te victim by elieitihg irrelevant facts a®U,t Chercy's relc¢icmsbip wi~
 Mayo; which'went entirely urtcheckec:l"b)' trial couns.~l:·
       F'mally, ~JJ,~n d~bed seei_n.g Cherry's body ~ ~~ ll;'lorgo.e. "Her
 eyebrows were singed She was cut Sh~· ~ everythig.g~ Su~ ~be was still roy
 chil~t:. ~~ dj$~t mat.t~r:.:'' (/d.   at 30.) \VtJ.eJ)   ~.ke4   by th~ S~ whether she       was
 bothen;:d tha:t she ~ not th~ to prot~ Cherry Wbf!n this ~PPeJ:l~ Rt;leoil
 repiieli, "Yes. I jUSt wo.fider what elSe I rould have don~, but I tried/' (Id a~ "30.)
 At this }'Oint, trial c:Qunsel finally ob}~ted to the victim impact testimony. (id;)
 Tl:t~ 1;ri,a1 c~ rule4 d.tgt    the t~M..im~n.y CQIJstitu~ed "~~cll)g evldet:tce/' m;d
 iJ!sinJcteQ the SW.e   t~   move ol). (14 at· :31.) However, the          d.am.ag~   had   ~~ad~

 been done. the· jury had been exposed to numerous racts that had no bearing on
 C.ar~ll's guilt or ll:m~nce.,    an4 gCJJ.er~Uy t~ded t9 ~nft:zse the is.sue$ for the j~ry·.
 The State freely elicited Irrelevant testimony reganfi~g Chetcyi's b~kgrou,.d, h¢r
 relationship with .Joseph Mayo,.          h~r   hobbies, and. the Ioc.ation of her         .~y~.

                                                    47

                                                                                                60
                       •                                              •
.Rueon~s victim 'impact ~ony tailed to 11,'1~ the ~~l.evalicy reqUirement of
T~as R~e     40J   ~~~r (!l~ly e~bl_isb~ s~                ·an.d fede:ral c~~w. See      Payne.,
501 l).S.• ~ $2S; M.~e{V,-983 .S.W.2d at 263; Ford, 919 S~W.2d ·at 114; Miller-EJ,
782 S.\V.2d ~~ 895:• The= tri~ ~urt l,:il'lted:~ much when 'it sUstained trial counsel's
obje:~on to vi~~ impa~ evid~ce              toward the end ofRueori~s testiin9Py. (5_0 ~
at 31.) Trial coun5e.l's ~ll#e to obj~et. earl_1C2" to th~ ~ssible··testimony and :at
least pres~~- th~ i~s:u·e- (qr· ~ ~~d 4~6<!i~_I1t p~rfom~an,ce under the:
prevailing prof.,ional no~,~ the tjip~ of Catgill'.s tlj~. See ABA Guideii~,
QWd~_\ine 10_.8 cg:;1q ~A S~dardS for CrimiJ1~ Jl.Jstice, Defense Function, 4-
7:-Hd).
   D... "trial    .. ... .. .. Failed
          .. . . Coiiiisel                      •ect to
                               . ...... to.. Ob-~..  ... the Irrelevant-
                                                             .        . Testiinony· Offered by·
       JOliephMayo
       The S~e co~t_li1,u~ to b'W_ld upon ~e im~~ of Cherry that it had established
through Rue<>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<ieoW!iS:~(llf' (Jet) Pespi~ the S~e:;.s att¢J:npt
to question Mayo on 'irrelevant matters so as to highlight hJs          i~tellectu~ di.~biljty

and provide the jury w1th a. Che·rry-llke figure with which to relate; trial co\Jnsel




                                                                                              61
                        •                                          •
fall~d. 1;o o[?j~ Unch~e<J       by trial counsel,. tbe $qJ,te went. (Jn to   ~llcit a   li$1 of
other scary ~evie8· that Cherry enjoyed. (/d.)
       Mayo then told a stacy abol,lt a tilne Ui.at he ~ borrowed a PVD from
C~m.-y   but (ai;led to return it for some time. because he was busy taking ca113· of his
t:liHng grandp.a.re.Jl~.· (50 ~ ~~ 50-S2.) He: -recailed eventually showing up to
Chetry's· h~use. ~ bi.s n_ew ~ to drop o{f the DVD and th• Ch~ was ~y for
hjm to have th~ n.~w veh.jcl.e.~ (J.d..:   a.t -52-SJ.) Mayo recalled another time When.
Cherf,y came to see him sip.g· ~ Carreta's restaurant and hoW she told hUn, ~-I'm
very pro\14 of you for pursuing your dreamf' (Id at 63 .) Again, the State seized
tJt.e opp~riunj~ to~ ~so Gh~ believed in yoq?''               (/4,) Mayo confirmed that
she di~, ~4 trial counsel ru·led to object.. Finally, oil redirett, Mayo described the
~twe     Qf hl~· rel~onship ~.tb. Chcm"Y in more detaiL He ciaimed that, while they
had ki~ be.fore, they       were. n~ver intimate.     Mayo explaijied that he te:spected
Cherry too 1,11uch t~ r1;1Sb, into things and expla.lned that that Is generally true of
relation~ps~ (/d at 72.)        Mayo then taiked abOut how he            and CheJIY bAd. t()
overcome their families' prejl.idlces in order· to. pursue their relationship. The Issue
came up When the       S~te s~ested tlt.a,t Mayo's gi:'alJc;lmother dld not      apprnve of
nlm dating a     biack worn~ ·whl.ch M•yo confinn·ed.             (ld. :at 73-74,)       Mayo
con.fitm,ed tbj:p: Ctu~riy·~s $thet l(kewise· disapproved of het       dating Mayo.      (/d. at
74.) The jury, tl:lei),   w~· l~tl   wiU:l   ~e i~s.sion     that Cherry and Mayo had
overcome tt,le vestiges of racism m both of their re5p.~ve families:. Not eve!)               1\1:1

this point did trial cou.nselohject tO this irrelevant.testitno}1y..
       OUt~ ~·the briefdisc~ion of Mayo's alibi on the night ofthe ineident,
hls testimony focused on issues. that. were entirely      irrelevaJ~t   t_o Cqill.'s .sujlt or
lnnoc~n.c~   ofthe ·~ri111e it) q~~oft. As tbe trial court had SUsta:]ned trial counsel's
objecti9n to the vi.ctim i111p·~t tes~imony of tb.e 'immediately pre.ceding witnesS,
~Qw;as~l ~~ould J:t~ve beer) ~w~ tha~ th.e co~rt w~             wi1l:iQ.g to prevent such
                                                 49


                                                                                               62
                            •                                               •
inadmissable
  . . ..        testnnon
                  . ... y               .. .g P..laced
                                frOm bein          . . before the  · .. _·. Ne.ve.rtheless, counsel
                                                               ... Jury
did not      obj~.   a.ftet e·ach frteJeVatrt. stOry' w~ · intrQdJ,Jced, thus precluc;ting aey
possibil'ity ofreiief'on the·issue·on direct appeal.
   E.• Cargill       ·was Prejudieed by Trial Cou-.s.et's    Failure t9 O.bject ~~
       Jrrelev3.nt T~t.iDJony a.nd Preserve :J.:iTf)r {or Appeal
       There is a reasonable probability that if trial co~l had objected ~~ly tp
tb~ ~iv~· ··~01Jllt of victim 'impact evi~ence that the -                      was eli.~itil).g from
.Rlieon Walker and Joseph ·Mayo at the gt,liltl'timoctmce phase of C~:U's ~al                  m..
U1e oU;tcome of the trial woufd have been different. The evidence .suPJ'Qrting the
jury's guilty verdi~ was tenuous to s_ay the least.. Th,e medi((a,l e~er ~ ~~
even able to. ideriti.fy the callse of Cherry Walker's death. While evidence that
                                                                '
C~ll ~ded ~o d'ilp;lp Cherry'·s body was suspicious, she tpok the $!and to

thoroughly explain her rea:s:onin:g. With such limit~ evidence tba~ Qrep:y djec;l of
homicide; the: State's b~ ch~ce at s.~urlng a conyiC{iQ:g. of ~U                   w•   to create a
strong. sense o.f ·sym.patby for an innocen~ victim~ The S~e c{id this by ~ljciti.~
testimony regarding Cherry;s intelle<:.twil d~s.ability, her cbil4like hobPi¢s, ~d ~e
imp@Ct ~t b~ ~n.~dden ~ea~ h~               OI;l   b~· friends and fantily. Th~ introd~ctl9il of
such irrelevant eVidenc:e· at the guilt phase unfairly preju4ice4 Cargj.ll ancl COIJ.t\1$~d
the Issues far the j~~ C~msid_erirtg the ~lative w~~ o.f t;he S~'s «;vi4~ce
of gui.l~,   tb.~ i~   ·a   ~Ol)ap_le prob~piJity tP,~~      the   r~$W~   of CargiWs trial would
ha:ve been different had the jucy not been. p~sented With e~e~lve c;mQ~on~y- .
driven evidence.       Counsel's deficient. perfotinance prejudiced Cargill in viol_ation
of her rig):J.ts 1,1llder the state' and ·ted¢ral Constitutions, state statutory law, ~4
lJ.nite<l Sta~~ Sl.lpreme Cotrrt a.nd st~te case l.~w~ A~Q:I'd)pgly, C~ll'$ ~IJvi_ct.i_ol)
$hot:dd .be tevets¢d.




                                                        50



                                                                                                  63
                        •                                             ••
                                        CLAIM 1'111u:.l;

tlllAL COUNSEL WER.E.INEFFECTIVE FOR FAlLlNG TO om·q TO
 JMPROP~R L.AV TESTI)IONY BY ~RENDA WHITAKER DuRiNG THE
             GUILTIINNOCENCE. PHASE OF TRIAL
        DUring the guilt/inno®nce      p•        of Cargill '·s trilJ.), defe,ll$e co~l ~all~
caseWorker· Brenda. Whitaker to testify that She was aware thJ:t W~~ w~
babysitting cbilc;lren; Wa.ll<er had ~eived vaiDlng an~ ean:t~ ~ c~ficate in
babysitting; and that Walker babysat. children Qther th.an Cargil.l's~ Whj~er's
tespll)oriy as·~ l~y witness should have been llmlted to h~ persbRa_lla)mvledge of
Walker and LogiCal iriferences that could ~· ma~e froiJ.l ~tJ.J :IQ)owl~ge_. However-,
dUring cross-examination, the State engage.d "in -argumentative qu~ti®.i_ng of
Whitake~  and elicit~ testimony from her reganiing the clinic.al d~_{i:nhion qf
mental retardation as well as an unfounded estUnate of the percenta.g~ of people
Who fimct,i,pn ~t~ hi~er level than W~er adaptively and 1ntellectU.ally~:
        Whit.aker was a cas.eworker·Widt the Andrew$           Cem~~   J):ot   ~J. psy~b.olQaP.~t   or-
Oth~r   mental   h~i~   ptOfessiAAa.l equipPed to prt)vide ~ostic or statistiCal
i.,fo~~~qn~      Cc;>~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.~ l<Aowl~ge witb.out· ~
Qei}.lg ~iJ.i.ecJ as @ ~~J;t under Texas Rule of'Evid.¢~~- 702.         See DiMs ,;;. Stat.e,
313 S.-W~3d ~17, 349 (Tex. Cririt. App .          2010) t"obsetvations that do not reqUite
signi:tic~~t. ~~-~ to it:rt_~~re:t ~d wh.iq}:l are        t)Ot   ~ o~ ~1end.fi~ t,heojy c.ail
be   admitte4 as lay opinions~).      A~rdiitgly, admi.ssjo».- of$11~1) Ut)qu:alifle.d expert
t@.tiinony over·o.bjectic;m. wc~nlld COJ:lS~fi.ute tri~ cowt ~t:ro.r:~
      l. Cou·usel May Not Eiig~~e,in Ai"gum~pt;atlve Questio~g
      Tew Rule of EVidence 611 provides the              tri~     courtw.itb   ~n$ble con~l

over the mode of· questioning of witnesses and presenting eVidence. Wielding· this
p:ower, the· court is teSpOijslble fdr ei)$Urjng tb-.1 Ule ip~~ptJon ofwitl)~ and
presentation of evl.dence is done effectively "for the ascertainment of the tru:th~"
Tejc. R. Ev1d. 611 (a). Among the objections conteJ:ilplated by texas RUle 6.11 is
the "common law ugumentative objection." P(U'def! v. State, 2"01"2 WL                3~1648:.s.,

at •6 (Tex. App;-Texaikana 2012, p.et denied) (not pUblished). TliiS·objecfiQ.n iS
often.nlis:understPQd Q a way to object to opposil)g co~l who ls· ~argUing with~·,
the Witne$9   on the stand       See id. ("the· :a:rgwnentative obje~on is an objectio~
common!; ~ b}.i~ ~Q~ co~Qnly u.n4~- "). H9wever,. it is more a~.e.\Ji'ately
an o.bje:ction to the opposing party's attempt to argue its case 'while           quest,ionm~   a
witness. Id. "Counsel may not, in the gUise of asking a qUoeStion, make a jury
arg~en~     or   att~mpt   to summarize, draw inferences from, or comment on the
eVidence.     lil Cld.dlti~ qu.e~onS that ask a witil~ to ~$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:d<e:d clo~~ly
with Cherry Walker· over· the cours"' ofrougWy two·year:s, an_d k• prQgl'¢~ n.ot~
throughout that time. (/d.. -at 109.) The majority pf'Whitaker's d~ t~stjmcmy
~ spent     ·going ovex ~v~~ of the ~~es from the ptogress no~ in o_~~t t9
'e$tablish that Wbitak.er was aware· that Cherry.    Walker·-~ b~.~.ittlJtg, tP.~       she·
U:~c;l to ~ys.it, ·Q }Wl    taken a course in babysiUfu$ and .s~red we.ll ·i:n i~       ~d
that she· took. care of at le&$1: two other chilch'e.n in ~tjon t,o L~    G~er..   (ld. at
110•16.)
       On Cross-eXaininato
           .      - -    ,n, the .State   -.-- pted to. use
                                    -· . attem                   Whitaker
                                                                 . . - . to- establish
                                                                              ,.....
Waiker;s degree of mental retardation. Whitaker remind~ the Stat~ tha~ ~be w~
not a. p$)'cholo~sf, bu~ n~verthel~ss could gather that Wal.k.et WS:S rt)~tally
retarded simply by virtue of' her being a eli~ of~~ Ap~ws               ~~-    (54. RR at
120.) Whitaker went on tO inf'Ql"l11 the j~ tl)at some of'tbe clients ofthe Andrew
Center haye tak~ a cQU~ ~4 rec;e.iyed_ ~ii:' drlv~r~s license.              (/d at 123.)
Walke.r did not lu.lve a driver's     li~,    bu,t WhiWcer· te~~ed      th~~ drj'Vip~   was
~.ever~ specif:i~ $~of W~er's. (Id.) At that paint, the         Sta:te be:gan to question
WOital<er ot:J. the ~linlCJJ teq~rein,eilt,s far a diagnosis of' mental retartfation,
app:arently in attempt to e:stablish   ~   Walker-',s cond.~on ~· J!lQre ~ere than
others who ~4 Jegned to dt.j_'V·e•.
      First the State asked Whitaker to ''tell the jury what that means When y·ou
operate at two standard deviatiC;>ns ~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 ~ ab<iut~well, there's
          three aspects of mental r~tardauon; On.$et befare the age .of l8;
          siiP.li.tl~t (~i~ons i,l-ad~ve.funetlonirig, and an LQ.        below 70 ..
               .What I'm talking.~ is the. two .s~4ard d,eviapons below th~
          mean in intellectLial a:nd adaptive functioning.
                  A~.      Inte.llect)lal and a$.-ptjve 1\lnctjoning-. Now., adaptive·
          funciioriiilg is h~ living skills, how· .she petfonns.. And ~rt~lec1;Ual
          furictioiiiiJ.g is· ·basicaUy her IQ ..
                  Q;       R,igh~. Ap.d as tb~t pertal_ns too-well, okay. That's Kind
          of rigltt, b~ a.s It ~-$ t() be,i_11g two .stapQ.ar.d dtm'!!ti~n:s IJ:elow the
          mean m~ ·tha~ 98 percel)t of the ~pl~, 41 1;ll.e Un,i~ed St:a.W.S
          fjmctibn 1ntellectwiily and adaptiv.ely better than her. She is in the ·
          l~west 2 ~rc~~ ~fthe ~o~
                A_..   Rign~.

                Q.     -:right?
                A.     Rlght.
                Q.      In her abi"Ilty to func~on dafly ·and i,nte(lectua)ly, 98
          p_ercept of the ~le i_n tbe Ui)iied S~tes lilt¢ better t}:iaQ h~_r; ~rrect?
                A.     (Nodded.head affum:atively.)
                Q.     Yo(i agree With th~t?
                A;.    Ye_s_.
(14   ~   l23-Z4.)
          While Whitaker  ultimately agre·ed With the State's clinical definition of
me_n_tal re~ard:ation and what i~ mean$ to function at ·two Stanciard devia~_i6ns below
the m_ean, it was· only ~fter th.e S~te cQrrecte4. lwr tb~ sb.~ cUd so. Prior tq th.at
exchange it had never been established that Whitaker had the "scientific, technical,
or oUl~r ~peci_~fi~4 }qJowledg~" on        whi~h ~o b~ s:t,1ch ·ap opjni<n.l• See Tex-. R.
Evj(l. .702:•    N~ith~    djq her   ~po~e-~    to    the   S~e~s   qu:estions regat~ tb,~


                                                 55



                                                                                           68
                           •                                                         •
definition of n::t~n~ ~pen ~ire confidence in.her qualification to te8Ufy to
such a scientific and technical topic.
             .                                                             .
       .By eStablishing that Cheny Waiker functioned                            at   a lower level than 9'8
percent of the CQUntry, the State               was· ~l>le 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<Jen~f:Ying Cargill ·as a persOn who was believed tO have "killed Walker to stop her
testizymg in coUJ1/' (E_~.
                         IS [Vic#m Set to t~ti&l~ ·Ex. 16 (Woman Killed Keep         to
li& Silent.}) Desp1te the fact that Cargili had not. yet been arr~ in or name~-~
a su~pect ·lp. Walker-s d~ the articles reveaied specific detai1s contained in
search warrant affidavitS and coUrt documents.
       'Ib~s~ ~~les al8o con~ed          st:atement:S from Walker,.s bereaved family that.
th~y definitively b.eiieved   Cargill   was :iUi"ity of"Walker's- ~. WaJ~;s ~~
niQther, Rueon   Walker, described \Vaiker as someone with "the. mind of a child but
a heart of goid"· Wid u~rl_y -~e)pl~-" the articles revealed that Wa.lic.er babysat
Cm-gili~s   son despite the fact that Walker;s parents       ~b·egg~   her· not   tp_._~ IW~

Walker    ~e    a number of other inflammatory assertions, l:ncluding that Walker
~ her fOOd s:ta:mp money to        buy food for ~11' s· son; Catglll ott¢D failed to
pay Waiket for her services; aiid Cargill left. bet son in Walket'.s care overnight
wjtb.Ol).t ~®q~e CQllJpeliS"ation. Th~ articles aJs(:) ooritaf ned macc:Urate factS,
mcludfug that some of Walker's belongings             wet¢   found in Cargill.'s home and
vehicle· following   the execution      of a S¢atch   warrant.    .(Ex. 15 [ V~e.tiin Set to
tes.tt&J~ Ex~ 16 [.Woman. Killed to Keep Her Silent].)

       KL TV-7 News ran an identie;al story te$8fdin~ Cargi_ll's alleged
lnvQlvement with WaJker;s de~ but on television. TIJ"e· video fonn$t i.nclucied
foot~ge   of the· crime sceiJ,e :wd the l"i:ve 1nt~tv.i¢w with Walker's father and ste~ ·
mother; The interview :is intense•y emotional and it is clear that Ru¢on Walker
btlieves Cargillls net only responsible for Walker's death but mfstreated Waiker
"in her role as Cargifl ,.s baby~itter.. Rueon "js (ijstraught a;s ~J:ae d~Q·~~ Wa_l~~·a.s a
                                                62



                                                                                           75
                            •                                          •
"c_t»_lc,f' ~:d bero~OAAS, ~-~I:I9W co~lcl e,nyol)~ hl,k~:s~~.b iJ:moc~ce, that'-s what.l want.
to .say~ such innocence an.d he s_o Violent,.         SQ   m;e·an, ·so evil?" (~.. 38 [News
Footage].)
                            2, 20 i o,. KLTV o~ published an article entitled
           The. very nej¢ ~y, July
"Looking fot Safety When Subpoenaed" Since, "the death of Cherry Walker· has
rm:-. a ~sn~" ~ ·~ .~e)'' ap~ law .enforeement officials proVided tips fot
peop"1e to keep
              . themseIves R-...&.··· wben
                        .. a4e           . cailed   . ...~ at. coUrt.
                                            . _ to teSti~'     ..       . . .~.. c. ..g,J.-~-
                                                                      Althou·nJ.       .mll is..


not ~eci6,~1y ~ed ~ the text, her photograph apj)ears ·in ¢onjUnct1on with the
article, 'iJ1'1Jil~iately ~low a· photo Qf Cherry Walk~r.              (E.~. 17 [Looking for
Safety]..)' Tiie: publication of st!Ch a Story solidified catgiit as a person With a
clearly defuie4 motive ~ klil w~ik<~_,..,.~         Qrdet to preve~t   her :from teStifYing in
co'Wt •.

       FUrthermore, m.uitiple articles ran in VariOUs publications In print and onl.iDe
·wile
 ..     ~'II was· arrested
     ~ C--              .. in connectio
                        "         .     . ~ with
                                               . . Walker's         - the end of June
                                                              . . . at
                                                   . . . . . .death
 2010 and When Suzanne Jones-DaviS was -arrested for allegedly tampering with
 eviden¢. Il w~ reported t.hft,~DNA evic;lepce· connected Cargill to the crime seene. _
·(See. Ex.. 18 [Mother Charged]; Ex. 19 [Whltehowe Woman Arr¢sted];                    ~-- 2()
 {Friend of Cc:Ugill Charged].) the· stOry of Catgill'(s atTest received :attention
 beyond ju_st loc.al medi.a outlets· as· well.. The website '-~a~~ areeders'' publishes
 s.t()fiC$ about ''p~nt.ill$ -~ J,la'CJ ifs qim.i,n,lllJ:•-.:t The ~t>~~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 fr<ml ll:IJ'Or Questionn,aires]..yo The explanatiOns ranged frOm those who
generaliy reme~ber.ed readlng som~ ~~ Waiker'·s d~ ~~d tl:t~ ti,me it
happened, to tho·se who had detailed information regarding the relationship
b~ween Cargiil     art4 Wal~ ~d Cargill'~ alleged motive. (/d.)
          One venire person ·wrote that she had seen medJ.a. cpverage in both th~ Tyler
Morn;il;lg Te,l~ph ~d on the television station K.LTV and reported she knew,
K'I'hat    ca.rg'Hl was    a1teady   in t.rouble With the law and thal she m~ her
.m~Wiy l)a.ncii98pped         babysitter to keep her trom teStifYing .41 the case·; the body
was foUl\d, partlally bUrned, .off of a.ro"a4j~t ~ of Jl~W'Y south of Tyler./' (Ex.
39 (QUestionnaire ofBett:S].) 'this particular venire person later e"~~ in h~·
q\l~stiotma4'e 11;1 t,h~ e).(platijltion   for why she dld n·ot want to be· a jutot in th~ case,
"Th·e defense would h~~·to overcome a lotofpre-m~ publicity. Why no cl,ang~
of veri~? Utjs w~s ~ HORRIF~O case/-' (Id .., emphasis in <>ngin~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.<m abo~ C_~.rgU.l.       an<i   b~   history was
di~eminated           to the general public even before she Was        indic~Q..     TI,li~ was

infQm.ta~i<m. t.ba~ ~y~4   be.r as emotionally tm$table, pr-Qne to violenc.e, Slld -a
virtual t~r·to those closest to her. (See Ex. 22 [Pean Art.].) While some ofthis:
in.fol'l'l1ati'oo u.Itim.a~ely Wa!il presented to the jury by way of witness t~timo~y,        it
                                                  68


                                                                                                   81
                        •                                          •
.. . not
was   . done
         .   sa unti.I      · unislunent
                   .. the.. p.. . ·-.    p hase
                                            .. of trial.   Any J·uror .. .. was
                                                                  . who         ·· · . sed
                                                                            .. ~-       . to
                                                                                           ..
t!te media coverage prior to that wo.uld have }»S$¢Ss.e.4 kn~wl~e of .highly
prej'LJ(ilci~l afid "Inflammatory informatioil about Cargill before it w~ i_ntro.~¢ed by
judlcially apprppriat~ m~aps. It wotl14 ~v~ been t:te~ to impossibl~·tor @j~r to
"farget"     about what wu :revealed through ·the course of pre-idaJ            puJ1H~ity   ap,d
wotJld b~ve a naw:tal,·:a(bei~ ~.~t;.o~ c;ffee.t on the verdict.
   C.. Conch1sion
        ·The inft~o!Y a;nd P.fejud.ici$1 prt>trlal publ_ieity sUrrol.lndlng the· death of
Wa(k:¢1' and ~.ll's subsequent:a:rrest created a situation         where Cargill W8$ ~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 Gui<JelU,es and S~dards for Capital
Counsel outliiies the dUties- of appellate counsel. Co~l m~ "reView th~­
appell.ate record for all rev~ewable errors" and p~pare "a well-reseaithed and
drafted appellate brief." Texas Guid~lines, §. 12.2(A)(8)..
         Catg!U's direct appeal eounsel failed to rai$e a significant issue on appeal
that was app:arent._oiJ the fac.e- ofth,e re¢:ord. .       Appel:lJ.t~    co:w:tSe.l's· 6tilure t9·pmpe.rly
preserve and appeal these errors constitutes ineffective assiStan:ce, prejudi~g·
Cargill's rights Wtder tbe ~te ~ federal C.ons:tltutions' -~ stamtor)'                           l_aw,   ~d
United States Supreme Co.urt and ~te ~- law. llrus, ber co.nvic.t(ol) sh9\lld ~
revers¢(!.

     A. Ap~llate Counsel Perform.ed In.effeetive~ Wla~Q F•ilj)lg t() Appea_l
        Tr~l Counsel's Overruled Obj~tlon to the Admission of· tbe Aut'Opsy·
        Photograph DuriD·g the Tatimony of CheiTy Wallk,ei"s Hainlreaer·
         Scm.ya B~t:t, CI,.~:qy Wal:k~'s l:t~_rdres.~r, testi_fled. du~g the· guilt phase
tflat   W~~~r   ·c:arne   tQ   her !;!hOp to   bay~   })er ba:i.r- ~Qrt~ 0-.:1   J~e   18, 2010. Walker
arrived.a:ro.u.nd 12:30 p.m... and stayed for a:n hour-and-a-halfto. two hours. Walker
seemed fine and was talldng and laughing as U:S~ arid ba4 no htjuri~s~ ( 43                         AA at·
lOp.-08~)

        After this bri~f testimony, the State offered three oversized ph~hS
(State's Tnal Exs. 78,         79, and 80) ofWaJker taken during hetaU:tbpsy. the. State's
pro{f~r was tb.~t tb~ ~'-'i.ste4 tbe I)~ t~ ~~-~bl.i~ll tba~ w~_lke_r was jl_l (~ 4.~d ~4
this witne$s could properly do that. Tria'i c®nsel objec_ted because not only could

                                                          70


                                                                                                           83
                          •                                             •
the p;ttbol9gist properly establish death, bUt the photographs were- fat more·
p~judicial than probative.~ the:photQ~Ph.$ were pQster ~ze4 Qttd                In on~ W~J<q'~
hare breasts ~uid be seen. The State proffered that .someone. needed to Identify
Walker and d_id not want W~ll.cer's ~:ther to h~ve to do ·it, but -a~eed ta withdraw
EXhibits 79 and 80, which showed the bo:Ciy ''below the neck:" Trial c;ounsel
reitera~~ ~~-lr objection to Exhibit 78, which      was overruled. (43 RR at 109-13.)
Despi~ ttl~        couQ..sel's· ®ntiirued ob]®tion, Exhibit 78-a post$' si#d, ¢olot
pl,.9to~h ofWa_lk~'~ face-at th~·time Qfthe 8li~~y-was published to the jUry...
(43 RR a~ 113.)
           Tnal counsel's ov·etru_ted ohjectio.n and the sijhs«ill¢Q.t p4Ql_ic·~o.I:l o_f tb.~
il;lfl~~ory pf)o~o~pll to Ul~ jucy was tri.~Jl court; ~r and dlrect appeal counsel
$-ould ~·.;-e ~ed as ~elL
      -~   1J;a_e A.'-~~psy Pl;a~to Vsed l:ly ~be S~te D~riag ~he Testimo@.y of Wal~·r's
           Ha:itdresser Was Far More Prejudieial Than Pro.bative aad Thus
           l~d-..iSsibl~ .
           In order to be adinlssl~le at uj.al ~vidence (:rtust be relev~ Relevant
evidence rp_~~ evi(lence having an;r ~r:tdeqcy to ~~ t;he ~i~~nce of any fact
that is of consequence tO the determination of the action more probable or less
probable th~ It ·would be Without the· eVideriee~ Tex. R. EVid 401. However,
although relevant, eVidepe¢ may be eiclu4ed lr:its pro'b~~: v~~ is· ~b$.1ntia(ly
Outvve:ighed by the danger of unfair prejudice·,. C()nfusion of the issues, or
misleading· the jury. Te~.      R. Ev-i(J_. 4Q3.
           A pb«ograpb -~<4n.it~       ~   evide.nce s)Jo~_ld acid somethjng- tJ;Jat i_s r~levant;
le-gitimate, and tos;:cal to the ~estimony that aeCQmp~_iC;S it B:~~d ~siSt;s ih~ jW)' in
its   deeision makliig     diities~.   If there ate element$ .of the photograph that are
genuinely help(Ul to th~ jUry i.~ m~g i_ts <Jec~i~m.; tb~- pbQ~og~:apb js admi~jble
only .•f #1~ emet_iQ.n_al ~ prejud(c::18l 8$~ substantlaily ou:tWeigii the belpftil

                                                     71


                                                                                                 84
                            •                                      •
aspectS. /)t,Jii#in v. St'!Jt:_, 19.4 S.W.·3d l4, 2-5' (Te~. App.-Tyler 2006). At tb~
time Burton was called a:s a witness. at C.argjll's trial, tbe S~~e W8.$ in Ut~ proc~
of ~s~bU§h.ihg the relationship. betW~n Cargill and Walker.. The niedi~
examiner had not yet t~fie(i to th~ ~~$e of de~, or lac~ tJ!~f, ~d. ~Q
evidence regarding the state of Walker~·s· b:ody had even be.en ·introd~ced:. Tl:t~
Witp.~ WhO di.SCQVered Qle body OD the Side Of the road nad not evel) beeiJ,
presented (See: 45 RR at 60.) Thus, there' was no cllsc:erna})le ~xpl~ot:J. for why
tbe S~ woW.d d,toose to publiSh a photograph from Walker's autopsy dUring d;u~
testiln'ony of her h$ir dresser· other than tQ ~nf1a,n;1~ !Ae jwy wid) tl).e shocl$lg and
gruesome natt:ite of the eillarge:d image.
       Ult,Un.ately, admh~~ibility of photographs over any cha,Il~e i~ wf~ tb~
discretion of the trial judge.. Kendrick v.. State, 942 s:. W.2~ llO, 126 (T~. ApP.~-=-=
B~on~ 1997).. However, ~.a,buse            ofthatdlseretion ·occilrS when the probative
value of admittfug the photograph is smail and the· inflanu:n;awry pot~~.al i$ ~
Kreyssig v. State; 935 S-.W.2d 88.6, 890 (fex:. App.-Texa:tkana 1996).            The CQlirt
muSt consiq~ ~ ~o.st of ~~Or$ ~ectjn.g prob~ven~ of eVidep~e, it:J,~luQi)lg the
relative   wei$11~   of the evid.ence an4 the   ~gree ~   whi¢b.   i~ propo~~t ;rojgh~     be
disadymJtaged ~tl:toti~ '(t, .apd bai~ce those fact.O.t:s ~~        9-te. t~~cy ~ tbe
plwt.ographs    h~e    to   en.~~e ~1\djon        of m~~~-~1   i.~.es OJ) ~ ~nappropriate
emotionai basis. Hooks v. State., 44 S,.W.3d 607, (jJS (Tex. App.-.T~~ar~
2001).. Specifica1Iy when dealing With pho.te>gtaphs,          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,<m,.Qi~¢1) of Wal~_r's body, t,he only reas.onable. reswt wa.s fot" dt~· jwy ~~ ~·
eii;lotlon~ly   i.n,flamed.   the trial court's decision to overrule trial ®UilSel's
~bj~·cm ancJ allow the .Photograph to be publ.i~hed was iQ en'OJ;! m,.d wo~ld have
been deemed .s1lch on M3peal. Thus, dire'ct appeal counsel was defident to falling
to ~se· it as a cl~.
   c. Conclusion
       Appeil?ote coW)sel 's perfonnanee· fell below the reasonabie Standards of
pro:(e·s&o~ coi.l~~ .~d       ptejudi¢ed Cargill's      appe~.    Lucey, 469 U. .S~ at 394 11;,6
("b;t a s)~tiQil l.fk~ that here, couns~f's fail \.are was part.iculatly egregious in that it
es~ti.ally ·~ved respoo4~·'s oppo$nit.Y ~Q ~~· ~ ~~e on tbe meri~; in this
sense, it .iS difficUlt. to 4.1stinguish 'i"e.Spon4.ent's si.~~on   frO~ dl.at Qf so~eon~ ·who
had ·no court$e.J at a11.0,. Thetefore. Catgill's
                                           .
                                                  cortvicti.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<e prope.r ~~t.S tO the jury·, to

soi_i~i~ ~I.evAAt ii:ifotn:tation from testifying witnesses,. to ffiune their questions to

wit;o~ Congjsteg.t wim t}l~ Te~ RQ.l~ of J;;vid~~' ·~d,- generaily~ to inamtalli
®coto.m.. a;(lcf to acc;otd J9 tJ).~ proc;:ee~ that dignity which is expeCted ofofficers
Qf the court,.; A~ tbe bean of th~ qbiigatlons is a coneem tliat ct1minal trials,
@~Q~ ~ tnith-~kjpg ~d~vo~.                          Wi~out      them, neither- the   a~sed   iJ.Qr ~e
public C811 have that measure of coil.fldeilce in the outcome which Is necessary to
~~· aQI:n_ip.i$'a~~ Qf jllStice~
        throughout Catg1Il':s capital trial for the:mul'der of'Cheny Watker, the S~te
ro4tjnely di.~~~e4 ~~e oh(lga~oi;lS.         Moreover, these ettei'S by the State
re:c¢ived the faintest opposition frOm cargUt~s triai ooUl)Sel whc;>, fortbe most P.~
sat by as the1r client was disparaged, as            religious imageJY was improperly invoked, . ·
as   si4eb~   wtnrnent$        ~       ·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~~<m ~s~_fYipg to facts and
assertions not iii           evidenc~;- (2) disp~ging      remarks-;. (3) religfo'l:lcS      ~ery;
(4) sid.e.bar       conun~nts       ~d     other    -~~_i.Qns        of    ~rsoi_lal         opi,Jijo~-;
(5) misrepresentation of the State's rt)le; (6)'iinprop¢r          c.l;l:~l~gjt;tg   o.f ~   ~perfs

~ific~pops;           (7) SYIJlpa,thetic i'eferen~ to f.b,e vi¢m~ 31)~ (8) diminishing the.
         \
magnitude of the jury's r.espon8ibility. For organizationa.l pqrp~$~,                ~h      of U)~
categpries is ad~ssed 'below in its own sub~on. But while not ev~ ill;S~~
ofprosecutOriai.Diisconduct.maybe credited with working~ mjU$tice·in C~l_l'$
case, ~e breadth and audacity of the S.tate's eitor3 leave no qu~tion ti'S· ~o ~~l.r
cmnulative eff~-namely, to 4eprive C~ll ~ b~· f\mcJamen~ C®S~:t!rtioga.l
righ~   to a fair adjudic.ation of the cbarge·s        l~ed against       her. Se.e     Guidro~       v.
Lynauglr, 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<ming the·witn~s.:·

             Q.          Th.ese -~ call$·~ sbe- is m_ak.ing here; startitig iike at
       2 i :48. . She .:iJiakes one, she makes one, she make·s pile, site ~~ QDe,
       ~e makes o~ .she makes orte~ there:o-s a ~all coming in to h~. 'Ih*
       ~ ~ng ~ere4- ~~y? ~5~ seco.n4~, 525 second's, a rruliute; a


Hoover (43 RR at 52,-54); Angie Grw.t.t.(43 RR~t 12:5-27); Witliam S~lnw:1;1 (43 AA.
at ~0~, 22-5.;;28, '2-J-7, 251, 2-90, 292); Paula Wheeler ·(44 RR at .52, 100); La.:ry
SniWl (45 lU. ~~ 1:72);- N~l M~ (47 RR a~ ~4); F~ Gart:~er (49 RR at 109);
Brian Cargill (49 RR • 119)~ Kim:f,erly Catgi,ll (53 AA at 118-19, i32; 54 RR. at
19-20, 62-63); Brenda. Whitaker (54 RR ai 124); L.oren Puig (54 at 160-6·1)..
A4.ditjol'\al ~iJ.Plpl¢$ of t)m~_::; ift Wi).lch t"Pe S~e ptovided. improper testimony or-
Improper- penonal t:9mmer'i~ ~ Ut~ punishment phag ate as follows~ S~(ija
Cra.ig (58 R,R ~ 16..$Q, J00,-04)~ Rachel Wilson (58 RR 157•64, 171--79, 185··91,
202, 206.-o7); April Pitts (5.8 RR • 21).7-ZS); S~aron Rushing (58 RR at 261 );· NQel
M~in (59 RR ~J 11-16); Jo_tma Booi.cer (59 RR at 30)~ Barb~a C}:l~betlin (59 RR
at 6.5•66)·; Mike W~ (59 RR at 101-02, 107); Sonja West (60 RR a~ 37, 4+4.6);
L~igb Ann Henry (60 RR, 54-55)~ B~ Metri~ (60 RRa~ 97~98); Brian C_arg]ll (60
R.R at 13<>-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 sec<mds. But even before then, dO you see
       all ofth.e.se c:alts?
(43 RR at 97.) FolloWing two more              perfun~ory   questions, the S:t:ate ·cQntbt~ed ..its
testimany:
              Q,        0~~. Well, yo\1 sa,i4 ~e.~e4 t9 woJK. so I just -loolc
        on this one.
             Now; she'.s .still at work on the 18.th, right? Het;e 's ll :19 a;._n;t.•
        And there's ~ ~ being ~e ftom·.her to~ n~~er. She.-should be
        at work~ I mean, hm;·s ftoin ll to 12, 1i to 1 o'cloCk. LoOk how
        many ~s you've got:..

              ~         (Nodding.)
             Q.      And I mean, this oriels lastlilg i6S9 seCob.ds, lOt
        seconds;, 200 secQnds, 560 S¢COnds, 1ZS seconds. And·y'~l.l are
        paylngl;ier, ~~·;t you, whi).e,she's ~ng ~of these calls?
              A,        Yes.

(Id at 97-98.) As tl,.e State continued ·to ask improper questions ofthis Witnes$, it
al_sQ sei.z~.d tb~ OPP9~cy tg pQ~Y C~U as shiftless .and <i)s_hcm~ fQr haVing
llla:d~ p~r;sQr,taJ c.al.l~ wl)i.Je at work;
            Q.       Okay.       Is that what- that would not -I mean, woUld that
        be_goo(t with y~all?

              A.        No. No. Hul:l-l1h·
            · Q.        I.~~.  Y®'ve paid h~r $299, o:rwh~v~dt ~s ih• c4y,
        to·m~eone; two, three·- well,     one, two, thre:e, fom, five, six, seven,
       elght,rtine, tent 11, 12, 13,.14, is, 16,.17, 18, 19.,20,21,22,23,24;
       2.5, 26, 27, 28., 29,"30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41., 4.2, 43,
       44,.45~ 46, 47, 48- hold that one second for me;... 49, .s:o;sl, 52, 53.
       An4 then s,he ge~ off rigbt there.

                                                    79



                                                                                                  92
                                •                                       •
                So 53. And l?efore that, she gets ~o work •      abQu~- wt,at.t:h~e?

                A.~         6:4.5.
                Q.          See tight here, she's at work. ·So 63, 64, 65, 66t 61, 68,
        6·9, 70. 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77- 78 ~~ ~ 78 ~- whi.Ie=~ the
       .hospiW wnile $he's suppOsed to be caring for patients, an.d you're
        pay)ng.het 200-somethlng dollars a day. Does that surprise· yo·u?
                A~          Y~s~-

                Q.          O~y. nat's:~ ~good gig, ~'tit?

                A.          Yes.
(If!. • 98-99.)         lli_e   s~~,.   st:ill coi:11inuir;tg ~ ~fy tlu'Q~ i~ wi~es.s· ~d ~~
end~O.P:Q$ tQ b~i~b CwgiJl thro~gh i~ improper ·q11eSt,1~::mJng,- tb~ b~ t9
baselessly .speCl,l,la~:,
                Q.          B~ you're going to
                                             make $299 ~ ~y ari.d yoli .g~
       to make almost 70 calls, some of them lasting -let~s.see-like take
       thi.s ~pe,; forip~_~ce right h~ ~I d.9n't )qtpw bow ~y secon_<}_s i~­
       weii-, l'm kind of scared to-add Without my phone.
                But Ilke- that;s the wrong page.
                Here's 5otite:on the 18tb:. Yo1,1 might bold tb~ for r_n~:on~ _n;1ore.
       t_iriJ.e.-
             Let'.s- give her the --let's say she took. half an hour for lunch.
       Let's give h~r the benefit of-a doubt and pick this one ri8ht here at
       2:.17 on the 18th.. She-;s definitely not on lunch at 2;17, ane;l yo:u've
       got 1464 seconds. TruJ,t' s 24 m_in,_nes right there-; just for that one call.

                Hete;s anothe-r one ·doWn here 1,058 .secon,ds_..   lll.at c~.l rig!)~
       there i_s      l7 ~.in..~~~._.
                Just·in those two c~l_s, th~-'s the better part of 45 minutes ..
       that'.s -1 :mean, thafs not what y'~l- ~ wo1.,1ld ~ot bave been Q~Y
       withy'all.                                                                        .

               A,_         Co~t..


                                                      80



                                                                                             93
                          •                                            •
(Id, a~ 99-1 00~) J;)espi~ being a redirect ·exa:mlnati6ii-dudng which coUilsel is-
subject tO the s~e rules a~:st l.~~ng quespoJ;~S a:s dUring a direct
examiiuwoi'J:--tlie ·exchange with Vestal. fu.nctioned as an extended opportuJiity for
the s~ tp t¢stify to ~~ ar,4 to ~e ~ertions \msup·ported by the eVidence.34
      The State alSO used its guilt~innoc·ence direct examination of Hum.a Nasir, a
                                                       .      .
fonmslc· PN~ ~yst -~~- ~hid Cellmark, ro engage in oompatable misconduct..
For e)Wli_ple,.th~ S~t~ we:nt og ~~ lengtll as· to .bow (~~~s· in4~den~ ·of' the· DNA
an.alys.i:S wol.ild -~e<rt. the iik~_ij:lqod that Cargill c()ntlj.buted DNA to a ~ei"
fotm4 ~w·ttw 4~~~·-
              Q.       {)Qy. I gU~SS    troD:\ a ....,. lfyo~'re lool¢J;lg a~ IGm C~gi.ll
        and wh~er Qrnotshe's the contljbqtort~ that DNA ori'fit iiiigbt be
        some other person at rand9m- so you've got Kiln Cargill fu this fac.t
        scenarj9 and some oth.er ~~ sele<;tec;l_a.t ~_d0111, i.fyou c.~ ~-~8 ~
        2a7,000 individQals; I guess statistically the fact that she kno-ws the
       victim, that. she .said .she was coming tO get the. v1ctim, tlu¢ tbe v1ct.inl
       is· ~d m\Vhi~c;nlSe J.'l~ tl:le·~e 19®.00. wh.ere s,he lives t~nd
       the creamer- het DNA is on the creamer top, all oftho'se might be
       thingS that statistically would increa5e th~ l~elihood o.ther
       ~#ing i.t, j~ woolci b.av~·l)o~_h)g tQ dO witl) yolii' .sf,at,i§ti_c~
        c:alculation:s?                           -

(48 RR ·at 167~ft)    the ·State ai89 itiv1~ N~i_r to $J'CCuX~ on the results that
woUld    obtain had a particwa:r DNA test been performed oil the door ~le t,o
CargiH;s vehicie, a line-ofquestionitJ.g tha~ was both spe¢~lative Sl)d inappro·pri~~
(See·48 R,R, ~~ 172... 74.)
       The State •s direc~ e~uons of M~ed.ith ~n Q.u.ring tJ;le gu_ilt~i.nnocence
phase and s·a:ndta Ciilig during the peilalcy phase often oCC;asio:ned no m:ote ~
..... -PS verbatim
readi      . .. . .   from. repo
                             ... .. rts prep
                                         ..... ared
                                               . those
                                                    .  \vi messes.   (See 51 RR at 49:..53-,· 58


       34
            Olm.~g Ut~ questjoni~g      Qf a,notl)er Stale~s witness; the district att~m1~y
himself had to. adiiilt, ~~    ha:ve, a problem With ieadl'ng, so i'm eying not to lead
yo~}' ((;l RR, ~t 8'9.)
                                                      81


                                                                                               94
                             •                                             ••
R.R ~~ 7()-8(), 98:..1 Q1, l 03...()4; see g/~o 43 ·~ at     12:S~27 (comparabie error dUring
~ direct exami,nation of Angie Grant); id at 225 (comparable em-or                        dUiing the
direCt examina.tlon ofWllllain Selmon, Jr.).) the State's exairiin.Won ofbr. La:nn,
wl;lo   perfo~~d       Walker'.s autopsy, alsQ ·inclt:J,d¢(1 seyetal         oth~ in~_ces        Qf
~~Wly egregious gti8condu~                  as when it solicited Dr~ La:im'.s opinion on the
~~~~~8$             Qf Cargill'·s de.feD;Se:·
              Q.    And then you could have other S<:ena:ri.os. You COUld ·say,
        well, m~ybe it's possjble,thatthe olle~ Chei'I')' Walker""' who was
        obese, w3sn 't she?                                   ·

              A.        Yes.
              Q.      'fhat $.l1:e t9'0k off on .B lcmg W~ Wlill.keg ~n r:nl.J~ ~ '8
         place she dld.il't know, walked into a side ro~ f~[l over dead from a
        ,seizUre or some other reason, and somebodyjust ®me· along $t
         r;mdon;l ~d 9a:id, ~Look; there's a dead body; i think I~m goln,g to
         ~e this liquid ac~lcifall~ that I ·have with me, pour it on the ®dy and
        set :it on fire:."                                                            ·
                        D~s tha~ ¢~e _sen.se to you?

              A..       No .
              Q.      Qr ~ybe i~ w~·tl)i_$, ~a..ybe s.h.e w~ ~4.btg around with
        someone; an91hey're talking to her In the car; and they're riding over
        there, theY're like, "Cherry, Cherry., yo.u 6ka.y?" And Cherry's bad ·a
        sei~ ~died in the car~ AI:ld tl:l~'re like; "'God dog, I'm going to
        qnve·out to a tertiQte lo¢ati,()J;I, dump tb,at 'pody out,.eve11 $'0~gh I've
        dqn_e ;ool;b,lng wrong, l;>uJ 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
              def<mtlant'$ ONA on ~e ¢ie~et ~op..........

     (Jr!.~ ·a~ 62), qr ~~iated two       pieces ofevHienee w1thriut there. being any basis for
     d94tg~,

                        Q.    OkJiy. Iii the.defendant~s washer ..... X:'il represent to you
              her.house was le.s.s than pickcxl up_. There was:-~ lQt QfCip_th~$ tb~
              cou.l.d hav~- been washed at one· tiiiie.: But there was one sheet.!ike that.
              in the~~ th,$ Yl&$ wet.. Wh~ th.ey o~~ i~ up, it ba~ a red stra,w
              fall ol,lt, which I'm not ·saying tM.t tb~~ wo)l_ld ~v~ ~I) the ~w
              Wrapper found by the- hy the bOdy of the victim.. I do:n't k:Iiow if it
               was or not. And I'm not representing that.                              ·

     (/d.   ~t ()6).•

               Worse $till, the Stat~'s redirect examination of Dr.           L.ai:m   dtwolv~     i_n,tp   ~

     ~~nd~ ~t:#io,n afthe Stat.e's theory of the- c~e, ;:!~ wbl~h Cm:gil).'~ ~al
     c:~l o:tf~d              few objections. (See 51 RR         ~   1 ll-J9, 13'1.) Th~· witnes.s-'·~
     ~ ~~ di~ not ~Sider ~e surfeit of facts                            an4 assertions raised ~Y the
     s·~~ to ~h her 4\i~opsy cor)cl~.sio!)S (see. e.-g.-, id at 130, 132}----eaimot
     reasonably    be said to have cured the: Iffejue;Uce             to   Cargi.Ii    nom   the   S~'s
     llilregUlated opportunitY to restify before· the-jucy.
            2. DlS.pa.ra_ging Rern.~rks·
               Iri the State of J'e~ as ~isewt_t~, it is weJl~sta.bl~ed th~t .. ~ ac~~sed
     [m~st be conv1cte:d] .only upon the evide·nce preSented, without                   attempting to
     it:tfl_am~ orp~ud.i~e       m.e m,ipd_s Qfthejurot:S::"   S(tiilz-y. $(at_e, 49Z S.W..4._d 54~, ~51
     (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). Among the ~y ways in which the S.tate can enga~ in
     impraper argument is to debase a defendant through name-tailing and personal
     instilts. Gaffney v.. State, 931 S.W.2.d 540, 543 (Tex. App.-=-Te~~tana 1996).,
     Further,. tJte "wide l~t,itude" whjc.~ cow,sel el)joy wit~ th~y QI:aw i:Qfe~J:M::~s _d,:rril)g
     their closing           ~ents   is not without limitation, for these inferences must be




I.                                                                                                              96
                      •                                          •
':'~le, fa,it, legitim:at~ $11~ off~ ~ ~ood faith.''             Gw:/dis- v. St¢e, 153
S.W...2d3969398 (Tex. Crim. App. 19.88}_. :
        C~gi.U.'s ~~     t!iai W$8   repl_e~   \\'ifh i~~es 4t Which $e· State .m:ade
disparaP1g an~ improper~~$ . ~~ ~e d~fen~~-· On seven occasions, tWo
ofwhi¢h ()C¢urted during the   S~~'s IDJ,il~-~OC~Ce OJ).e~ing    argument and J;)efore
Cargill ba4 ~e$tUie4 i_g, 11~ 9w.n ~fe.J)_se, $~ S~e ~ferted to the defendant as
eith~r .a "liar" dr ·a "mm;rlpuJa~r.'-'35 ~ sPc: locc~oll.S--three t.im~ ~ closing
argum~nts 'in th~ $W'lt-:-h.ln0ceti~ P.bas~, tQ/ee ~        4Ul¥1g closing argumentS m
tJJ,e ~ty p~~ St_a~ ~f~d to C~Ii as a "monster.'' (56 R.R at 127,
 Ul-; 69 AA • 93., 99, 109.) Equatly churlish was th~ State~s reference to Cqill ~
~- -~P"ui~ b~'' and '~frui~ cake;" (5-6 RR at 29, ~1), and it drew a rate objection when,
in its ~~~~i_n·@cm of Cargill, it --e4~ '-~[W]here is ""'" where Is the ten),orse?
Where is the stres8? Where is everythirlg that comeS along with not being
sociopathic?" (54 R.a • 13,74~ see also, 56 AA at 99 C'And let me make
                                                 I


something real clear. I never said She was sinart. I t:ldn:k. she '·s ~pid an4 a -1« of
other things. How. dare she tie abo~t that ~ornm:t?'')J Even Qi1 the me occa5ion
that d·efense c.ounsel did object and the m:n~k -w~ su.-.~, ~e ijl;tpact that th~


        ·Js For example; 42 RR at 89 ([teacfipg; te~ ro~~~s] ·-~·s-orry I ~ssed y~ur
calk I was sleeping.' :No, you weren't. Liar .. you're getting gas at 9: 16. y oti were.
   ..     ,               .                          I               .

calJ;irlg Cherry Qn the pho~e ~ $:02. Y O\J w~· gamg ov¢.1" to pi~:\( her \ip and take·
her out. Liar.;'); 53 RR at 117 ·(''But .... so you-:- so you're .~ylng nght here- I
mean, when we're loolci.Jtg at w~ether you Nally are a li.ar· ~d. a rn~jp~~or ai)d
you look on thi_s LVN applicat_ioo"); 56 AA a~ 37 ("Ar.td yo~ l.<now ~'Ill
m~pulatot she 'is? She testified ~t She· thought i~---~- c~:ppy tba.t th~ DA 's
Offj~ subpoe.Qaed l:i¢r• Man, wbi:lt is wrong ~ith hen"}~ 56 RR at 99 ("They· told,
you that he said,. oh, she t:night ~ve died ·of a s~izure. a seizure,_ a seizllre, a
seizure. Who have we heard that from? That liar over· then~."); .56 R,R. ~ ll Z ("So
we: worked;~~ of us, and ~t selfi~h liar sat ~c.k apd d_id not one thi.~g. A~d the))
she came in here 'With her fake cries (demo~tratiitg) until we go up to the bench,
artd then It's llke, bUb, wait a minute (demon$Uing). ")
                                                84


                                                                                         97
                               •                    I
                                                                      •
' Statement bad on the jury was already accoD;iplished. It is a beli ~ c~o.t be un.~·
 .nmg..
          However one might de$ctihe. the S.we'.s tre$n~nt of Cargj)J.-.,....tactical or
 imprmlen.t, plannef;i or ijl;lprovi.~ese· ~g rer.narks ~~ C~g{J~ were
 neither tasteful nor "fair. (See e.g. during th". direct ~ of SQ.pj~ We.~ wb~ the
 wit:ness <J.escribes Cargill grabbing het da~~·:s arm, th~ S~te .t:~, ~·Why
 didn't you take a b~.baU bat ~d ~~k b~ b~ o.d..? ~fs what I'd have done."
 (60 RR at 37).) Mo~oyer; mo.~ of ¢.:~ .~ were made                           during cl()Sfug
 argUm~m·w.b.en,, as·th~ cO'lll"ts·Qf~pPe.~ ~v.e p~ed, "[s]~~ments .... ate uniqueiy
 compelli.ng sine¢ th~ are the 1$ tliiilg ~ ~e jucy hears before they ~.te[] to
 ~lib~." A~~             V;    $_tq_~e; 91.0    s .• W-7d Sll, SiS (Te:x.. App.-Tyler 1995, pet
 ~f'd); ·se.e aJso Jl!C.Ifso.rz. v. S.tt,Z.~f#, n6 s~w~.2d 217, Z41 (T~~- App.-Daiias 1987,
 p~·. ref' d). Th~ ~t.@let)1S th~fore           constitute not merely error but prejUdiCial
 ~; wbj~b tl:le.reby deprjved CM,gjl.l ofh~ p~t to • fair tri"~.
          . .. 11··otis. r··
      . R.eii
      3.                  mag·eI)'
                                ·· ·
          AI~ou$f:1 cotmS~l ~ ~ffor4~ ~~id~bl~ deference in makfug theit
 atgtiments, an appeal to the jury's religious ihStlncts or prejUdices ®vertlt~IC$$ is
  improper. See Oakley v. State., 68 S.W.2d .204, 264 (Tex. Crim.App.. 1934); Ward
 v. Dretlce, 420 .F.3d 479, 497 (5th C!r~. 2005) (findlllg ~ prosee~r's reference to
 tl)e Bi.bli®. umil.l~~~n:e pa;s~¢" "ij:nprQp:e, 4 'h~u;s~   "it ~~hed bey.(;md the    ~"ii

 evi:c:J~-~ce ~d e~~our;-aged      the ju.ry to base ~~ senw.n¢mg determination on notions
 of divirte:retrlb~on"). While not. directly calfmg ilpOn the j-ury to ailoW" its fa:ithto
 m..tluenc¢- its d¢ision-m~ing, .the Sta~e m~de repea~ ~fer~~ to GQd,
 partic:uiarly "in ways calculal"ed to arouse the jury's sympathy· toward the de«dent
          In the   Sta.t~·'$    closi.ng srgu.merit dWing the g(ljl~-iJ:inoc~·e phase, it
 repeateciiy and itiipreperiy alluded to divine providence~

                                                   85



                                                                                                  98
                          •                                    •
   • ''Wei), you want. to .kilow what .I thihk her word 'crappy' is?. That she'd
     leave. a fout•y$1'-old 'With Cherry W~ket, God bless· her soul-, who her own
     fal)'li_ly says ~he ought not to keep foui'•year•olds." (56 RR at 116.)
   • '·'-Nld th~ ~~~o\l$ly, Cberry W~er; at 2j·3 - God bless her - 233
     pounds, and by the time this trial is over, I;ll probably be about th~ s~e,
     She's not gofug to fit in the floorbQartl of a Montero. How do~ that work?
     Sbe ~d SJt~ fell comple~~ly ou~. ." (14. at 1.25:.)
   o '·'She bas: to ~t wna~ I~w ep~~nt bas· don~.~ M.d. to you aJl·, I· say
     gr~· job. ~· you.. Praise God. Pepple. who kn9w me know this,. :an4
     you'li know, Preacher." (ld at 127.)
   • ''I say tllls:- 'You know how we. tig\ire it ow:?.. Some.times it's the hand of
     God.. I tbfuk be does Uke tbjs· ov~ a cqfJ.e.e- crean:t~ (dell)(.lt:lS~g). Says
     'Burn the;.~ Le.f;lve·~t.. They,(l figure it out.' That's what 1 think~" (id.
       at 128.)
   • "Cherry Walk~ wu t;,ot dispos~l~. She. wa:s not trash. She was a pteeloils ·
     ch(lc;J of Go4 who 1ltld nobo(ly to cot_ne to her resc\1~ until today~-. And you're
     it I'm.passing it to yQu. I can-~t d~ any more." (14 Jt 1.35:.)
      Moreover, the. S~te. us~ the oppo~ of closing argument to sp«_ulate as
~o W~l~er'·$ m~~ -.te ~t the time- of'her d~ath while again lnj~mg teli~Pous·
theme·s into the proceeaings, sayin:&
               Dear (Jc)d., [Walker]'s a child in a 19-year-old body; and she's·
       terrified.. She's going to do eXactly what.Paul:a [Wh~lerj', whQ knew
       ~er· b~t-, s.ai4.. Sh~'s ju$~ goipg t9 t.~~ ~~ever tbat monster dished
       out. God, l Wis.h I had ~ there.

($6 IUt a~ 13'2), a..n9

               [Walker] would just sit there and take it eyes forward, like a
       little 19d:; Do .you ~ she ~k~cl for h~ ~4y? OQ yo~ thi~ s~
       sajd, "Pa~la, I tpld .You"?. Do you think she prayed? "Ple.ase, God,
     · help me.;; AU b~e she got. a piece of p~. Her crime· was
       honesty. "I g~t a piece ofPWe~.'' ··

             And God inade her in a special way, a little bit different. She
       had a s(oweJ:' m~d th~ ~rH)st, 98 percent of the pepple, b1P sh.e 3
       bigger be·~. tAa.n jl:l:St:about everybody~       · ··
                                           . 86



                                                                                     99
                         •                                            •
 (Jdat 133).
                The State'.s invocation of religion ~ ·no~ U.mi~ed t.o the ~il~~
 innocence· phase. lrtdeed, every aspe.c1: of the swe's ·pa:m11:)'          ph_~ presen~tion

 embraced these allu.sions--openirlg st,at.ero~m (e.~~•. "M9St imJlOrtant tp m~g!icm, is
 [carglll] has. hUrt. physically and emotionally the children God ~ye h~~o Pl'Ql~, .
. 58 RR at IS);, the qu~Qning ofwi~~s~ (e~g.., ~no you thjnk. that h~ail bell.lgs
 have the capacity to change? ... Maybe \.Vith GQd's             il)t~ssi~        for   w~~ver

 reaso;n," 64 RR at 81); dosing ·s:tatein~ht (e.g.,    "Sh~ tpa~   Cherry's abil_ity to ever
 gil   u.m to her ~dy pre_ach ·ag~ to ever ~i1;1g a song 1n church .... ," 69 AA ~
 109-1 0). And, much like the gUilt-~ocenc:e p~ tb~ St$'• ~ty phAse
 clo.$iilg. argQ,m.,eni was sh~ (bro"Q~. with ref~~-~ lo Gad, as w~en Mt. Bmghain
 opined, "'We all have out life. It b.~longs     t9   us, given to us by Gc;xl.:    Th~'s ~y
 bel.ie£ Wh• [Cargili] dld is &,e ~k (W:~l_J~er;s]. She took her life." (ld at 21.)
 Not dissimilarly, M.s.. S.~~-s ~sqille<:J W~ik.er (1$ "an angel sent from God" and
 C,lQsed witf:t th~ fre.ight~ intQiiatiOI); '-'May Qod forever rest the precJO\)$ sOtJ.l Qf
 Ch~W~~/'            (Id at ll3.)
         As with   the Stat~'s disparaging r¢m;ar~s· against Cargill,       i~s ~~-of teli~Qus
 Jinagery to impel the. jury to conVict Cargill and to .sentence her to death based on
 conside~on:s      il.ldependetn of ti;t.e evidence ~duced at trlal constituted prejudicial
 e.rror, tb~ ~er·c~ct~~~ an:d ~ten~e ~ust- be set ~ide.
       4. Sidebat Com.,.ents and Other Expressions of Pea:-s~nal Opi.,..on
         Te~ ~'-w reco~~s ~ ~- i~ ~~D:ll.l'Pt:J:~d              when a prosecutor makes
 improper, inflammatory, and preju_diCial sidebar·reri:t~s, see Cazares v. S.ftJtf! 488   7



 S.-W.id 1i.O, 1r2   (Tex-. Cnm. App .. l972}~ Crawford v..State, 412. S.\V.2d .57, 59
 (Tex·. Crim. AJ)]). 1967), and the ABA 's Standards for Crimi'n4.1 Jf#tice admonish
 that "[a] prosecutor sheuld _riot knoWingly an_d {ot t.lfe p~·se of brlPsffi$
 inadrni~jble    mauer· to the attentjon. of the judge or         jt,~.ry   offer i_l)a@lissible
                                                87



                                                                                              100
                       •                                            •                                      ..


evid~n:ce, ~ J~lly obj~n!lbl~ qP.estj_QDS; or make oth~ i,n,tpermissible
CQtl)ments or·~el)tS in ~e p~n.c.e of-~e judge or j'ury;" AaA Standards for
Ci"fm.i1rgl Jus_tl._ce: Pros~c¢io_n Func,ti~n (3d ed. 19.93) (Standard 3~S.6(b)).
       At Cargil.l"s trial, the State':s violations of      Ul~e   le.p_l    ~~ prof~ssiQ11.81

requirements. were unremitting and ranged from tlie banal (see, e,;g.-, ·58 RR ._ 159-
60 (regarding Wb.:etber ·tn~ di:sf;ricl ~o~ey himself ever u~~ a p~cu)_ar
expression);. 59 RR at 30 (regarding th'e- ctistriet at;tomey'·s   ~~s prof~j9"- S:S ~

te$Cb.et)~. 68 RR   at· 93 (regarding the·dlstnct attorney's medication for ·Ei. s~pect~
S1Iep throat 'infe<:tioli)), to the int~perate (s~e, e.g~, 4.6 RR ~~ llS (~Well_, she's not
conferring With il'ilrses about the great care she's giving        wher patients, beca~
that phone    CQ.LIJ~ ~til 1.1::05.'-'); 54 RR at ·s2 (''1 can assure you, Ms.          C3I'gi_n, I
never know or care what you have on.")), to: the s.arca®.c (se.e,           ~.g.,   53 RR   ~   66,
162), to even commenting on the answers solicited from Witru~sses (.s:~, e.g.,. i!l. ·•
ll9;.53.RR at 140 ("I m:ean,       everyth~g   is-.it's like the perfect ~orm·~ you..
'Dang, she's having a s.eiZu'r'e; My'phone -ll.eft my·phone at the house."');'.53 RR
at 121 ("Tb.~'s ~ hoo~:,     Cal.lfug D)~ -a lia,r?")).~ These·~ cc:>ntr.i~ to t;h.e
p_atrcmizing atm:osphe.re surroun4ing       C~gill~s tti~   and, i.n   conjUJ:t~on      \\jth tb,e
State's co:untl~$ 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$e. ~gibtst Cqfll dunng         ln<Uvi_d~        voir dire.. In
pattictila:t, the State m·ad¢ the following statement to prospective jl,lrOr Reeves, whQ
later·wQUld be c_ho~ to serve on Calgill'sjury-: "We don't-have anyb()dy si_UU,.g by
us, b.ecause. she's dead. Cherry Walker, ~t's who           w¢ repres~t."       (12 RR ~ 79.)
In truth, and per the Code of Cri_mlna.J Procedme, "[e]ach dJsttict attorney 0
~ent[s) the Sbi~ :ir:t aU qim~gaJ ~:~ in the djstrict court_s· of bi$· distri~- anc;l

                                                 88·



                                                                                                1.0 1. -
                          •                                          •
not the p.etsoil alleged to have been ha:rmed by the defendant. Su TEX, COP6
CRIM .. PRoc. art.. 2.01. The Sta:te also             rna~ a     cOmpa:r:able    ~tem~t t9

VertirepetSC)n Burd~w.h.en .t.inti~d ~.it represented th~victim, sta~g: "!-We
don't have:aiiybody.sltting here With u:s [the State]. She':s dead." (10 RR at 185~)
       A th"i.rd exa.,;nple of the· S~te's Improper conduct arose· in its q·uestioning of
Mr. Bell, :a veriite pei'SOn Who, like Ms.. ·Reeves~ later was -sel~~ Jo serve on
Carg{ii' s jury. _to :Mr·; Bellt the prosecUtOr- offered:. "You know, I told _you earlier~
Ch~r:cy Walker w~s a real live h~ be4't$, o~t sQ..e's not .~tfulg here· because
she's d~.'' (13 RR a:t 64-65.)        While it iS unclear exact~y What the prosecutor had
in ro.i.n4 Wh.CIJ   ~e   mvol.<~d th~ w()TCJ "bere~" o~e may· fairly ptesUtile that "here''.
m~~ "with the State" in view ofber earlier questioning ofVenirep~ B~
       The  . . of. Criminal
        . Court                      . has stated that an·y s'i1
                        - .. . App.eals                         3 nestion b
                                                             'we6          y the .State to
the jury which contradiCts Article 2..tn of the Co® of Cr4!;iil'.lpl Procedure is
"erroneous,    whether     It occurs   dUring voir dire. final   argument, or     soroe other
ir:np~t s~e oft,he m~·'' DraughoJ:t v.. State,          831 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$nity· to- c.mul~ge an ~rt'·s ·q~c~c::u~~
~s ~ R,ule 705 hearing, a hearing which :r:u~~~sarily-~ pi_~ \'IViij}out.tJl,e ~¢liCe
of the jmy. Moreover, the State's error ~- •ll the rnore <;gresious f9.r bavlne
"poisoned the well,'' viz., it disptrte<i Dr. Lipman;-s quaJificatiol'lS wi:tbin earshot of
the jury b4'()re Or-. Lip~ h.ad h~4 a ~h$nce to t~stjf,y.
      the State also qu~stion~4 Dr~ Me~ _repeatedly a~out tl)e eff~ of
prescripti:m.t1tl~c~tion on Cargill's personality d-isorder despite Dr•. McGarrahah's

m~n~jnblg     tJt.•. s,he   ~ not   -a neUJ'opharmacologiSt. and therefore unqWililied tO
answer the State's que:sP,ons. (See 6S RR at 69•76.•) LikeWise, the Stat~·~l,ced Dr,-
McGatrah&,n abQm. tbe effect         C~ll's medi_~ condi~Q.n_s      wouJd h~ve on h~r­
behav.ior   an4 m_e~~l      ~   even though Dr~ McGarrah~ indicated that a medical
doctor wo:Wd be· a fat more approptiat:¢ e*rt to apswer tbose que5UOJ:l$•- (See 65
AA at 85-92.)




                                                 90



                                                                                        103
                                 •                                               •
           y.,____ ......... - ..
       7. s m· thetlc ·Refenoces to tbe ViCtim
        c·Iaim Two, alite, c:iiscu.ss·es the improper introdUction of victim impact
eVid,en~~ i:n~ tb~'gv.il~-ij;liipc~e              pha$e ofC~ll's trial.. Those errors. by the State
were compounded, however, ~y the prosecutors' ~ated suggestion during the
!N.ilt-inP~ence: phase ~~ Cb~ny Walker--ihe· thirty...ni'n~year•old decedent-.
was '~a chfltr or "childlike":
   •    ~-~sh~'$ a ~hil4         m. ·a.p -~4:u.l~ bOO.y:t   (4~ M ~- 67.)
   • "A!l(i be~ a, ehi_ld ~ ~ a4ult's body, Cherry sai~                         'Sure, ok.ay [t'(l wa~h
     ~~e]. '" (42 RR ~t ~l.)
   • "[W]o.uld _you have found Cherey Wa)lcer· to _be cbildlil<e if you
        r¢J.n~I:Rber i   •.• "     (42,R_R ~ 120.)             '
   • "Was [Cherry Walker] very childlike? ... Okay.                              Sweet1, .. Q. Good
        h~'F-     <44AAat34.)
   • "Cherry was 39 years old. and you -- you stated very childl~." .(44 RR ~
     48.)
   • '-~was your· impressian of Cherry like a lot .of children, kincl of h.~neSt to a
        fa~.l~?'·' (44 M ~ 5'0.)
   •    ~Cherry Walk~'s· got               tb;e ll)jnd_ Qf l;l cl_tU4.T' (44 RR ~ 67;)
   • "When She would pl~y with the dolls - was that- is that a doll that She had
     ~- ~:he WQ\,1}:4 ph~y with m1.1~b lilc~ -~ cbjJd WO\lld pl~y with a c,ioll?" (4,4 RR
        at 87.)                       ·                                     ·
   • "Okay. So slle '·s - Wlis she vcifY ~hildllke?" (45 RR at 12.)
   •    ~sh~ w~ I{ke ~ chiici?·;; (45              AA ~ 13.)
   • ''-In - I noti~ Cherry Walker SJ5Q liked tp -·she like· to go tP the - dld you
     know her to sit a:nd play with toys for m:uch younger children?" (49 RR. at
      i48.)
   • "Y~h. she,- tell me if you disagree. Cherry Walker, she was a 39~year-o1d
     lady who- kind oflike·a child 'in an ~dult'·s body, w~'t sh~?" ·(49 R_R at
     1-51-52.-)



                                                              91



                                                                                                    ' 104- --.- ..
                        •                                                •
   • "And I'll tell yo:u [th:ejmy] this: When you go get an.M.R. babysi.tter; who's
     men~ly- the mental· equ.lvalent of a yQW,.g child ...'' (56 AA ~54.)
   • "I t9ld y' ~ [the jw:y) In voir dire, the ones 1 qUeStioned, that anybody that
     kr)ew me.l<n.ew 01:1~ thing; th.~ I woul4 ~w~y~ t.i.ll tbe. ~Y I di~, stai:l4 ~P for
     a kid. I'd give my life for a child. Arid th.ete's one right.there (fudicating [at
         p··hoto ··- hofCheny
              . grap       · ·Walker]).;,
                               ... ··.    (56RRat99-iOO.)
                                                .                          ·       .
   • "Dear God, sh.e?s a child in a.39-year-old body ....."             (56 RR at.l32.)
   •     "Sh~ w~ ~ precjou.s chll4 of God            who had nobody to come, to her resc'Ue
         un,til to®y." (56 RR. at 135.)

         J;v~n   lf SQme of tbese   retl~ret:t·ces   mlgbt be justln¢4 to support the State'·s
theory that Cargill had strang!~ a pliant Walker as the latter sat in the passeng«
s~      of C~g~ll's Mits)Jbishi MonterO; the preppnderance· of th~e tefeten~.es are
better understo:od as:improper attempts by the State to·tug a~ the heartstrings oft)le
jury.     AcCQn:iingly, CargiJJ'·s COiiv1ctioil fot the mutdet of Walker should be.
reversed.
        8. Dimiillshing the Magnitude of· the Ja·ey~s Res·ponslbility
        in Caldwell v. Mississippi, the Sup~e CQUrt o~ed that 'fmany of~
lim1ts that this· CoUrt has placed oil the lmpositian of capital puniShtiumt a:re rooted
i~ ~ co~~$ ~ the sentenejn~ procesS s,ho'uld f~cllitate the responsible and
reliable exerd'se ot sentencing discretion." 472 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 <K:ctirring
     4u,ring tinai ~men~ are u.~ique_ly cqrnpell.ii:tg smce they :;rre the last tb.mg tha.t th:e
     jilry hears before they retired ·to deHberate~" Amis v. State, 910 S.\V;-2d 511, SIS
     (Tex. App;-:Tyler 1995)..
                                                        94


                                                                                                     107
                         •
$jgnitie,an~  anci effeqiv~. But for th,is IJ.1.iscond~ct and the prej\14i~ "it en~,
the juzy'.s· verdict cluring either the gu.ilt.,:irmocen~~ ·ph~ or th.e pep._al_ty P~-~e
likely would not bave dts~vored C~. Accordingly, the weight of theSE=. errol'S
and. the interests ofjustice requlre tl\atQu-sill's ~<mvi.~~ion or ~~~c~ be set ~de
and. a new trla1 on the merits and on punishment ord¢ted.
                                      CLAIM SEVE.N
 .TRIAL COUNSEL.WERE IN.D'F'tCTIYE FQ~ FAIUNG TO l'~.S~NT
   MitiGATING LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY A'i' THE PUNISHM~NI'
            PHASE OF CARGILL'S CAPITAL"TRJAL
        Ctqill's Qe.femse co~l. ~ expect~ tQ inves~i~~- ~d prepare a                        full
mitiga#on pre_stm:1a.ti.cm (or tb~ _pW)i~e:nt pimse of l;ier· capital         triai. However,
co\.U\Se.l 's   in.:ompl~e investj~~ -~ su~~~              fail'L,ll'e to present lay Witnesses
tp ~fy          rega,nfulg C~~U's life hi:$~ry ~led to        et1SU1e·   C.argi-11 receivecl the
e(f~ve assist.ance·ofcounsel guaranteed .by the         ConStitUtion.
        At the be~ of the punishm,en~       p•     of~ c~pi~ ~al i.s the
mitigation evidence :and. the concept of moral ciilpabflity.
                                                                               presentation of
                                                                            Moral qu_lpability
~ckl;lQWledges an ~~~en~          psychologica.J reality----that peaple do not mrlve at
their choices from U,.e s~e path, Thll$, it                 follows      th~t tb~ de~ of
"'blameworthiness" of an .indlvidual for capital murder may vary depending on
what f@t0~        an4 ~xperlences shape,   i'n_tla,u~t~-¢e, ~4/or: cq~ptc>~_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.si<n.ml ~ori:I)s reqtii,re ~t cotmsel's Investigation shouid inclUde the
thoroUgh in~rviewing -and development of'Witnesses such as· faftilly members at)d
      .                                                     .
(ri_~nds..     ~A       Guidelines,· GUideline 10.1 (commentary)                   eapenaity   ph.a:se
pfep~:On ~:~ujres exte®,ive ~~ g~erally 11nP.alleled iny~igatjon in~
personal and family history''}; Texas· Guidelines, GUideline ll~l(A)(l)(h)(i) (''The
investi~tj.Qp     for th~ p~e.~. p~ of the 4'W should generally encompass ...
[d]evelopment of character· witnesses and .family background                       evid~ce.").     . ln
decid)ng which Witnesses and eVidence to                    prepare concerning ~ty,. the        ar¢a.s

counsel should consider inclu® wi1nes$es                    familiar With and eviden~ rel~:ting ~
the· client's Hfe· and devel()pment,         nom cail.Ception to the time of" sentencing,. that
would beeJq>hm;atory· for·th'e·.offeru;e for·wJ.U~b tb~ ~li~ is ~i~ ~ced, wouid
teb1.J; or explain eyi_dence wesented by the                    pro~!,"~   Would   ~~t       PQ$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~ti<m
                                                         Presei.ltatlon. The jury
he~ from ~.mulptude of witnesses who had iJ.egatiVe e_xperien~~ with c~u ~-­
were the r«ipients of her- destructive 'bellaVior: By- ~n ·a~co~ts~ CI;I,I'gil_l w~
portrayed as unpredictable, volatile, =and e.motiottany· uns~ble.                    However, tbi.s
porttjyal·~ i.~~IJlplete. There were a.Qumber of people available and                      willlng ~
offer an alternative and more balan:~ perspective.-in(ijVidqal.s who· f?.O~ ~Y.
knew first-band the trialS; tribulation, and trauma Cargill experienced, butwho,also
s.aw her. for the kind, ®D;$iderate, and goo4-na:tw'ed persc;>n 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 ~ Nov<mtber
1966. Eddie and.Rachel went to high school tQge;thet. (EX...ll at f.3 [Af!•. ofl.\lcy
S.coggin); Ex. 14 at 1J5 [Aft of ~hel Wilson]:.) ~bel w8:' pn$.;y ~4 Eddl.e·
worshiP.Ped her. However, Rachel was· not mendly, hard to get along·Witb, an4 di~
not   h~Jye ch~~    (ricmQ$. RaeJtel. enjoyed OO.fug the   center of atJentiQI,l bt)~ wan~
thll)gs don~ he,r·~· (E~.. 11 ~ ,5 [Aff.: oft~.cy ScoggiD.].) EcJ(ije ·~~ RJwhel
s~y el.oped the.it senior ~ear Qf l)igi) school w}:l¢n ~lle.l was only seventeen.
(Ex~ ll ~t      ,s [A.ff.   of L~9' ~I)];· E~ l4 ~t ~6 (NT~ of lb..cb~l Wilson].)
Rachel was raise4 in. Mississippj by a      trildit~on.~ f~Uy    wbe.Je. sbe   wa.s $.e only
girl. (Ex.. 14 at ~-3 [Aff of Rachel Wilson].) Rachel's father             was Strict a:nd
domineering. He often spoke to R.achei;s motb·er as though             she was his child,



       ~ 7 For ease· of reading all persons in ~ioils B and C of this Claim will be
tefetred to by their fii'St names,. inchiding Khnber~y CargilL
       38
           Rachel Wilson t~fied for the Sta~ at the punishment: p~e Qf tri~.
However, she was intervi.ewed multipie times by the def~n.se and the mfortnat.ioil
c.ontajrieQ. here could ha:ve been properly elicited during cross-examination.
                                                99


                                                                                           112
                        •                                                •
 J;ather-th.an his Wife. Mam~ge wa$ a wa:y fot R.$.$,el to escape her father's hou.~.
 (Ex. 11   a:t ,13-5 [Aff.ofLt1cy Scoggin].)
        Eddie also had a complicated family situation. Eddie was .sent. to liye With
 foster p·a:rents when he   was· five yeljts old an4 ~yec;J wi~ them undl             adw~Qod...

 His biological   patentS sUffered from drug and ·alcoh<Jl ·addiction '811d he saw them
 ~Y spOradically.. (EX. 11 ~ ~.z [.Aft of Lucy Scoggm]_; Ex,. 1'4 at                 115 (Aft. of
 Rachel WHson].)
        After th~y ~~ed, Eddie and Rachel lived in a house trailer that Eddie's
 foster p·a:rents· ~c.ed for· them. Eddie was un~ployed. and Rachei work~ for
 the phone conip3hy.•. (Ex. 1i at ~6 [Aft: of"L:l:lcy S.coggin].) After being n.uu:ried
·for only five m.o11ths EdcUe· and Rachel decld~ to ~ve ~ ~by. ~hel's
 pregnancy With Kimberly was diffiClilt. Rachel was· sick the ~m-e pregna,n,cy liU.lQ
 s\i.tfete4 from ~~a. As soon as Rachel brought Kimberly home from the
 hospital they had to return beCause Kimberly had projectile vom.iting .~d was
 ailer'gic to the fotmula she ·was: taking. (Ex..14 at.~6-8 [Aft. ofR.achel Wilson]:~)
        ~c.h~l   did not take m~e111ity leave ~~ ~ad w~~ b~k to wotk as soon
 as she could_. Edcfie left tow:n to     joi~   tbe   Na~Q.nal   Gulmi   whe~   !Gtnberl)'   w~ -~

 rr:tere fiv~ weel,c~ old, l~vli:J,g ~ct;~l to cafe for the bab.y ()n her own. (Ex. 11 at f7
 [Ai.f. of.I,..~cy ~coggi;~]; ~:~   14·~ Tlf9-10 (Aff; o.f~h.el Wils~n].) ~chei.worked
 a full-time job at the phpne ®mp~y, taking the 3.:.00 tO u~oo p~ bite shift
 While Rachel woike:d Kim~r~y Was left in the care ofher teenag~ aul)t. S~~ ~~
 E4Aie'$ d.epartJ,J;re, Rachel stM.ted, seei.ng Ke@¢th Plt:ts.~ ~~¢t,l_t WB$ -a ~~~~at¢
 of both Edd.ie and ~achel and. EQ.die's best fi:itm:d. Rachel often stayed out with
 Kenneth    late at night after het work shlft ended.        (Ex.. 11 at. W7-8 (Aff. of Lucy
 Scoggi_n]. )
        When Eddie returned from National Gwd trairiing he was ·a different
~on:- He~ an4 w~ ~llsive tow~                         RacheL (Ex. 14 at ~10 [Aft of Rachel
                                                      100



                                                                                                113.
                           •                                             •
Wilsgn].) It w.as yery diffi;c.l:llt fQr    eddJ~ ~- ~e R,a.ch~l         AA4 Kennetlt      t~gether

because Eddje .3Jl4 Kenn~tb. were such clo's:e fii~nds. Eddie tOok; ·a s~ -~
Kenneth after seeigg IC.¢~edt ~~ ~el out at a bar Qne n:ight and .spent a riight
in jail..(Ex.. .11 at· ~ [Af[ of"L_1,1~ ScogginJ.) SOoi:l att~ :e44Je' s repn:n RB.,chel
fi1ed for dlvorce~ Eddie did not want the. divorce and the procee<lings were                   QO:t
anticable. Eddie ~d RAchel wtmt tQ c:otJrt ~~ ~~.es... (E~. 14 @:i 11 0 (1\f.f. of
Rachel Wilson].) Rachel pl.irSlied child suppPrt from Edd.ie. ~h~l agree4 ~P dJ'Qp
the cl).i'ld support ciaim if Eddie relmquishe(l !Us tights and allowed K~nn~tb t~
ad(lpt Kimberly and ~die         agreed. (Ex.. 11 at· ,~.-1 0 [Aft; of Lucy SoogginJ; Ex..
14 at ~11 [Aft' of Rachel Wilson]~) R.acltel and Kenneth we,re marrl~.d as S®n ~
~eland E4Qi.,'s clivorce ~- ~ ~4 Kem.te$ adopted                         Kimberly. (Ex:. 14:~
1fll [Aff.. ofR.achel Wilson].)
         ~die· d,i4.J;Wt   have con~t with K.Unberly folloWing ~hel ~4 I(ei:,li)etl_t~s
marriage. Eddje's fimiily membel'$ who ha4 been              cl.~ tQ     J<i.mberlr lost ~~¢t
With her as well. Eddle'.s mother kept in touch With Rachel ;.s mother                  ~q.   even
~ught K,im.b¢.rly's S~y          School 9lass. However, at that t'ime Kiiij.betty had no
idea the woman was ®tlially her grandmother.                 (Ex. 11 at 111 [Aff.. of L~
Scoggin].)
        2... Ki.mb:erly's Childhoo.d and Ad.olesc;~n,te                2J..-e   Wrought       wlth
             j)ysfuntrlou .and F"llngs of Abaucio.umeut
        When IOt.nberly wa,s about two-a,n4-a-h~f y~ old, Racb~l m:td Kenneth had
a bi:olOgica.l daughter·togetbetthey·named April. Kimberly·.and April ~.IY pl.ay~
~og~tb.e.r ~ Q)ljJ9f~.• (E.~ 14 ~~ 112-     [A.fr·   ofR!l~hel WHso.n]~) Kimberly did not
feel as tho11gh   Ra~~~l    approved   of.h~   and    nev~ f~lt   goo4   ~nQugh:.   (S.x. 5 at ,8
[A.ff. of Mary P<>ff].)      ~.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~ .I<ennetn
was not ~-er bi~logi~ father -~igrti-ficantly affected :Kimberly. She did not ·re~l
acc.epted withii1 her own f&Jnily beca~.~ of meh" bj.olagi~ 4.i.ff~ces. (Ex. 9 at
~S [Aff~ of-Tma N.el$0n]~· EX.~ 5 at ~8 [Aff. ofMacy EotJ].)
        Tbe ~emenj tbAt K:.imbc;dy f~l~ :6:-Qi:J! her (~ly WS$ compounded ~y
l!e.r di.ffl'~ ~.l~i~~ with ~~))el. Thi$ was d,~~ m~ to the ~t that Rachel
was Pl:iysi~)y ~iVe towaftis ~im.be~l"Y• 11_1~ were times K..imberlyconfid@.ln
girlfri~d$ abou.t inci@.n.ts ~fbe.ing hjt by h~r motb~· KimPerly's mend Tina ·saw

ma:tkin~ of physical violenc:e <m Kimberl;Y's· bc:>4y, 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~ frien<l·T~M. s.aw ~h~l pbys,ic_all:y stri)c.~. KJQJ.berly·. Teena was
waiting for Kim~ly       'In Kimberiy's b~oom and h~ RaChel and Kimberly
y~lllng iil another   room. Teena waiked In on Rachel hitting Kimberly with a .
.b~j~.b bec~w.;e KPn~ly di4 not lllOP tile floor CQrr~tly~· I~                     was   sisr;ti.~cf¢t

~oligb. ~t Te~na lat~ wi.sl:le:ci   sl:te   ~ad :rqrorted   the ir):c.i.dent to   ~eone:0 Teen.~

saw bruises oft KiiiJberly's   arms when they clw)ged into gym clothes at school.
$~e.raJ. ~~ Kim.berly took a dedUction in her grade rather thari change clothes.
and risk the· other- girls seeing th·e      m~ks   on her body.       (E~.   8 a~ m!4..5 .[Aft of
t eena Livengood).)
       ~imberly also $:Ufferec:i fr()n;t ~ve~ signi_i;i_~~ hea1m cnse$ during
childhood.   Wheu K1rnb¢rly was twelve years old she contracted meningitis.                     The
                                                   102



                                                                                                   115
                       •                                          •
family had recently returiied from vacation and Kimberly was at softPall           p~~@

whe:n.   the coa,ch called Rachel    tQ   report th~ K~berly w~ not feeii.IJS         we.il_.
Kimberly was feverish and      c~y        and was voiiiitfug. Kiniberly was rosbe_d       ~

th~ ejriergency   roQtn ·atld ~ spinal Wp was p~rl'onned. Kiinberiy was ln. quarlmtine
briefly and then remaiiled in the hospital for several w.eeb. Wl;l,ile ~ the hospi.W
                                                                             .     .
Kimberly contraCted a strain of mu.iilpS whiCh resulted in tinnitus and. hearing loss
mon·e· ()f het· ~-·   (&.. 14 at ,14 [AfT. of ~hel
                                              WUson]..) l\.41:lJ:>erly 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<iJ:nbefl:Y' ¢~5,5.¢(1 how ~~ $1:le w~ b)' l~g Qfher- adoption and that she
felt very dlffeterit from the test of her faiillly-.. Kimberly felt as thougll she. sh,oij)d
b~ve b~ ~14 abQut t,he ~option much      earller.. (Ex. 1:3 at 1{9 [AfT. of DebOrah
l)pt9n].) Tb.~ re.l.~onship ~een Kimberiy and Eddie While she wa.s m
M,issis~ippi was strained. (Id; at 110.)~ see also, Ex. 8 at ~6 [Aff of teens.

LhiengQod].) Kbnbetly wa.s not a,ble to m;~e the connection with Eddie she· so
desperately wanted. (13X.. i 1 :at ,13 [Aff. of Lucy Sc:ow.,n].) K.ilnberlyreache4 ot¢
to Eddie but he      dld not reach hack29 (Ex.. 14 at 11'8 [Aff. of Rach¢1 Wilson].)
Ultimately,    ~ly          left :MiSsissippi much earlier than          expect~.      A~~'

K.imbetly di'd.not have contact with Eddie or the other members of'het biologiCal
family far a significant period Qf time.          (Ex~    13   ~ ~11   [Aff. ofDebqm.h     U~]i.

Ex. 11 at ~12-13 [Aff. ofLucy Scoggin]~)
    . KJ.~Jlerly co~d by l,(~iJ:lg b.~r. en:l9tions botUed ins~~- (13x. 8 at ,-s [Aff..
of Teena L:ivengC).()d].•) Th~ was a ch~ge ~ Ki¢.be.rly'$ p~!l$l.i~ dwing ber
.. ···- $.e years.
teetta        ___ ,, Even
                     . .. ... . her·
                                . parents
                                     ....... did
                                               . . riot understand
                                                    . .... .. .. .. . Wh. y, but
                                                                              " Kimber!
                                                                                 - . - .Y .started
                                                                                             ... . to
b~ erno~o~~)' tm$.lbl~ ~d i~Q~. (E'.'.· 14 at ~21 [Af(; of~hel W1lson]-.)
After grad,uatiQ;n ~ ):ljgh ~h'O.Ol, KJm~rl;r e:IVOll~ ~ ~ c()~iim~~~ col_l~ge ~
sl~t. in)t~     of g6ir:t$ to ~l~s:., Thi.s W&.$ p!U'(icu_l~y ~~~p1;.1:lbl~ tp t:ter ad9P~h:·e
fati_t~r, @d Keiu:ietl;l.and Kimb,erly's relationship soured (/d. at -d~i-i-23.)




       39
          Kimberly h_ad a (ife~Io,tlg feat of aban~Qiir_t)eJit. H c~ed issues and
insecurities 'in her future relationships. (See Ex. 2 at:,6 [Aff. ofBrian.Ca:rgill].)
                                                    104



                                                                                                  117
                              •                                                •
     "· J9.~;~.~.berly's Fint Divorce Takes a Sigliifieaat Toll oil lier Emo.tlonal
            ,JJ:~l·~

       Aft~r-Ieaving community· co.ll.~g~; Kim})erly went to wOI\c in a l.aw o:ffiee and
there she met bet firSt husband, Mike West.                      Milce~s father 'WQS tb~ o~ who   fir$1:
met.Kimberly and introd1,1ced d\em~. Kimberly'~ ~o~er fo~d Mlke to be-poiiShed
and well educated. (Ex.. i4 at ft24-25 [Aft ofRachel Wilson].) MUte was good.
J~t             successful,   and from a    good family.           Kim~dy tho'ugh~     if she !Y$Tied
Mike she could p.rove tQ her mother tha.t s.be b~ val\1~ ~ 'persQn ·and ~ wort.}ly
of being loved. (Ex. 5 at ,s [Aff.. ofMmy E9ft] ~) Kimberly and Milce· were .YOUilg
·and irn;map.p-e w4en tlley QW'li.ed 8Jl~ ~ey UIDled often. Their argumcmt$ became
 mutually physical and at tiines the polic:e were· fuvolyed. MUce OJ'l~e tllrew
~berly into ~ wall            and left the hnprint of her bo.dy In the sheetrock. (14.. a,t 1f2:·)
       Kimberly and Mike tried to               b~ve   a   b~ey    SOC>.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$-. f~.~. 6 -~~ ~
 {AfT.; Q('Cin<ly Hemry];; E~ 7 at 1[8 [Aft of Doug H~l)ey].)                    l(im~ly did,      not even
 have  support ftorn her own family duri.tl8. tb.e d,ivQJ:C~ ~d f~l~ ~fioned by them
 yeta.galn. (Ex. 10 at 1l4. [Aft ofDebo~ Ne~].)
        J<j.n},l;>~l_y .l\a4 t_o mQve 0ut of the: home she- and Mlke. Sliated and Mike
 inarried a. woman named Sonja. l'Alk:e and Sonj~ crea.t~ a new tam.ll:Y toge~er and.
 tried to get the1r exes out of-their lives. (Ex. s at fij6 [Aff~ of Mary Eofi].) By all
 accmints; Sonja ~e life dttli'c'Ul~           for tbc;>se      ~e w~ted out           of her life. SOQja
 divOrc:ed Doug Henry when ib~tr d_aligbt~r Leigh AOO ~ ~ :Y~~ old.~ In order
 ~9   be   vfuqi~tive,   Soijja   a~cused   DoU.$   ~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 ~ .I<im.betl)'' was f)gh~~ fot her right to .see DaVid.
 (ld at~; Ex.. 6 at ~3 [AfT. of Cindy Heney]; Ex.. 7 at ~s· [Aff.. ofDoug Henry).)


· and can 'interfere w.ith daily life. There i,s no <;:ure. for Crohn:'s Disease· and
  tre~mu~n~ ·ipvolves n:t~~II.l~n~:.of symptoms. (See http:/lwww.ccta.orgtwhat;.~
  crohns-8Jld..eolltistwha.t..is~crohns~dlsease. last visited Au& 16, 20 I•()       ··
                                                         106



                                                                                                            119
                          •     ···t";,...
                                                                              •
         Kim~y :and Sonja h~.d ·ti p})y~c~l 4Jt.erc~t.iPJ)            <m. a 4.ay wh~~ Dov,g a$ked
 K(mberly to pick up Leigh Aiin frOm SonJa's house. iGm~Iy co.uld not~- a
 felony on her record becaUSe she was trying to get a nursmg license .so .she had t()
 plead gtillty to a lesser· ~~e. (EX. S- at ,6 (AfT.. of~ EofiJ; E~ 7 a~ ,1 () [Aff.
 QfDeug H~l; Ex~         6 at18 [Aff. ofCmdy Henry].)
          .Aft~ the altercation With. Sorij~, k,i~befly was q~y al,lowed supervised
  visitaiiol) Witp. pavid. Visits Khnber~y had at a friend's house went well. It. was·
  mo~ 4ifflcult when JQmperl)' iiad to have her visitation at a facility. It was·
  impo·smble for DaVid to be natural and have a good tim~ with K.im~ly wb~n.
- someone was watchingeverything.K.in:iberly and Da:yid.s_aid or di_cJ. !Qm'bedy·also
  h;ad t9 pay several hun4.red doll~ in {~s an4 co~ costs fQr ~ch vlsi~ an~
 becauSe of this she saw DaVid leu and less. (EX.·~ ai f7 [Aff. of Mary EQft].) 'lb:e·
 impa~t of     me convi~oQ. on ~'berly was signifi:cant and she 'Was erooti<mal)y
 downtrodden. (See Ex. 6 :at1[8 [Aff. of'Cfudy Henryl)
    C.   Desp,it~ ~_r69ns        w
                                t,h_e Co_n.·n._ry, ·nu~re Was a Positive and
         Compassionate Side to Kimberly Ca_rgiU
         The    s~~ ~setted du,ri,n~         the   co~e    of the punishment phase -~f trial     that
 there was nothing good about Kimberly Cargill and instead she     was "evil_, .. in i~
 purest form." (69 RR..at 96.) Despite· the fa~ that a fundamental part oftbeir d~
 wa~ ~o present positive ~cts- of the client's                fife. trial counsei failed to present .a
 single Witness, other· than an~                   itt the c·Qlincyjail, to tes(ify ~-Kirnbedy ~d
 a different side to her than what           was offered by the State.       (See AB~ Gr!ide.U~,
 Gu:i~eljne·   10.11; 68 ~ at 21-26.)
         At the time oftlj_al- th.ere existed a I)UP.lber of people wnQ lo?,ew ~d. c~ for
 Kimberly f$1 wou_ld. ~ve ~stified Qn h~r behalf h~ th.ey b~ lo~ci ·~~ :a;skeci..
 (Ex_. 3 at f7 [Aff. ofTh~mas Decker];· s·x. 4 at f7 [Aff. ofGreyson_ Dunn]; E:x.• S -~~
 ~14 [Aft.     of Maiy Eoff]; Ex. 6 at ~2 [Aff. of Cindy Hetuy]; Ex. 7 at ~2 [Aff. of
                                                        107



                                                                                                   120
                             •                                            •
 Do1,1g Hemry];· E:~t. 9 ~t f7 [Ait:· of Tii.J..a Nel~n.];· Ex. 10 at f7 [AfL of Deborah
 Newm.an];: Ex. 11 ~ ,14 [AtJ: of Lucy SCoggin];· E~. 13 • '!J2                 [J\ff   of Deborah
 U~on]~) ~h of these             1ndiv1duals could have provided Tnslght. "Into Kimberly's
 ~·and             ability t9 ~~ k:m.cl, com~siQ~, ~d l.oviftg to~ those· arolind
 her. These people wpuld also              hav~ ~~.6~ ~·         wl;iile ce$iilly not      ~rfect,

 Kimberly did in. fact love Q~ chi_ldrer) and toQk gQOQ ~·ofth!=!D.
         As an adolescent, Kimberly was w.ell·l.i~~d.~ S~e ~~4 ~ $Weet verso~ity.
 She was    nm to b:e· arotmd and g9t along Well With otb~ts~. ($ee ~. 4 at ,2 [Aff. ~f
 Greyson Dunn];        E~    9 at fJ2 [AfT." of Ti.na Ne.lSQQJ.) A_s. a   ;ra~g· ~t,     Kiri:lberly
 was sweet and bubbly'        and had a nwnber Qf mends tl)rC)ugb. h~ ne.igh~ood ~4
 chu,rch. (See E~ 10 ~ 1fZ [Aff; of Deborah Newman]~· E'-'. ·5 •               'fl [A,ff. of~
 Eoft].). All Kimber•y ever wanted was. a "n()l'D18llife;" a$~ wife~~. motb~­
 (Ex. 5 at 1[9 [Aft of Mary EQ.fl).) Kimberly l~ved
                                                  b.eins a QlOtll~r 8r14 took goo.d
 care· of a young David. Kimberly loved David very mu~h. (Ex,. 10 a~ 14 (Aft of
 Deborah. Newman].)
         Kimberly w~ $W.e.¢t ~q a bit n_aive. (Ex. 6 • ,6 (Aft o_f Cmdy Henry].)
 Doug and Cindy Henry got to know Kimberly when tbey                      W01,1ld   all .get w~tb~
 with their kids. Kii;ril;>erly ~u.ently broUght Pavtd to tbe Ji~ house and th~
 a.d~.Ilts tal~e4. wtrl.l~
                      tb.e kjqs pl~yecl. (Itt ~t ,5.) I<lm.~~ly w~ 1~ and very
 S\Veet towards David_, Pavid enjoy~ ~i.ng aro'W!~ K@Jler~y and they were
 physically affectionate With one another.. (id. at 17.)
         Khnb~rly was a       friend to the Henrys. The only reason they stopped seeing
 her W3$ ~use S(mj,a prohi.bjt_ed K•.tn~Y from b~r,:g ~und Leigh Aml·                         ·11:rls
. prevent~ l<illlberly frQ.m, dtivirtg the kids· or beJng a~ lh~- ijemys· bouse when
L.eigll Ann was pre~n.t. A:; !in~~ .result: the Henrys saw her less and less. (Ex~
1 at ,1 o[Aff.. of Doug Heney}.)


                                                    108


                                                                                                 121
                               •                                            •
         Thomas :becket, a mend ftequ:endy around. K.irnbetly from 1996 to 1998,
also fotliid her wbe a '11orma.l and friendly'' pemn. \Vh.il.e 'Ill,on:,.~ saw Kjmberly
upset sometimes due to the              custo4Y sitUations She was dealing with, it was n·eve(
out of the re_alm of a            no~l level of     intensity. (Ex. 3 at     ,6. [Aff. of thomas
Decker].) thomas alSO knew Klmberly to take good care ofher.·seco:nd so:r;1 I~~'
~d     did not see atiy' ldnd of abuse or neglect Thom.as and                    Kimher~y spent a

signi:tJC:ant amtn.mt ·of time together and he also saW.JGijtb¢dy parep.~ David. There
were nUl'l)erous tjmes kinjberly took both Jamie. and David over tO.                      Thomas'·s
hous~ tQ ~e ~4 $'?lim~~ him -~4 his                      f&Qlijy. (Id,.   ~ ~4-S.)
         Evc;n    ~Y y~ lat~, after ~berly had                  been through ;years of m~W
strife an4 seemingly nevet..::endlng c'Ustody battles, She. coUld be warm and ()peri to
others. A p~~t of on~·~fZ:tcJl's· cl~smates·li}{ed Klmberly very m:~~b.- $.h.e. ~w
Ki01berly with both ~ach and LUlte o~p and Kimbe~:ly was not rough                       With them.
11) fact, KJID~rly WllS' ~ QPPQSi~ of~ugh, esp~c~y wjth L~~ wh~ rap. around
on the fi~id du:riJ:lg Za~l)'$ ·spQrtiJ:lg events.. (~ 1.2. at            fiZ-4 [Aft   of Kiniberly
Sl~ivinl.csy].) Z~h's cla5smate Stayed ovemightat Kimberly~s ·ho\lSe several times
and Zach stayed ovem1ght at his friend''s· holise as w~iJ..                  ~         wa8 not ever
anyclliiig amiss and the classmate'.s parent found Kim.berly to be responsible and
consci¢n.tj<;51.,1_s.   (i4. at V-J.)
         There was, by all          a~oup~,   a   ~ 4~~     of aggra:va:ti.ng   eyfd~ce· presen~ed

during the      ~~tr:u~~ phase of trial:~· Th¢re Wete a ~igllifi~AA.t            t:J,WDPer ~f people
who expenenced a negative side of Kimberly and were Willing tO testify in that
re~,         a~·a~.se       of tJt.a~ It wB:S evep. mote e5senti.'al that trial eounsel seek to
provide a more complete and balanced picture ofKimberly. It is impossible to
convey to ~ jl)ry          ¢very    ti)Qm,erit of a defend&J;lfs life.. The jeb    ef the State in
pfe$e·n~JJg a ~            iQ ~vatic>n 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~·       provide<! coirOb9r:a$.g
evidence ~ Cargill was deeply impacted and tratimatized by learning ~t her
fat11-er Ke~eth Pitts was not In fact      het biolog1cal father. Cargill felt lsoiated and
alje~ted (ton,t tJie res:t of~~ fantily and never felt ~ thmJgh she belonged,.       CargUJ
also belleved she could neVer live up to.het mother's expectations. Furthermore            7


Cargill ~ subje~d tQ physical vioience ~t Ule hiiDd of h~ ~ot;h.er and ~~ttered
from menin~tis in childhood, a seri()us' and p.otentially debilitating disorder.
         E~erb~_Q$ h~ ~l!e~ ex:~ low ~elf.;.worth and feeling. a5                though she
did not    b~ong ~thin h.~ :fip:nijy structure, cargill ~~pted to e9nnect to her
biological father   and establish a meaningful relationship with him. The
r¢1ationship did not · ·develop as expected am;l Ca®ll w~s oiJ,ce -again left
diS8ppofuted and estranged. Cargill entered into marriage as a yQurig adUlt With
the expecta:tjon tb- sbe woUlel fb)aily ~eive her mother's approvaL the mariiag~
was not SUStainable and the tUniultUo.US, oontentio~ and a¢riinoidotis divorce and
subsequent loss of c\islody of her first son sent Catgiil into a deep depresSion and
further UJ1d~ed.h.- .s~ o;fse¢Q)i.ty il)lJ.:i$~lf•worth..
       Dliring trial counsel's clOSing argument they offered~· "We don't-we don't
know wb~t jt ~ We d9n't lcn:ow wh.at did it We don't know what caUSed it, .bUt
we know something did. When. Ms .. Cargill             was born,   when she   came into this
wotld, on this- earth sbe w~ an i®ocent baby. SO:Il.l~g ha_pp·ened, ~c;! we don't
know what.;' (69 RR at 17.)       However, there wete people. available and Willing to
proVide that ttijssing mf~tiO.n thiJ~ wo~d have en~ble9 Dr. McGarrahan to
pro.vide the jury with specific traumatic environ:mental factors that may              have
co,-ttril>uted to Cargill's development Not doing so ilildenn1ned the presentation of
the defense ~s oWn expert and undennined the ctedibfHty of the defense case a$ 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 shoul<f b.e spared. This failure-unfairly prej:udic~ Cargill and ss such
her ®nviction ofdeath should be revmed.




                                             114



                                                                                          127
                          •                                         •
                                          CLADI'EIGHT

  TIUAL COUNSEL WERE INm:FQCTIVJ; FO~ FAILl.NG TO .U_lJUT
 TilE sTAtE'S CASE IN ACcRAVATION DURING THE PUNISHMENT
                       PIJASE OF TRIAL
           Duripg ~~ p~j~~~ p~~ of (Ii_al, t}:le ~ta~ p~ented nwnerous
witn~.s 19 tl;S~ tQ ~ggrav•~~g ~d~ce reg~.i.ng c~IU's behaviQr prio_r t9
arrest;~     Among the evid«m.ce ~.seiJ.~ were de~l.I~ of Cargill's divorce· and
custody battl~:wirb Mike W~~ an all_ege4 ~s•w~ ~~m.,t ~~'~ wiJe                  Sc:$j~   West,
and the Injury .to a Child ~· filed ~~.g&inst Cargill in: March 2010 pe~il)g to ~­
mjl.ll'Y to ~b· Ro.bmsol.l'S fo~h~~             ~~ the a~yatll)~ na~                  of tb.1.S
testit:nony, trial   co~l    proVided   li#:J;e-~o-n:o evid~c:e t,o re~   agdlor ~~~b the
St,a~'s witnE'.SS~. PoSt-conviction lnyestjga_tl_Oi,l has ~v~.ed s¢v~ wi~~~ and
other·eVi4~ce ~          CC)uld have beer,l ~ to c:hallenge the S~' s· '-cc:.QWl~ ·oft:b~
instal)ce8, a11 of whj¢.h    was ~ly •vailabl~ tQ colinSel ~ th¢ t4J:).e Qf irial:..      l)j~
CQ\l.l:l~P~   fsJl'QN   tQ ~~p~   to c~ ~m Qn the s~~'s ~~ve wl~ a:v~l_abie
¢videnc:e     ~~t~s· 'i;ne_t;fec;Uve ~$istan_ce, pre,hldi~ng     (;a,rgiWs   righ~ UJ:lQ~   the
state .and fedetal Constitutions,       state statUtory   law,. and united States Supreme
CQUJ't and $fa~:case l~w. As· such, Cargill's sen~ sbou14 be rev.efSe4·.
    A. f~l Cou.ns~l Uas· a Dl,tty to Rebut the. Prosecution 's· Ca~ in Favor of
           ~~e ~~-- rell.3l~
           An i~f{ectjve $.S'si$rtce of co~~~ claim r~u_i,~ ,a sqoWi)::lg ~ trl~l
coun~l's      perfonnance was deficieil~ aild th.at the deficiency prejudiced Cargill.
StriCkland, 466 u.S.      ~J 687; j;;,_en~, 3.64 S.W.3~ a~ 883·. CargiJlmust show that
her counsel's representation fell below a:n obje:ctive standard of ~QnabJene~ i.n
order to est.abHSh defici~ncy. Striclcltind~ .466 U.S .. at 688. The reasoll'ableiles:s of ·
counsel's ·perfonilance i:s     measw-ed    by th~ p~va:ilmg prQ(e_$$i~~l ~:tol111J· • tf:Ie
tim~ of t,ti_~ ~ ~O.~ed in the       A.meocan Bar As~a.ci~tion ~danis and the like.

                                                 ns·

                                                                                            -128
                           •                                        •
Jd To ~:t;a})lish pre~ce, C~U I;ll.~_t $Qw. ~ "r~_asonable ~robability that, but
fot c~l'~- ®.Prof~siol)al etrors, the result of the proceeding woUld bave be·en
d.i_fJ"eret1t." Id   at 694;   Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at ~12 ..
        Trial counsel b.a$ a du_ty to investi~~~ ~~rtd present. evidence at the
pU:b.lsh(nertt pha:se of~. See           ABA Guidelines, Guid.elines 10.7-10.:8._ Not only
s.hould coun.se_l -~atjv~Jy presen~ mitigating evidence during the pwishmen:t
p~e, but      they ~ust also rebut the- aggravating evl_dence ptesertte4 by tb~ .S~.•
$ee Porlf!l' v. McCollW1!, -558 U.S-. 30, 4l-42 (2009); ABA Guideline$, Guideli:Iie
1:.:1 C~:• eA.t (th;e pul)i$hlilent] pha,s¢, c,tefelj~ CO\U)SeJ mu_St bOth rebut the
prosecution's case in favor of the death penalty and aftirn:latively p~.ent the best
po.~ible c~          Ut !Q:vot Qf    ~ sefi.Wpce. other ~ death.n); see al3o GUideline
IO.li(A) (stating that co\iilsel has a eontin:Uiilg dUtY tO investigate .information that
rebuts the $~e's $I:lticipated case-In aggravation); Guideline 10.i1(F)(2) (stating
that, in d'etetm.iiifug, whi¢h Witnesses a:pd eVidence to presen~ 3t pur,t.J,$QCJ:1~
counsel shoUld cOnsider lay Witnesses With the ability to rebut or             e~lafu the
evidence presei,lte4 by the State). nus duty Is also rec:o~PUzed        by the GUidelines
and Standards for Texas Capital           C.o~l    and the- S~pplemen~ G1,1i_d~l.in~ ~
Standards for        the Mitigation Function of Defeme te:ams in Tex&.$ ·D¢ath Penalty
cases.
    B. 'l'nal Couasel Fa_il.ed to Rebut th'e         .Agg~v~ting Testi,~o~:r   of   Seve~.l
         State Witnesses During t_he Pa_nisbD.l_e_~t Pb_~_se ofTri~l
      At the punishm_e:nt phas:e of' trial, the S.tate presented nwn_eroqs   wi.~sses    tQ
~stify to ~ a~       a1legediy coJlliiijtte4 by Cargi)J priot to her arrest. While tJ."ial
COtm_se_} c;f1d imp~_C}l ~dfor reb"!.}t SOJjl~ of tQese WitnesSeS through cross;.
~~aroi.~.Q~ ~.d ~bl1~ witn~s, tnal!Y of ~~ bad acts went wholly
tmcb.allepg~.. A_s a result, over $,e c~ of i~ ~n_isfml.~nt phase presentatlen,



                                                   116



                                                                                         129
                                               •                                           •
                 the S~~ ~ -~})1~ ~Q present unchaitenged teStimony eStabliShing Cargill as a
                 4.i.tlicult, eysfuncno~ and v1olent person~
                        1· 'l'ri~l Coauel Faiied to Rebut Mike W~'s Acoouot qf ftae C..-dy
                            Battle Reladu;g to Th:eir Son, Da,id                               ·
                        A~ p~ent, the; State called each. of the· fathers of Cargill's ~bil~ i.D.
                 chronological order.. It began With Mike· West, CargiU'.s first hu$band ~d ~4'
                 (a~er of her titst child, i:>av1d.            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.~<m
of the disparity In resources between .Mike and Cargill'is relevant to rebutting the
tirst piece of tb;~ St3~·' s p~feqe4. ~tive .. <;lqring th·e pwiiShmeni phase• TriaJ,
counsel's fa.ilure tc c;all a witnes:;· sucb ~s Det;Jo~ NeWJ;ll~ to ~;~ontextualize the
custody pl:OCeedmp· and rebut ~ike's ac®unt of them .constituted ineffective
assistance.
       b. Mar.y Eqff
      Mary Eoff also oould have· served the dual}iiirpose of mitigation and rebuttal
witJ1_ess. ~was Cargill's friend ~d geigh.bQr in the. ~Y 1990s~ (E~. 5 • fl
[A.ff•. of Mary E~flj.)   Maey wa~ n.ot c.a.l.l.ed ~ ~ Wim~, bu.t wo~.ld ~ve tesg_fjeq
on Cargill's behalf. (ld at.,l4.) Eoff·met-Cargill whim Cargill and Mike move4
                                                119


                                                                                           132
                            •                                         ••
i~ tQ tl,te bo9Se n¢Xt door to her- In Allen, Texas. (Id..at 12.)    Carg)U and Mike wete
jl;lst newlyW:«l$ ~t tb~ ~e b\lt w~re imm.~ and a,rgu~ ·a l~t.. (/d.) M"~
eventually left Cargill a:nd. filed for divorce sh~_rtly aft~ she w..s d.i:~.~ ~
an extended I;J.ospiW, s~y. (ld ~ 'lf4.) Mike antics in the           couttrooil,l as   wen 8$
Catgill's.c:~epres·sive   response to ldsing custody of David also counter· the star)' as i~
W;iS ~¢n.te4 by the Sta~ at trial~ (See id        at ~:S.) ·
       In a.ddi:tion   to   providing context for Cqi,Ws con:wll¢4~ soCial hiStory t
Mary's testlniony could have shown that Cargill was not the SQle aggres5Qr in her
reJ.atjon,shj.p witb M.ik~ ~d Ulere were tnany·tactors other than Cargill's linritatioil$
as a Sjl()use and parent that ultimately had an        effe~   on the cust®y si~on witb,
~vid..

       c. Ciildy Henry
       C4ldy Hel)l"y, too; coUld have served the d.Ual.·j>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   :Mil<e West {.(4.)
Doug MIS not contacted ~· aQyQne on C~_l'·!$      ll:i_al team but wo:uld have testi:fi·ed
ol:) C_~lfs ~~t: (1.4 -~~:o) Doug ~ed Cargill and developed a trust With her
whiJe they were b:qt}l ge)~g tQ:rou8l:l their respective· custo4y sl,lits. (/d. • 11.)
They helpe4 e~            other      out with the kids, .and Doug never· saw Cargill act
aggressively Qr o:ut of tlle ()~ around $em. (/d.) Doug did not believe
Cargill ever stood a chance ii1 bet cUStody battle· with Mlke, hOwever. (id at 18.)
Mi~~    was· :;. S:'$h$tp ·aAcJ 0.   s.QlQOth-~~ bUsine~       aum/' while CargiU "wore bet
emotic:sns on bet· sleeve~" (ld') Unlike.Cargill, Mike. had money, which ~~ve b.im.
a definite· edge in the caurtroom.?• (ld)
       Do(lg is· the fol,irth witne.ss that could have .shed Ugh~ on            dle personal and
imanci'al dynaniics of Cargill's c~O<ly l:ia~e With ~e~ Th~ jury should MVe
been   presented with ~iuch eVidence in order to rebUt, explain, .and co~textuatize the
Qa~re    of those    proc~ed~gs.         R:~ther ~    leave the jUry with the impression that
Cargi_ll wa;s a.bu.si_gg be.r ch.ildren from the vm.y begill,Iljng, tri.al coupsel should h~ve
presented witn~_ses to explaiit tl;tat CargiH may h.~ve lQ~ custo4y of her tlrst ch,ijd,
not d:ue t_o her ~tment of David, but beca.use sh~ was· vasdy ovcmn~tched in il,le
courttooiil. Trial counsel's failure ·to adequately investig·ate the is.s·ue .and present


                                                     121



                                                                                                134· -
                        •                                              •
the t~stiinoriy · of DebOrah Newman, Mary Eoff, Cindy Henry, and Doug Henry
con.stitt,~ted defici• perforuwl_c;;e ~4. prejpdiced    Cargil) 's co~tiwti<>n~ 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~    <lay oftb~ ~i-~t~ (60 RR at 3~.. ) C~U plm.m~ t0
come over ~ the house and pick up David and Leigh Ann fQr viSitation. Cargill
WS:S picking up Leigh AnJ;I. becalJse l--eigh Aru_l's fathe~ ~4 arranged to ~ve her
picked up 't;y t_atgiil and dt,apped off at his hOUSe; (/d.) Mfic.e- wa5· ·still a~ )von<.
(Jd. at-35.) Sonja testified that she dld not want Cargill tO take Leigh Ann,_ but feit
that .she had no choi~~ (/d.) C#gi(I puile4 ilp to the bQ~ !Qi~ke4 on ~e ~'
and the children came oUtside. (/d at 36.) David walked up the Stairs to· th~
sidewalk and waited.. (/d.) Leigh Ann stayed oy the door for· some time to 5ay
goodbye   to Sonja,. (Itt.   ~ )7 J   Sonja t~sqfied tb.at, ·at sc;me }'QUl~ Cargi:ll   b~~~·
irritated with how long- it ·was tal.dng ior Leigh Ann to s_ay· goo<;lbye sp       ~e. ~bbed

Leigh Ann by the arm and began to walk her up the stajf:s_. (let at ~-7.~38.) SOI)j~
then ~hed ol,it anc;i ~bbed Lei~ AM's other~ in order to g~t CargUi to let
go of her. (/d. at .39.) In· resp:ons¢, Cargill let. go of Leigh Atm.'s arm and
ptoc~ to          kick Sonja in--the stomach and thtc>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 S<l~j~'s:
 arms, stomach, ·an:d one of her mee5. (Id a,i 103 .) Milce .~so ~t~.d tAAt ~igb Aim
 and the ilailfiy·wennnsibly shaken up byth_e,inci.dent:.. (ld.. at 103-04.)
      Daviq W~ ~~:ti.e4 tb~~ Q,e, Leigh Am), Sonj~ anc;l the ~y                           were     aU·~~
 SQnjS:~s houseon the day of the inejd~t. (60 IUt ~~ 24-:2:S~) ~4 $Ja~e4 ~-a~
 CargilJ amved at SonJa~s hou.se· and came i,nside to iJse. the rest:roo~. (ld at 25.)
 Then, Cargill came· out$iC:le and         tne4 to l~e wj:fu D~yj.4 ~c;l Lejgb Aoo.•              D~v~9
 believed ~~·~<mJa wa.s n.~ ~w~ $1.~ Cqll_l ~ pl·~~ t9 pi~k up ~i'gh ~
 as well ~ ~y. (l.d ~~ 25·-26.) He t~fied that Cargill. ~ ~g ~j,rt Bl)c;l L¢igh
 Ann to he'r car When S.onja tried, to g~ Lei$}1 Ann ~ frQm C~ll.. (Itt. at 26,)
 At ~~ point, CargiU threw ·SonJa' s· ~d ~ the o'trt~t wall of the garage.. (ld.
 ~~.2~27~)   David did n9t re:call       seeing·C~ll ~ic~ SQnj~           (Id   ~.~7.}

      JAj~     Aru.l teS9ti.ed. th~· 5P~ rec~le4 CargiU wm.il:tg t9 1;he {ron~ door at
 Son.j~'·~ b.9'Q~ !Q pj~~ 1:1~ ~~ (~0 R,R ~t 51.-) Leigh J\m.l w~ ~g her mother-

 goodbye· wh~ Cargi.l.l c3111e over··an:d toJ:d her i~ w~ t~ipg too l01.1g WJd pbbec;l
. her by the atrh. (Jd) As :Cargill was ttying to walk away                 with Leigh~ Sonja
 grabbed onto. Leigh Arul;s. other           arm.   (Id. at 51-5.2.) Leigh Aili:l testified that
 C~Il ~~r:t   k.i¢l.ced   $opj~ i)l t~e $:tom.~~h    iJ:t order· t9 .g~   h~ tp ~et   .go.. (14   ~~   52:.)
 Davi4 ran off~ ~-~~.sb C.argi.IJ ~ t9 c};Iase hjm a(ui ey~nw,ally take him b~~~ to
 the car. (ld} The whole incident took roughly ten minutes, ~ccotding to Leigh
 Ani;. (Ill. ~ 54)
      Appro.idm~~~ly      six wee.ks before t,ri~_l, cm.il)Sel 'W$.8 given n9tice that the S.tate
. i.~.tep¢~ to ~·the Sonja i.ncid~m as ~g_wav~ting evide~ce d\~Ppg tl:te pUQi.$h~l't~r,t
 phase; (See 3 CR at 511.} De"spite the fact that the State included the incident on
                                                      l23


                                                                                                        136
                       •
 1ts Match 21, 2012 "Second No.tice of .Intent         to Offer    Evidence under· Articl~
 404(b )/' ~Wl$-el faU~4 to 4tv~stigate: and present .eviclence ~o .t¢tru~ ~O.r'
 eonuooualize   th~ alter~on.      Po:st-c.onViction investigation has      uncpv~d ~

· Witn~s.s¢·s who oowd.have testified to the complex telanQiiship ~eeil C_atgill ~d
 Sonja and ad4ed context tQ a ·story tha:t;   •·tri~J.l, W3$   told by two ~~~ wbQ w~~
 children at the tiille oftbe incident, one persQn who was not pres~ ~ rh.~ time of
 the iAciden~ an4 Sonj~ .~~rself who held a clear bias against C.arglil.
        a. Dotig. Heney
      . As ~pla,41e4 a.bov.:e, Doug Henry h~     S·Onj'tfs ~-~-l;\11spand. (Exo 7 at 4f[i [Aff.
 o~ Doug Henry].) Dolig      was rila:rried to Sonja fot approxith'ately ten yean. ·(Jd at.
 tf13 ..s.;) After the1r· divorce, Sonja did a lot of thin:gs to .make Do.ug's life
 ~mi~le.•" (14. ~ lt[4.) Do"&Jg and Ci,r,td:Y w~ted Leigh Ann to be· In th~lr
 wedding but. Sonja. was adamant. that she not ~ involved~ (ld at 'JS.) In fact,
 Sonj~. ®led CPS and reported tbat Doug was se~y abusing Leigh .Artil. (ltl)
 As a result, Dou.g a:nd Cindy had to spend. extensive amounts. of till).e t;md mo)ley
 fighting the allegation. (/d at,~S-'-6.) In total, Doug spentabout.$77,000 fighting
 for cu.~ody ofL~igh Ann:. (/4     ~~ ~6.)   In tQ~: ~n~ Do~g and Sc;n~ja end~ up with a
 standard eust~ a.rrangemeht.. Sorij'a continued to mak.~ thilltgs difficqlt for DQ~
 regarding Leigh Ann even a6er·the case·was·ovet. (Jd)
       Oo~g's po~~iaJ t~.~iroonr co~4 ~ve reve~ed               that Sonja had a history of
 belhg manipulative and     unnecessariiy d1fficult when it ·c.am:e      ~o cu:$>dy 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   coul<J ha¥e t~titied to
Cafgill:;s positive mtetactions with Zach.
         s,~~ RepOrt of lnvestigator Danny·Green
         CargilPs triai counsel, Brett Harrison, was already representing Cargill in the
lpjuty  to ~ Child case. Wl)en she was arrested In JWie 20iO. After_ Cargill was
finally charged with c:api~ ~wder 'in I_ate July of th~~ year,- Harris.on agre.ed to
con!inue ~o repres~~ h~r and Jeff H.aas was appoin~ed ~s ,s~~l?-d ch~r. (See CR ~
1·2.).. For purpases of the Injury to a Child cas~, at)d priQr to CarWll'$ SJrest i.n
                                                128


                                                                                      141
                      •                                           •
oonneetion With walker's dea~ Har:rison hired investigator Danny· Green. In the
c:ou,rse Qf O~'s it)vest_i¢.ion he int~mewed A.~ RobertS; a fri~d of Zach..
Green produced a repQrt b:as.E'd on that interview~   (Ex.. ~0 [.R,eport by Green].)
       In early May 2010, Gree~ intet'Viewed Adam at his h:e»me loca~~ iJJ. m~ ~e
n:eigbbc)rhood as Cargilt':s. (Ex, 30 at ftl-2 [R~ott·by Ol'een].J At the ti.m.e Qftbe
interview, Adam had knOwn Zach for approximately two years and visited Z~ch at
Cargflf'$ home m.tee tQ fow tli;nes p¢r w~ (Jd at ,9.) Over the; course of'those
two years A~ never observed Cargill hit or spank Zach. (/4. at !ft 1OJ Abom one
week before the Interview, Adam went to Cargill's hollse to .see Zilch. (ld. at~.)
Cargill inform~ hbn that Z~h was S~:YiJ.tg at w.s (~'s house.. (/d. at s.) Adam
tlum had a conversation with cargill where he told. her that he· had setm Za¢h hurt
the t~ part of hjs fore~}~ wbile p~y~ baSketball about a week ot tw.o -a~r
spring break.. (Jd at W6-7.) Ada:m      s~ted   tbt Zach had to ·sit down ~~ hi:Ui:ng
~ head. (!d. at 1[7.) In the· Whitehouse school district, Spring break o.ccurre.d tram
March 8. to~ 12, 2010,. (14. at ,8.) Fip_$l)y, A.~ st;ated that he has knp\.Yn
Zach t6 tell stories to get what he ~ts. (ld. .at ~l3..)
      Th~ report i~elf rn~;t ~o.t ~ve been ad,miSsible at triaL However, it did

provide integral fu.formatlon for the purpose of impeaching and/or· re:hUUi~g tJ:te
State's account of Zach's lnjuzy. the report ptoVi.ded trial co.uns¢1 with ~ goo.d
(~th   basis. to question Zach about   ~dam's   vemion of the story.. CoUn.sel sho~d
have asked ZlilCh   whether the injury ocCUrred whlle     t'l~yi;i'ig ba,sketball.   If Zach
denied that it did, then cOllilSel .should have further questioned him. tp develop tne
nature of Zach's friendship with Adam.           Co(msel c()uld _have complete.d the
im~~hm~m 2:11dlo.r·re~l (d~ding on how Za~b ·~_sw~ tb;e qu~~ot:tS) ~Y
retumiilg to the original question: "Ifyom friend Adam says he reme.m~rs seeing
you hit. yoU{ ~¢ad. Qn the basketbail gQal around the tim!i= of yow f~head injury,
would that ·he: true1;' .Even if Zach continued tO deny the .StOry, the jury would still
                                             1~9




                                                                                          142
                                       •                                      •
be ~tiij¢<1 ~~ th~ i.s an m~tjve expl~a#on for the injury to zach'.s                 forehead
t}l~ w~ pmvi4¢4 b:y a fiien<J who c;·laitils ~have witnessed the injury.. Co\inSel
   · ld ha·ve • 1_wwer
shou            l:. •  sot"1dlfied that ·m the._ J\lrY
                     .;;..l;. ·    ·                      · ihd b:y· sim
                                                 · · · 's m...         . P.Y "'" 11 ~ ... " Matt
                                                                          1 ~&&             .....

Rpbip~~ ·an4 Jo~ Book~ If ti;ley     l:lad ~ ofthe.altemative explanation. Even
i.fthey de~ied ~yiJ:t:g b~ tne- alterrw.ive ~ccoug~ colm$CI woul4 have·gotteQ the
i.s~u~   out before tb~ jlJ:rY.
         ~ch'$    mjunr ~the ~;yst to tbe even~ tha~ eventually ted to Cargill
beit'J.g cb~t'd wi~ c~pi~ rnWder. ~ -S11Cl.l, ~Y reasonable opportunity to ~s~
dolJbt ~ the: inj~. should have been pursuecJ:. It {s ID.e~pl.i~~le w_hy                    mal C:Qui)Sel
did not: use the report as a tool to impeac:h, and/Qr rebt,rt ~e              blj~ tp ~-     CbUd i~u~
considetirt~ that       it        was coUrtSel's ow:n ittVestlgatOr wh~ c·o)ld!Jcted tile 'ipt¢rvi¢w.
Trial    ~1' s·        tailure         t~ u.~   the report.   ~n$itu~ defi.c.ieg.~   perfonn.ance and
~udiced Cargill..
         b. lQ_D,I_berly' S'-vlnslty
         Triai ®.Uilsel should have                 called Kimberly Slavi:snky'18 to        d.~_onstra~e
posi~ve 1!$p~            of C~gill's rel~onship with Zach. In additi~n to het- so¢ial
histozy w·stimoey, .Slavinsky c:o.wd .have spoken specific:aliy                             w   C~'s

relationship with .Zach for ~e· purpose of rebuttin·g                   the Injury   tO   a. Child issue..
SlaY.iX1$ky .knew Cargill at th~ rJJne when C~U Uve4 ~- Wl).JteJ;Iouse, Texas.. (Ex.
12 at 11 [Atf. of Kimberly SlaviJ:lsky].)                      Her so~, N:ichol~ w~ in ~e ~¢
eiemerttaty school                class as Zach and the boys played sports together.          (id. at~.)
Slavi.~y   often ~w ¢ar.gil1 at spOi'ts ptaetices and games. (ld.) She liked Cargill
and ''syntpathized with [h~r] becau$e sb.e was a sfngl~ mom ~4 b.er yol1Qger son
was very tarnliunctious.;' (Jd) Nicholas spent the ·night at Cargill':s house ·a few



         48
        Shi.VirtkSy will be referred tO by her sUmam.e to .avoid confusion With the
n~~ o.fthe Applic.ant:.
                                                              130



                                                                                                       143
                              •                                      •
tim~ and       Zach did the same at ·Slavinsky's ho1.1se•. (Id. at tp.) Nicholas enjoyed
·st,a.yin$ ~ C~ll' s h9LJ:Se. (/t.4.) Slavinsky was aroWid C~gill, Zach, and Luke
often .and never saw Cargill be rough with them. (ld at 'd4J :she feU~ Za~h was
comfortable cor:nlng to her i.f" he· needed anytltlng, a:nd he never mentioned being
h1.Jrt by Cargill. (Id. at ~~ . ) L~ter- on, Slavbt$ky ev~ 'Wrote a le;~ on ~ll' s
behalf for a CPS case. (id. at ~7.)
        H.ad   Sl.~villsky been c~letJ 8:5 ~ Witnes:s, she could       have teStified. to her
perception of Cargill as a mother,. h:oth through her own obsel'Vations               ~d her
la;lowledg~ that Nichol~ e~}ayed ·spending time: at Cargill's home. The· positive
int~ractjo~ tba! S~illSky ~d with Cargill and her- perceptio~ Qf Cwgilj' s
relationship With Zadi were relevant to rebutting the. State's case. in aggravation
and. the  •· · should
      . . J~.   ·• . have       · . ·sed ofthem .
                      . . been·appn
       By calling S1avi$ky at trial and ¢ros~xa.riiihing Zath., Matt RobinSOn; and
Johila Booker With the report Written by Danny Green, coUilSel cc:iUld have east
significant doubt on th:e s~~s accQunt of ~.h.'s mj1~JY:· C®.id.cm~ \he
significance ofZach's injwy in the overall narrative of CargiH's prosecUtion for
capiW, rjj.~rQ.t;-, qi_~l COl#]_sel' s f~.lure to cl:u~llenge the State, s version of· events   m
any meaningful way constitUted deficient           perf<»~c~       and preju,dlced C~ll,s
cOJ:istittitional rights ..
    C. c._rgiD was Prejudiced by Trial Counsel's Fail are to              ~e~ut    the Stafe's
       Case :ill Aggravation
        The S~ pres~n~ three topiC:S. of ap.v@ng evi~r,.ce through several
\1Vitnesses that went Vir.tUally linchailenged by trial     co~l. The St~te ·was given

f~ reb.t. to esmpljsh that Mike    West was given sole clistQdy of. DaVid because CPS
~m.an.d~ ib~ h~ ~ove D~vid          fu>rn 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 <mly      twelve ye.~ old wh~n he          was
 testifying at .c~n· s tri~, ca.Uing into q~on h~s c·ompetency to teStify to begin
                 .
 with:•    Consi.®riJtg c;:o~l'$ ~.i.l~ to      reb14 i.n s~ '-here i_s ~ ~~able
 ~l:;abil.iD' ~t pro.~cijngs       would have ertd~ di_fferent. if this rebuttal evid~:ce
 had been presented to the jury. Becatise C~             was ptej~diced by trial co~el 's
 deficient perforrn.ance, her ser;itence shoUld be overtUrned.
                                          CLAIM NINE

  TRIAL COUNSEL WERE INEFFECTIVE FOR FAIUNG ·To IMPEACH
     FORREST GARNER WJTH U.I.E mUE NATUlU;: OF HOW IUS
           CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS WERE VACATED

          Trial counsel has a d:Uty      to irivestlga,te ·and    present ¢vidence· at the
· punishment     phase   of trial. See APA Guidelines,    Gtiid~li_~~ lQ.7•1 0. ~8.Not Qnly
 ~ould co~l ~ffiqnadvely           JJre:S.ent mitipting eVidence dming       the pWiishment
                                                  l.32


                                                                                            145
                      ••                                         •
phase, but. they must· .also rebut the aggravatjng   evi9~~~ pr~~~d.        by the    s~~.

Wigg(n:s, 539 U.S. ~ ·524; see ab(J ABA. G~.i4.e}(n,es, Guideline 1.1      cmt. ("At [the
                                .                    .
pumshm:ent) p~ de~ counse.l.mu~ bo~ rebU:t th~ prosecutiOI.l' s ~e· in favor
of the death penalty· and affumatively Pi~ th¢ best p~si}:>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<Jthing to   impe~ch   Gamer's      credibmty,   c;i~ied

Cargill the effective assiSWlce of counsel. As slich, Catgilf's rights under the state
a1,td f~~ ·coi)St,itt;rtjon,~, $til~e $t~JQJY J.aw, ~4 Uriitc;4 S~~ Supreme <;(;~ ~d
state ~e law were viol~.




                                             133



                                                                                          146
                         •                                        •
    A. For·rat Garatt's ·Testimony at the Punishm·eat Pbase of Cargill's T$1
       W•s Detri.m.ental •~d Highly ~~Jti~.l
       Forr~~    Gat:n.er, Qargi)l's ex·husband    ~   father of her yo.in'lgest soil LUke,
 t~:tied e~sively to a mu:lti~Q~ of ir:ttl~~~ry ~d e.r;tonnQus.ly ~vati.r:t$
 incidents he allegedly eXperienced .as a result of Cargill's temper and volatile,
 n.al;\Jre,-: Q~er t~Jl~4 ~l c~.u spo~~           negat,ively of h~r previous e~-husbands
 4espit.e th~ factthat·.he Ia:tew them t9 be ·g9QcJ pe~le   (~3 AA·~~   69,.:70);   ~U ~olij

 itnn that her mother and        eld~ ·S(lil David~ ~a4        (63 RR at     1i·73)~   Gam.er
 mmi~d Cargillbecau.~.she ~ unexpect~dly             pregnant (~3 RR l¢ 76);        an4 C~i.ll
 ¢rew o~· ~ ~gag~ep.t x:i.n8     he gave lu~~; (~3 .RR ~~ 93.) A44lpon~Uy., ~c=r
  testifi.ed c~.U. o~cm ....~sed h41l witb phope calls ap~ wb~ h~ tried to break Up
  with her and ~e refused to l~ve J;Us apartm~~ Gm:ner said ~e left hls apa$l~t
  ~d we11t ~ h;:s ~11~' l.louse an4 the·il~t me>.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 <m hjs
 record. (63 RR at so-81.) Prosecutor· Bmgb,am th~Xl b.ad Gamer reasswe- tbe juey
 that Gamer received nothing in exchange for his testimony at Cargill'-s· trial. (63
 RRat.81.)
        Crass-eXaitiination o:n the issue of Gamer's assaultc:onviCtion b:efug·va~
 wa,s bZ;ef~ Gw,ne:r te~tifi~ tAat l;l~ Wa$ first mest~ on August 13, 20.06 and aga.ii)
 on AUgUSt .20, 2006. He was ultimately chafge4 vii~ ·two misd~~anOI'$ and                  ~~

 felony~    Gamer testified tliathe. appeared in court and pled g@~~ ~~e cn~l
 aske4, '\ ... ~d the   PA~s   of_li_ce ~ejt;t ~-d OJ:!   SOll1~ JP.n~   of joint motion I guess
 and cleared your retQrd-i_s ~-tight.? Is that (a:irr' To ~bi~h G~r responded,
 '·'Ye_s s.i.r~'-' (63 RR, ~ 1-34..;3-5~) That was the ft)il e~ of trial coimsel's        cross-
 ex:amip~~on on the 'i:SS\le•
        However; the jury was not priVy to the full Story regarding how Gamer's
 conviCtions for ~sault with family vi·QJ~nce---:-vlolence ~~ Olrglll her:selt:-·
 were inconspicuo_usly Set a5ide without ,a shred of newly dis.c:overed evidenc·e, a
 ~tfce that iS    virtUally unheard of In the criminal jUstice systein. Ott August 18,
 2.011_; ~ Joip~ Appl_i~i<m fc;>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¢<iiately   tal5-~n   am.ck by t.h.,
filing wid rem:arked, "I'll admit I've never had one of'these filed i,ll n:tY 9 y~: 00.
the bench, so it's nevi ground for      me."       tbe defense attomeysl' handling the-~
for Mr. Mizns· agree4, (Ex... 29 at 6 [TrtUl$Clipt ·of ll~l.l31-)                Th~    following
discourse thea took place:
             Q..    (:ay court) I hav¢n't got an ~ovnceme:nt of t.be State.
        So, Mr. ·west,~. V~~, which one ofy'alls in charge tOday?
                  ~ (By DA West) Y~ yowh<roQr. MJ";.: llj;t:~g}).~ ~lte<J tq
        come d.oWD. here and let the· Ce:urt know that he fully agrees w.fth ·the
        writ ofh.beas C:orplis that Mr. Mims has tiled. And he agrees tba~ the
        def~~t is enqtleq tQ .gr:an~ of ~~~ ~rpus U.l. thi.~ both Qi.s
        cases.
                  Q.    Does this have anything to d~ ·w].th the fact t;hat the
        all~ge.cl victim i)J the case wa:s. ~ c~p~t.al m~er de~dant at present?
                  A.    I. really dldn't.bave.an:y.conversationsabout that.
                  Q..   i'm s'Ure you didn't.
                  A:-   (By Pace) An.d I ~ow notl)i_ng ~aut that either. I'm just
        the tun ·in guy. . ·
                  Q~    I'm happy to hear the         evid~ce..It j~t $ikes me ~
                    m
        UJ)~~ tbe 9 yea!'$ on ~e bet)c:,h I've never seen tl1'~· 1\i;ld tha:t irt
        this pa:rtic:ular case, 2.years after the defendant; s been dis'charged frc)m
        his coituriunity sl',ipervision, that we're $$1.Ced to se~ ~i® ev~iilg
        that's gone bef"ore.
(E~~   Z9 at.1-8    [Tn#.l.script.ofH~g]..)
        Gamet himself testified. that he was cWTeritly enrolled in a respiratory
Ut~y progtatp with a           high gta4e point average bUt was not going to he able to
panicip:ate "in the prat.ticum portion. of the· prognm because of his prior assa:ult
convictions. (Ex~ .29 at 10-16'[Transcnpt of Hearing].) The coUrt. expressed its


        ~2 Mi'~   Mfrns. was liilavalbible   tO.   personally appear at the writ heari'I1g and
~ttom~y R~bert P~~e ~s~_te4 O.~er~.                 (Ex. 29 ~ 4 [Transcript ofHe~ggJ.)
                                                     138



                                                                                                 151
                          •                                          •
reticence in granting tl_le Jo~t req~ beca.U$e Gmn~· pl~             $Ui.hY   ang :s~rved l;Us.
sep.~ apd Jp ~verse ~Jl of~t ~led into queStian the· integrity of·the jUdldal
system. (lc!. at .19.) Gamer testified that h¢ would no~ haVe pl«f g~lty b~}{               m
2007 h.ad i~· not been far his fear of Cargill and the fact that he jUSt wanted it to ~
over~ (J.t!_.. • Zl-2'2.~->   <m.   b~h.al.f of ~e Di.~ct Attoro~y's    Off.ice;   Mt. West
~xplained
        .~         tJ)e cd\;(rt $~ re~.ng behind theJoint request was not from hls own
                                          '




P~rsoD:al kn9Wle48e        b\J.t only   ~ what h~ been oon:veyed to       hlril by Mr.
  :SinglWn. This included the tact. that in 1nve$tlgatihg the case against Cargill, Mr~
  Bingham now believed Gamet to be a Victim and that Gatn.er pled gUilty undet
· duress.. (id. at 23-24.) Mr; Pace te~d ~.Garner w01)14 rec~ive no benefit fot
  hiS teStimony against cargill and truly the oilly reason for the joint motion was SQ
  ~ Gart1er co(lld ~d resp~C)l)' ·~~ol:- (Id.. at 24-25.)

      C. Trial Cowu•l's Failure to Impeach ForrestGa.-..eB" Prejod.ieed CaJ"8ill
         Tr4U co~el ~ w~ll a:w·~ of Garner's posl~nviction Writ and
subsequent heariilg. (See Ex. 29 ·at 28 [Transcript of Heating}.(Cargill'$ auomey
Mr. Harrison was present at the hearing in question).)               Yet, fot ine;cplicable
         >
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,ip<J~ of hj:s· te~o~y SJ;J.Q     been .mote likely to accept that
while OttgijJ ~):1)¥ conqibuted to tbe c;lys~~on i.n bet own lif~; .sh~ ~ not
tbe m9t:J.5:t~ thl4. G.Bf:r;l~ mad¢ her ou:t to be.
          Fuitb~Qx:e, i~ i.s sjrop}y not ~e c~ tb~~ G~er              did not receive a benefit.
othet t,hat) his fi:ee m.4 cle.*\1." admi.~io~ i.n.~o .re.spirat~ry sch~ol .an.4 a clean crinliM.l
re_con;l:. A$ ~ ~~~ CJ.f tbe s~~' s lnterv~tiQ~ Garner was pe!jiiitted to testify that
h~ w~ J;l~ve:r tb~ aggressor ~ m;ty of J;tis il:¢.eraction$ with Ca,rgill and W1J$ a victilp.
of' bot!) ~~r emotionai and physical ab\lse. This was despite·the faCt that·partlcu.J.at
positioning was cont,radi~d ~n l~g~ ~ b~ pollee reportS, C:PS investigation
reports, and medical records slin'ounditig the. 'i.nd.dertts of violence,.. Th~
relationship between Cargill and Gam.er wa8 volatile at best, bUt to allow Gamer to
testify that he     was
                      the consummate Victim and                ~ted eQ~ly ·Qu~          of self-
preservatiOil was maccurate·and highly misleading.
   D. Cf.Jnelu~~~
          Vacating Gamer's cOiivictions· subsequerttly       aliowed him to teStifY that he
was n~er :¢ ~i .wh~ it c~e to d~il:lgs witl;l C:W"gi.U.              This had an undeniable
(and ill)prop:er) impact on h_i_s credibilitY as a whole and violated                   C~ill's

~d~~i}W          tigbts.. Not irtfQrtflitlg the jury of the· fact that      Di~ct Attorney

:amgh@.l was ii;l~i~tely involved in vacating Gamer-'s convictions, nor conveying
t() th~   jury that Gamer's po$t-cQnviction      ~me4)'    w.as bjgbly   ®_iqu~ ·ancJ   vi_rtually
tu:l:h~     ot ~Jed Cargill the e.fJ~ve ~isltmce of her own tri'a.l couns~l... Thus,
Cargil.l 's d.e.ath ~e.nce shou14 be reversed.




                                                  140



                                                                                                153
                          •                                         ••
                                               CLAiM TEN

  rRlA.L COUNSEl. WERE INNEFFECfiVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT
           TO HEARSAY STATEMENTS OFFEIU;D )JY JlL;L L.o~·
        ouiirtg the· punl!iihment phase of Cargill's tri.aJ, the State eli¢1ted multjpJe,
hearsay Statements frOm witness .Jill Lowe. Lowe was permitted                  to testify t~
~~m·oni~.• ol).t...of~o~ ~tel';fients         by LUke Garner and Zach Robmson withou.t
objectioo frOm trial counsel. As a result, the jury was pn*.n~ 'Yi.Jh ·~isslble
testiJ:noJty ~t~pliSljing that Luke: deeply feared his mother,. Cargill had lllt Zach in
the face on at least one occ.aslort, and    Zacli feared. ~S ho~e to stay with his
oWl) mother. Counsel's failure· to obJect to these hearsay statements cnnstituted
deficient performanc.e und~r preYailjng prof~.i~ nonn:s at the· time of Cargill's·
trial.. AddltionaUy, the inadmi'ssible eviden~ that was placed before th~ jury as -a
~i:t.l~ of oounsef's failures prejudiced Cargill's nghts ·uruter the State .and federal
C<)nsiitii:tlons, state statutory law, a:nd U~te4 St,ates Sup~~ne Court and stat~ case
law. As-.silch, Cargill's sent.ence must be reversed
    A. Tri•l C,q._D$el ~- ' :OUt¥ to Pres~rve Error by Mald'ilg Proper
        Objectio~
        Art iP~ffectjve a$.~i:stAAce of ~o~~l cla.i.J;n requjres a sllQWing        t:h.at trial
CQu,IJ,S~l' S ~rfOrii!a:nCe W~        deficie:nt and that the deficiency preJud.ic«i C~i'Jl.
S~riclf.JaiJI!., 466 U.,S.. ~t 687;   Jimenezt 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 ~<J the defe_ndant           had a pri.or appo~ty fQr cross-e~~OJ,l.. 541
U..S~ 3'6, 68 (20:04);· $~ t;~,lso De./ Carmen Hem4!Z.d~v. St11te, 2.73 S. WJd 6$S,· 6S7
(T~x,~ Crim. App. 2'008)" A trial colirt'~ failure to -su;stain c.o~l's obJe~OI:l ~9 ~
out-of-:-court statement offered for the truth of the          matter assened wQuld c·onstiw.t.e
mal court error.
   B•. Trial Couas:el Failed to Objett. to MUltiple Hearsay Statements Oft"ered
       b;yJiQL9we
        Lowe is a former friend of CargilL        (62. RR. at 73'•74.) They met at their oons'
base~l pme. in 2005. (Id.. ~ 73.) Stto~_ly t,i:lerea1;\er., Lowe and               targill began
m~e.ting fot       h.mch ot   dilin~   and d_eveloped   ~   friendship. (ld. at 74.) During t;he
pu,nisfnp¢nt phase Qf tri~, the State c_alle4 Lowe ~o te~fy              tAA.t ·she d.l$covered in
                                                    1.42


                                                                                                155
                          •                                          •
July 2010 that       cargill had used Lowe's Identify to set up a cell phone contract.
(14 at 75-7~.)       Cqi(l ~ run up ~ bill 9f over $9()0 ~ Lowe·'s nam~: \\hlch
Caigill's parentS later paid. off.. (ld. at 76.)         Nevertheless~   Lowe's   credi~   was
damaged by the identify theft. (/d.) Lowe· also testified that she used. to s~
bruis.es on J~e and th~ CatgilPs kicl.s ·seemecl to b~ ~·in~~e<J" by their
mother. (Id it 80.)
      1. ·Heari:Sy Te8thtu)ny R'l$nling L.;i~e Ga_.._er
      Fol.lowing Lowe's general co:mtn~ts regardjng Cq!U's child,ren, the State
ask~d   for   s.p¢~·c exampl~s          of how Lowe knew th~~ C3(gill m.is~ her
childrtm. (ld at 8 i.) Lowe: then launched into a story about a time ·when She was
pl~yi)lg ~1 with LUke iri her house: and LUke            aecidentally broke a thetmometet
that was kep~ on LOwe•·s manti~. (/d.)          She. te$tified th.at L~e th~ ~4., "~ Jill,
Ms.  Jill, my mama's going to kill ine. My ~ is going to klil me- l:'m going to
get·a spanldng·. I'n:t going to get~ sp~~· (/d.~ 8~-8~.) Tri~ couris'ei tailed
to object to these statementS despite them being .a clear case of hearsay. LOwe
oo~tm:ued a~       With the· stOry,   and told the jury "[LUke] said, ,·My mama Is going to
spank me. My mama·. is going to span){ me.. '" (ld at 82.) A~ tti~ '!O'WlS~l
failed to object
      2:. H~~ay Tt$timony Rep.rdl~g Z3tla R~bi~son
      Later on in her testimony, the :Sta~ asked Lowe if she bad ever seen Cm-Sill
ap~.s!= a.Q.Y Qf th.e c;hi.l~n·; LQw~       stat«! that she had nev~ personally w.ittJ.e:Ssed
af)use but reca.Jle4 sta~emen(s ..rn~d.e tpll.er by
                                                  .
                                                    l4ch Qn ot:te occasion.
               .                                                                     .
              Q.     (By prosecutor) Do you know whethell'· or not [Cargill]
        ever cb~~.~4 b~·~nli4.r~l)7                                ·
              A.        I've rtever.seen het do that personally, no.
              Q~        Plii:lched them in th~ face with her fi:sfl
              A.        I've n·evet seen that personally.
              Q..:      A-
                                                   143



                                                                                            156
                             •                                            •
                A.         I've been told by the childtett, by one child.
                Q.         Who :WU· that?.
                A.         ~~b:.
                Q.    He       D.ci t9ld. you SQane tb.i!lgs h_is ~~,m had done to him,
         punclling.him?
                 A.        Y~-. i   t~Qij't knQw   if the word was "piincit;' but he was
         fiigh~ed.
(62. RR at 8,7-88.) Despite th:e· fact. that Lowe bepn her ;msw~ by sta~ir;lg that ~e
h.ad not. personaily seen the event happen, Lowe went on to say that she had been
''told;' something by· one of Ute chlldret?., a,nd th#. the s~ rep·~ted tha~ Lowe· had
been "told,-; abOut the incident in its filial question, CoUnSel did. not o:bje:cL Had
co®$el object~d., the ~I cow:t wOUld have s~ta.lned the objection under Texas
Rtile ofEvidenc:e ·802.
         After that, Lowe began' to tell a story ·abo.ut "an incident vvidl [Zach's]
tonsils that just tore [her] up." (()2 RR ~ $7-88~) At ~t point, trial coun~l
objected to hears~y and lack of notiee under Texas Rule .ofEYid~ce 404(b). (/d.
~t 88~89.. ) Th~ s~~:te ~l&iried thadt did not know anything ab(;)ut the incident that
Lowe was app~y abo¢ t~ go into. (ld.                  ~   9().) Tbe tri.lll co~ ~~ed. tb~j~
and Lowe was taken on voir dire by the Staw to detennine wwha:t ex~y she W$$
going tQ testif;Y . (/d. ·~t 90-9 L) l..mve ~lain~ ~hatth~· was a time whe_n Cargill
and za~h came CJVer to her house after Zach h~ ~s· ttmsils ~ovec:l. (Iti ·at 91-.
92.) When Cargill left the room~ Lowe asked.lach ifhe wanted to go home.and he
re~onded that h~ did not. (/d. at 92.) She then asked him if he was ~ed and he
re:spo.nd~d Ut.a~     be   was:.   L~ ~~             by w:ri,tjl)g   h~ c~ll   ph.<IDe number   Qll ~

piece ofpape_ran4 givi_JJ$ ittQ .Za~b wi~o.u~ Ca:rgi.ll's kn9wl~~e.• (/4) Bas~ on
tbe   St~~e' s· voir di.~;   coWISel st,ated tl)at' he b~d I)O objection t~ 1;he testimony. (/d.)
The jury was called back into the coUrttoom and the State restim:ed itS dfre.ct


                                                     i44


                                                                                                  157
                             •                                         •
examination. (JtL at 93.) Lowe recounted the story again, this time before th~ j1,1tY.
(It/.)
                 Q.    (By prQsecutPI") Go ah~ I'm ·sony. I think when you
          left, Zach was.on the·- couch and-he was.staring atyou.. Go ahead..
                 A.. Ple~ wjiji his ~yes. And Kim h.ad gone to IDY office
          or the batbr®ro Qr Son:tewb~re. And I Ieane.d over and win~ tO
          him, wAt~: you-are you afraid?"                                      ·
                    APd be .saJ_~,-,..hc::· j~ ~~~ed ~· ~e wi~ hjs eyc::s ,~d w~~ like
          that,.   "~d you    don·,t want to go home, do you?''
                    And he:said (Shakes head.)
                  Q.    Ol@y•
                  A.    And so I wrote my cell phone- ii,umber dqwn and I pii~ i•
          ·in his hand.
(14_.) As     prQmi~e4,    tri.al   C?O~l   4.id Q.Qt object to the h~Y:• The $tate then tOQk
the      opportuni~ to c~fy ~ za~ W~ llOt $C~d about having                            hi$ tonsils
rernove_ci, ~t ra,t:A~ ir_lsin~~ tl:m.:t he was :~id <>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 th<! 6rst    ~o   special iss:ue.s    an~   "No" to the: tl1ird speeial   i·ss_ue~
                                                           151


                                                                                                           164
                       •                                           •
FilrtAennote, th~ju:ry must be inst;tv,c.t.¢d as to tb~~ ~jmity ~r:tt;;• Tex.
Code Cri.m. Pro:~~ art. 37.0.7~, § 2.(d)(2), (f)(2).
      By CQJJ~ i:f th~ jury ~wers "No;' to either of the firSt tWo ~ial issues·
or a "YeS' to th_e tlti.~ ·special i.~~; tl:l~ the ~11;11 t:n\J,St sent~ce the defendant to
life 'Imprisonment Wjtbotn parole. T~·: Co4e Cr:im-           P.r.®.. art.   37.071, § 2(g).
~e answers n~          o.ot be ~~.o~~; ii:tS:tea~ the jury ~ay f}_nd against the first
special issue or party C:Otttplicity ot in /at?o.r of ntifj~ti,ng- c_imm.ts~~~.s· sQ lol)g ~
ten or mere j'urors agree.   Tex.. Code Crim. Proc.. art 37.0.7i, .§ ~4)(2), (f)(2).
       In addiU:o~ to    these   ci~~~,            the cowt     ~SQ rn:u.~ ~t~~-          tP,e·
defendant to life imprisafiinem·Withou:t parole ifotbe jury is ~-l~ t9 8Jl$Wei' any of
the special i.SS\les cons.ister)t witb these m.t.iclelines. T~. Co4e Crim! PI'!JC .. art.
37.071, § 2(g). Under        T~    law;   howey~; th~   jury ca,mtQt   ~     infonned c;>f 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 CQ<J.~ C~~ ~.-, ·§ 2(~)(1)." 4 Jmors thus              remain free to
s~wate-or-to      he ~~ed ~o •e· ~pti~ by their p~ equally ignol'aJl~
as ~ t;p~·Ia:w's reql,Iii'e~e(l~~t-~ f~,tJ~e t~ ap_sw~ ~ spedal issue Will produce a
mistri~:i As T~'~ <;~J.pi~ s~.~~g ~~l).tm~e mj~~onns the jury by bringing
o~ide,    impermissible considerations         tO ~   on the verdict,        T~?ta:,·~ s~~t.e


      54 Tec~ically,. thi$ part of seetion       2(aXI) addreSses itself to the ·~is·s_ues
sulmtined oo.d~ S1J.psectj_c;m (c;) or (e)/'     Te'-':· Cod~ Crim.· Proc. ;ut_. -37.071, §
2(a)(l). While the initigatilig ciltums:tance$ ~-ial iss~e is subinjtle(j to ¢_eju'ry
p~t to sub~etion (e), no $'pecial isaue i:s s~bmitted ~o the jUr)' pu;rs~an~ to
S\l_bsectiog (c); lJ)_~ead, th~ sub~~Qn, cQncems the burden of proof borne by the.
State With respect to the future dangerousness and party compliCity spetial issues,
vu., the ·~i.~~~[s] ~hm.itt~d U1¥/#r S~!hs.ec#on (b)/" fd a~ art. 37.~071, § 2(c)
(emphaSi.s added)f Thus, ~Y a plain reading of the statute there is no ptohlbltiort to
disclose to the jOry c;he effect of a. (~lure to agree on the first tWo sp~ial i'ssues.
                                                152


                                                                                            165
                            •                                            .e
  d~rived      Cargill ofa fall' stmt~.ci.ng· trial Md Olereby viol,ated h~· tigl:lts l)n4er Ule
  Eh~~Ut an.d FoUrteenth AmeildDients.
      J\.   Tb~ C•rgiliJaey was Initiaily Unable t~Agree on the Fi"tS~U.I &s:~.e
            Followrog eight. ~ys of P~.~ent phase te·stimony, tbe CatgiU jury· reUred
  for deli~ti<m$~          AJ\er   ·~ ~c.ified       period of time delibeta:ting, the jury
, foreman sent o:ut a note to the Court S,taf:it:J:g tbat t1:le jl,U')' had ~heel an imp~ ol')
  t;h¢ ~ special i$sue--whe.ther th~ is a probability that· the defendant would
  c:ommit. crimin'8l aCts of viQlence        ~     woll,ld   co~~e       ·a contn,.uihg thi'eat. to
  SO;Ciety. The foreinan asked, "~are our opti($s or·what happenS if WO can't.
  de~ide?"·     (S CR. at 97$.) Th.e Co~ 4?..4j~~ its intention tO give- the Standard.
  response to such a queStion, informing the jury              that   i~ c~ot give ariy further

  in.sWctions an4 that dte jury should continue tp            d~llb~~te. (69    RR at      115.) At
  that ~int defen:s.e' co.~l re-t,Jrged \ts ~tria}. motjeJJ, ·~l;ta(ie.nglpg the
  conStitutionality of the 10-12 Rule.. Moreover; c.ounsel requested the; folloWing
  in~ctjrin ~m ~e Co'!,Jlt::'

                 Under th.e law applicable to thi.s c:ase, you are· itl.$ti'U~ that'if
            the jury i.s not able tQ answer a Specill:i I.ssue; t;l:t~ the jury f~rem&.Q
            shail refrain from ansWering that Speeial Issue and the Co.urt will
            assess a life sentence with.ou.t parole i!l   me event that ~ Sped~ (ssue
            isn't an.sweted by the jliry foreman.
  (69 RR at 116.) The ·state argued that while 'it               un.d~ds·       wh.at cour,seJ is
  requesti.ng, s'udi- ail mstn.J,ctiOi.t <J.oes not refle,ct the. curren~ state of the faw. (id at
  117:)      The Co1;1~ tlt~ p.ro~~de,d t9 overrule· defense coiinsef's objectioo Wid
  instruct the jury to continue deliberating. {li;i..) Ultimal¢ly, after· nine             hours of
  deiiberatioitS; the jury· sentenced Cargill to death~ (See EX. 24 [Cargill Gets Death
  Sentence]..)




                                                    1.53



                                                                                                166
                           •                                                  •
    s~ Tbe S:Qpreme: C9~.rt :U:I:IS ~~~.li--~ted Jl_l.ry l.~tru~ons that Place BD
       Undue Bu·rdeli OD the s_,iatenc~.r a.to.re Fil)d~\lg ~tigatiog
        Circum:staa«s
       Twa Supre~e CoUrt cases-Mills- v. Maryliind, 486 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<o/ ~~it\1~
ten votes in favor ofa life sentence.
         On;e   m_igh~ $~p'p0Se th$t   jurors would swmjse the   ~.~ o~WQJ.ne         .in tbe
event that they fail to agree to an extent necessary to conclude thelt deliberations--

                                                ISS



                                                                                          168
                             •                                          •
~~ .js~ t~lve vo:t~.s f~ d~ or t~ or n,.ore          votes .for Ilfe--but.this· suppesition is
belied    bY   ample eVid~ collected by ~e Cap~ Jw.y Proj~~ ~ i~ in~iews
With capital jurors. AI!i ~ in a 2.003                   ~cl_e by     that PrOject'$ prjncipaJ,
~l)vest,il¢or, 66% efinterviewed Te~ capitai jUro.x:s inCQ~ctly thoUght that they
had to ~ convinced beyood a reasonable dou~ OIJ fi1.1dings ·of m-~~on·; 73%
iilcorredl)' a!slQ.ned that ·any findings on mitigati()n had t9 be u:nMiti\o~; and 68%
incorrectly believed that. death w~ required iftbe 4~fenclan~ was detenniped t9 be
dangerous in the future--the blghe$tlevei of m~~4ing among the fourteen
jurisd.ictjon,s surveye4 b)' tbe C~iW ~~ Pt"Qject Wi.lliam J. Bowel'S &              Wanda i:>.
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«<tence for the
 defendailt, and 'it thereby tramples upon. the protections of the:Eigbt ~4 F~~
 Amendments. And &S the 10-12 Rule is an integral pan to Te:xas's· ~piW,
se'ri~e.t:lc~ng ·sch~~e; Ul,e ~heroe itself ~an:n.atwi.tb~d C()~Ntj:cm_~ 5C_l1l~i:t;~y~
    D.• The 10...1:2 Ru.l~   Cons:titut~   an l~pern:~jssi_bl~    O~tsjde l~;~(J_ue~c;e   .,.. Ju·ry
          Deli_bera_(ion.s
          In addffl~n to vi.ol:~$ Supre.n:t~ Court precedent in Mills and McKoy by
giving improper weight to a minority voice among the jurors, tew's 10-12 Rule
functions as au, impetiliis5ible autside influence which acts \lpon the jUry as tbey
deliberate.. the rule misleads jurors as: to the result of their failure to reach a
st.a~torily-.presc_ribed agreem~n~ ~d coerces them to favor a death sentence on the                    ,
bas.~s   of co~i.d~rcW.!ll:lS indepel)d@t o.f ~ c_~e's !Jl~ts..

                                                  1:56



                                                                                                 169
                            •                                                     •
        A featUre of American jtirisprudence---One broadly underst®d by the
publiH3 that wh~·l:\j\lo/ l$ ~Jllet9 ~ ~ l)ii_s1;ri_~ t;n~y ~ decl~ ~a new
trial held.. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U..S.~ 497, :509 (1978); .Ddwn_um v.                         ~nited

$1/#es, 372 U.S:~ 734, 736 (1963).                        BecaJJS.e this option is both cos~y a:4cl
cUinbets()me, the law expects tha,t jlli'Qrs Will                 ent~ intp   their d.elibem.P.Q.n.s ~:ble to
be s"Wayed In their opmiom. Allen v. Un'l.ted Suites-, 164 U.S~. 492,501 (1896);, A
~nabl.ejuror· snowd                 f¢el tlW weigh~ Qf tbe        ~tN,ct,io~ (rpm, 1;be tri~    court and,
consl.stent With the1r- ~nv1ctions, attempt to avoid an impasse.
       In a cap~ cas~, the shadow of a ~l_stri$J un~ly looms iarger.
Jurors cluuiOt help but b.e aware of tho~ cases' more involved proce~.
hnprov·ed safegUards,. and             greater    expense. They experience first-hand the c:are
~en     by the Sta~ @rid the d~fen,se to .s~lect froQ:L the venire twelve jurors S\liW)le
for the high .stakes of a eapital triaL They are told to eXpec:t-and they usually sit
thrQ~~ long             tti_al   Wi~ copio4S ~e\ill~ of evidence &rJ.4 lepgthy testhno~y
from lay and expert Witnesses. alike. They are led to believe that dis&gtiiShed and
d.oubtiessly· hi'gh•priced eXperts from a wide range of disciplines are. not only
aV.~lQ.Ple to testicy bQl.~levantto Ute mal's o~t&;Qnte_~
        In this setting a. re·a:sonable juror WoUld be loath to fo.t:ee a niiStrial,
especia,ily ·at th.~t $ge· of the proceedings when the defendant's cwpab1lity already
~.as ~t:J:l W)&JlimoU;S~y ~d t()~                Bt:tt.   ~H~ ~~ guilVi~o~_ce          pl}ase of a capiU;U
trial   ~ks     the   pi.J.~lic's    understanding of the criniinal law.;.;...;.wz,, acquittals a:nd
c·on.Victions   must be          unanimoUS-the peiWty phase does not. Moreover, after
bein~ informed by     th¢ court that. ten (not twelve) vot~ ~e necessary to answer-the
special iss:ues.·in.a way that favors a life senten~, it wo.uld be passingly strange for
a juror· to oonclude that feWe't           than ten .such votes Would achieve. the very same
result. T~x~'s .sep~ci,ng scb~m~ l)ot on,ly d~tii.¢.s j~_rs i,nfo~~n·a.pou~ the
effect of thei_r yot~     bu~-.   by Qnjissi()n, iw.i~s them to assu~e that the consequer:tce
                                                            157


                                                                                                          170
                         ••                                            •
for ~.lure ~(I ·~. agtee)J)ei;t~ p~u~t ~0 ~e 10,.12 RUle i~ ~ ~S~)' mi.stri.~,
regardless of any dne jun)r's beliefthat a life ~n~ce is appropti.ate.. For such ~
juror nr;,t t9 l~r liil;d~ tJt_j_s mil$.3pp~hcm.ion demands a counter-intUition both
unreQ~m.able. ~ nQWb,~ el$e. ~.$WJJ~d ~n th~ l~w. Tl:J.U$, r~ther than operate 3S
an incentive to reach a verdict 'in ·a c.apita.l       cas.~   the 10-ll   ~e   functions as   an
o~id:e iAfl.u~ce·~ ~ Juror,s vot~·for mercy; ·

    E. CoadusloD
        For· th,e re.as:o~ sta~ed above, the T¢xas d~ p~cy .sche.me Viol.ates the
Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of' the United· States Constitution.
Accorqin.gly, Cargill's death sentence was lmpetmlssi.bly imposed and should be
vac!}te:d.
                                            CLAIM THIRTEEN
CARGILL'$llEAi11 StN'n'N~E IS 1}NCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
     WAS ASSJG~ BASED ()N ~'S .ARBITRARY SYSTEM OF
            ADMINISTERfflG THE DE!\Til P~~A:LTV
        Within Texas's crlnllnal justice· syst~m, p;rosecutoi:s· e;~t~i~ CQi)sider.a:ble
discretion.    ~Y      as a c'Onsequ.ence of this     di~Qn,      a snJ..aU m.inority ofT~~'s
counties are respomible fot an. overwhelnUrig majority ofthe. death sent¢n~                ~

have b~ a.ss~4 ln the p~ thirty-seven ye~. In addition to this geograpbic
c#~ty-a d.l~~ty ~t cm;m9~ be exp'l$ed merely~ reference to COUJlty

popwations-Te~'s SySteni                  of adlilihistering the death pellalty also refletts
dl:sparities based en race and ethn:icity. thus, whereas sentences of death ate
p:erfQrc'e re·serv¢.d OJ:lly   for·~he   mpst e~giQU:S Qff~, ip. TeXa$ mls determi.r;ta~i<m
is, to a degree   ooth substantial :a:nd improper, an arbitrary one.       As Cargill received
her c~pi~ senumce t;y o~ort of th•s                arbinry s;ystet:n., ·she ~ be$ d~ed her
right~ under the Sixth, Eigbtb, :~d Fou;rtee~tb Amendments to tbe United States
Cons.titpt.iQni C~ill.'-$ s~~~.c~~r tberefore viol.a~ h~ ~ppl.i~l.~ righ,t;s ~.lJ.d.~ tb_e

                                                     158


                                                                                               171
                        •                                             •
Texu ·and Uni~ S~ws Ccmsti~:ti9~, just ~ it also violates texas statUtOry law
~~ Uri.ited SU\t_es Sup~me Co\#1 ~ fe~a:s: ~- l~w. Accordin~y., C~U.'s
.s~~t~ce shouid b:e reversed.
   A. _Supr~~e Cou_rt :Precedent M:_a-ndates That. th¢ Death Penalty Not Be:
       Ap-plied Arbimarily
       C)ier forty years. ago, the Supreme· Comt'.brletly s~n4e4 im-po~i~o;r:t of-tf:te
d.eath penalty tlitOUghout.the United :States. &tt Fiir!n.cm'v. Geotgi_t;z, 40~ u.s~.2-~8,
239 (1972) (per c~). FQUf y@l'S later, the Couit, yaHcl:at.ed n~w)y~~ilcted
capital p....-mshment statUtes whiCh include:d safeguards· ~ ~~ '~~i~~-s
$.:4 caprice" that had animated the Court mFUl?!lf,lil.        Gre8$ v. Geotgi!J;.4:28    U.S.
153, 189 .(1976) (plurality opirli:on) ("FtQ'!!I.Wl ~~~ ~ wh..ere ~-i~~on                    i_s
afforded :a sentencing bodY on a m~er-.sp ~vr; @·the d.~t~~tion of whether a
b.urnan.life should be W,<en or sp_~ th~~ c;lj_~~o~ m.~ be sui~gly d!r~ted and
limited .so as w nli:Q.imiz~ the risk of wb'QIJy a,bi~ ~d capticieus a~on.").
while c_apital juri¢s would enJoy ~m~ d._1$.Cre(i~i:l i~ ~eaching-. their detetitliiiati.cms
regarding sentencing, their-d_isqet;i<m ll.n.d_e_r ¢~new ~tawt~ wou~d be ~'cont;rOUed
by clear  and ob"eetive
    .. -- ···-·· -~· .. standards
                        - --- .. -· . so·as . ptoduce:non~crimmatO·-·
                                         - to    .                     pp licafi<m.'"
                                                                   ry a··
14_. ·at 196 (q"Qo~~n.g Col.ey ~' $t4.~(!, Z"04 s.:a~d 612, 615   (Ga. 1-974)).- Accordingly,
tb~ pl~jty ~~- Gregg sup"po·s~ junes' decisions no longer would suffer from a
                               .           .           ' ..
lack of gilidance: and. narrowing considerations as tO who sho.uld re<::~ive the d~tb
pe~i"~ty. ~d   this; 41 ~ would do ·away with th¢·, .arbitrarl:o.~s wf)i~h. f!urmpn
io.und co.nstj:ttJU·Qna-Ily in:WieJ:&bl~.. Jft ~ 309 (Stew~ -J.., co~~urril)g) (Iiket:t1ng
impO$jdOO. or~ 4.~-~ s.~n~P~e       tQ ~being ~ttuck      by lightning·");   se.e a/$o Jwe.k v.
State, -52-2 $:;W~2d 9,34, 940 (Tex. Crlrii-. App.           1!i75) (''If discretion m, the
a.s~essm~1_1~ of puni$IDent- ·under    a Sta~te    cart   be sito'Wn to be tea50nable. an~
controlled; rather than capri~ious and disc.niJ1ina~ry, th~ te$~ Qf f'urman wiii be
met."),.ajf'dsub nom. Jilreky•. Texas, 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 c<msid~ roi~~i_ip.g C!Vi.d~~). We;re -~ ~mm to revi~w th~ cu_rre~~ opera#on e>f
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 petiQ<J in Missoun, 76~ of cases chme.ci                 3$.   ¢ithef   ~t..degree   murder,
second...degree     murder~.   or involuntary manslaugbtey          m~ th.~~ s~ts ~tory

definition to be· eiigib~e for the death penalur ~ K~.1:1~ B~~ et                       aJ., Place
Ma.tten            Empirical S.IJ#.!;Y of f'ros~C'I#ori¢./)ec.ision-i-Making in Death"'
             fM.tm): A1-1
f..Ilgible C~a, 5) ~ L. ~v . .305', .3()9...11 (2009). However; only ~-% Qf thos¢·
cases occaSioned a death         penaltY trial.             a result. prosecutors
                                                    Id. 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-. $t 199;
J:wek, 428 t; . s. ~t 274. The· Caurt determined tha:t this decision-making served to
remove defendants frOm the fisk of death and did not viola.te the u~s~ C~U.~dcm;
provided the "deciSion toimpose (a death sentence was] guided by standards .so
that the semenci,ng ~thori~ wowd fo·cus on the particularized circulnstances of
the crime and the defendant." Gregg, 428 U.S. at 199. Justiee WIUW, in his
conc~ce, Q.9te4         th•   the decision of prosecutors woUld likely reflect that of
juries and be rooted 1n the .seriousness oftb:e offen5e:
             Absent facts tO the colltl"3iY, it cannot be assumed that
         pro~utors wj.ll be ID.O~Va~e<J ~ tbelt charging deci$iOR by fa$.rs
         other· than the  smrogt;h
                                of thei.r cas.e ·an4 the· ~Ucelibood that a jury
         woUld Impose the death penalty if it convicts. U.r:iless prosecutors are
         incompet~t in their jt,uigmen~; th~ s~~Q.s by w~ch they deeide
         ~~r to ct.uu-ge a c,api~ felony will be the sarit~ as· th.o·se b.Y w:h_ic.b
         the Jury Will d~ide  the
                               cF.Jestions of guilt and ~:tence.
Jd.   ~t 22$ (White, J ., concurring}.
         The experience of' the last thlrty-eigbt ·years has· shoWn tha~ the practical
consequence· ofprosecutodal diSctetion has not been to narrow the fie'id of death-
eligible defendants    wthe moSt serious ~ heinous c~s.          lt s~J.IS credulity ta
believe that Te~'s· faur q~_qs,t     popqloQ~· cotrotjes-wh,ere SO% of T~.liJ:S'$ post-

1976 dea~-row ~es origina~ed~ave. ba4 ~              many g~i.noU$ diJn.e.s wi~ U1eir
geo~phjcal limi~ ~ h,1,lv~ Tex~·'s 250          rem:ail;ling countjes. Far inore likely,
factors s:Uch     as 'ideology.·, experien.c¢ Htigatilig   cap)~   cases, ~      re$0Urce

availability exert. significant. irifl'uence on ptasectitOrs·; deCisions to .seek the death

v~~l»:I.iw aiJJQQg co:unties in t.~.e appll~tjon of the death penaity.." NJ.• Death
Penaity StUdy Comm., New Jersey Death Penalty Commission Report 43 (2007),
qya#a/Jle a.t http://www.njleg.state.nj'.us/ committees/dp~_fina:I.pd.f.
                                               164


                                                                                        177
                          •                                       •
~enalty.     See Gershowit:Z; supra ~ 11-1'5 (noting seve.~ ihst.an~e$· in whi~b.
p~c~QrS·           h"ve declined io pursue· the death penalty based oil resource
)i:mitaQOQS ) •.
         The influ_enc;e=ofth~e factp_rs within texa,s-'s cap_i~ punl.s.hment sy.st.em ba.·
undennined the Supreme Court'~ ~~.n.$, voiced in Jurek, th~~ th(s $)'St~
wo_uld b¢ ail ,·'eveilhanded, rational, and ®nsistent" one. Jurek, -428 U$. at 276.
ntirtea:t years -a~ Jwe~., tJ:le Court began t9 ~~gri_i2:e tbe etror ili jts ~pti_o_tl
that Texa:s'·s .~m would, in practi~, &ll$Wertbe ·sev.~l CQil~ eJJ;~~d by ~
majority of the justi~ in Purma;_,. Co;;_;pare Jurek; 42:8 U.S. at. 2,72 (expressing
Cc;Jnfidence that the Tex.~!$ Co~ of c~~_l Appe~s wo:uld "interpr~ [the
statUtory special issue] so as to allow a defendant to br1ng to the jl.try"s· att~tion
wh~lever n:ti~igaWl.g circ~ces he may be able to Show''>.~ 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~ <!tbe sodCJ] ch.~teri.stjcs of the def¢n~t;
the social characteristics of the victiin, ~9 t:h~ ~~~l. diiJle~i{)J)S Qf the ~/
Phillips~    4.5· Hous. L. R£v .. at 822-27.
                                                   166



                                                                                              179
                         •                                              •
moN· 4lclined, after reViewing. a file stiifuiiary of a triple-mmdet case and bei11g
told tllat tbe m:~lmum punishmert~ w~ d.ea~, to fln4 •. d~fen~ ~Jty b~e4 on
th~ eVideilce provided if the defendant           had a name traditiC)nally ass®iated with
m.it:~Qri#e$   (e.g:·. ~el, L.~ar:, Terrell) tll.~         i.f he had a ~ore. race-neutral name
(e..g., Ancitew, Frank,      :Pe~~).     Gl@Se;r, e~ aj_•., Possibility of Death Sentence   Has
Diverge.nt Effect on Verdictsfor Black and White Defendants 5-6 (l'Wle.24,.2009),
available at http;J/p~etS. .s.s.rn.co·wsol3/papets:.cnn'i.ab~ctjd=J 4:28943.                 By
contrast, other    members of that same random .sample were no mote likely,                 after
reviewing that s.ame file @,lld, b~Og ~oid ~ t;b~ .tnaXirii\}11) piurlshment. was life·
withQ~t po.s$i.bili~ of pa.rQle, to      fin4 a defenda4t guilJ:Y ifhis name happened to .b.e
OI:J~ ~9Jti~PA~Jy ~m.~ with mblori~es.                ld
        .AlthQ~~ the precise causal me:chani~ at wo~ QilJy rould be ~se4 ~
tbe· researchers nevertheless poStulated that "a more severe penalty. raises the
juror's estilnate4 'cosf of a Wl'on~l          c01tvi~.<m:.." 14 (Citing N. Keit; &verity of
Prescribed Penalty aizd M¢ck,Jiii'on ' Jierdicts, 36 J. PERsONALilY & SOC PSYCH.
1431 (1978)). Or, pethai?s, "for part1clpantS With Black defendants, Wrongful
conviCtion was ·a lesser· ~·on~m, an:d. in~ the d.e.ath pe,na,lty ~i.nforced th~
brutality of the crime." I d. at 6. Still more perverse, "'c~ital pUriishment m:ay f~l
snore   ~pprapri~      for   Bl~k      defendw:lJ;s; given that they are overrepresented on
4~ rQW,         @4 0 ~b.. ba:s           i,J:l~~[ed] th~ ~viet~ capi.t~l       defendants who
look more steteotypically Black are·.more likely to b:e gi:ven a death sentence." ld
(citi~g   Jennifer L. Eberhardt, e~ aL; Loolcing beathworthy, 17 PSYCH. SCI. 383
(2006)).
        Whatever the partiCipants' motiVation, the conclusian compelled by this
s~dy apd the otlwr s~di(s m.~m~on~d             is ineseapable: Race continues to Influence
the imposition of the death peilalty, regardless of whether that influence is
~onsc.i91JS    or. u.rwcmsciolJS. When ·~ l~w ~s ~pplj~ ~ -5\JC.h ~ w~y th~t it bec~es
                                                    16.7


                                                                                              180
                       •                                             •
more dji:'«:tec;; at a ~ctilar cl~s of"persons~-partiCYJ.l-.iy w.btm. ~ c;l~s of
~QI)S i~ c;li.~~ed               by     ~~e appUcaqo~;~          of t,hat law violates an
~di:vi.~'s .ri~~ to'!~ protectio~_ u.t:t~er the l~w. See Yick Wo y. Hopkins, 118
U$. 356, 373 (18:86).
   C. Contlusioo
       For tb.e fotegoi~ ~-s' Tejtas's death penalty scheme is unconsti~tional.
Therefore, Cargill's sentence of death_ should be -va~:
                                         CLAJM lf'OtmTE~

   CARGILL'S:DEA.TB SENTENCE. SHOULD 8~ VACATEJJ BJ!!CAUSE
 THE PUNISHMENT PHASE JURY INSTRUctiON RESTRICTED THE
EVQ)ENQ: TJIAT'l'Q JURYC:OULD DETE~ WAS MmGATING
       '·'[T]f.te Ej~ijl ~ F~~tb Amenclmen~ require th_~ ~~ Sf!g.~ncer, i.n ~1
~Jut ~ ~          l®4 Qf ~i~            ~' ~-Qt     b.;· ~lpde<f ~m CQ~ide;r.ing, ~- a·
m.#igp_tiJ:z$ f~tpr; agy ~ of~ ®f~~~~s ~~et Qr ~ ·~4 s.gy of the
C.ircvm_SQm@S    Ql ~ Qfre~ tba~ th~ d_eftmc:b.u:J~ pn;>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$-5   u.s_. 104, 113-14 (1_9~2).
The Lockett Cowt·'s    dee~:on        was ~~ted by '+the tiS~ that the d.eatb ~alty wi_U
be- imposedmspite· of ~ors w}»_ch may ca~l for ~ I~ Severe pet:Wty/' m.d it
~cordlngly fo((Q,<J \J,nct)~tl()n$l &:$~ S~te Ul.~ ,·'Prevet)t{ed] the Seritertcer m

all capital cases from giving lnd_ependent mitigating weight              tQ aspe~-    of the
defe'ndant'·s
 . .... ... . character·
              . ......... and      . and
                          __ ., record    - cimunStaht.es
                                       . to        -.     of the . - ptotTered
                                                              . offense  "     lh·
mitigation-.'' Jd. ·at 60)•. Texas's statute governing capi~ trials gives'ri5e to th.l~
nsk by expr¢Ssly lilriiting tt,e eViden® that a jury may consider mi~i¢.jng; il)
violation ofthe :Eighth and Fourteenth An.t~~_ex;t$.. Cargill's sei:J_teg~e ~~~fQre
viol;,t~~: her appli¢:~ble   rights   ~der   the Tex.as and United States Con_stitutioll$, as-


                                                   168


                                                                                           181
                         •                                              •
w~fl·~ $~ ~tp,tocy law        and Un~ted State Supreme Calirt case law and state case·
Ia:w.   A~cordingly, Cargill's senten·~·sbould         b:e vacated..
   A. Tbe Texas S.tatute.:and CargiU's· Jury liisttuc:oons
        Article 37.071 of the TeJdts .Code· of             Criminal PrOcediire    .goVeinS th~
1.~c#.Qns .given tot~~~         c¥,ita1 juries. The .s~ requires a trial court                  to
su.~t at     !'east ~Q   i.~~ ~o ~be   juJ)':' ( 1.)   whetb~r tbe.~   i,s ·~ pro~bi.lj~ ~~-   tbc;
deten;dailt coilsti~ a cc>ntin~ing tlli'ea~ to soc.lety;· (2) and wh_e:ther, consi@zin.¥
all the evidence, ~·are ~fficien~ m._itiPting c~~~ to ~~a sentenc~·
Qflife i;tiprisonm:ent Without· parole .. Tex. Cod~ Crim. Proc. art; 37.07·1, § 2(b)(l),.
(e)(l). With re$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.<! instrUctions durin:g the puniShment. phase of trial and before the jlnj
retjr~4 to delibe:~.       (See 5 CR ~ 965... 75.} IQ ~cul~, the co~rt's ~ll,arge
fucluded the following·:
                                                   169


                                                                                                182
                           •                                               •
                 TBJci.rm i,lto cqnsi4e~~ion all ofthe eviden¢:e, i_n~lu~g the
           circu:ms:tances of the offense,_ the defendant' s· cha:rac:ter a:nd-
           ba.clc.ground, and th~ personal. moral culpability of the defendant, 'Is
           there sufficient mitigating cirCumstance: or cii'CtifilStaiicesto w~t
           that a senten-ce ofl~fe imprjson.rnen~ ratb~-th~ a cle$h..$~~c~ be
           imposed?
(Itt ~~ 974.) Fqrtl;t~t ~19ilg Articl~ J-1.071, the ~~e inclUded                     the fo1lowmg
~.::· '"F\Irlh~_r,         th.e jury   i.~ ii)S~ct~d   to   CO®.i.d~ mjtjga.Jjng    eviden<;e to be
evide·ne:e that a juror might regard as redudng the be/endimt 's moral
bl~rnewor(hin~s." (/d. at 968 (empba.sls ·added).)
      B.   Te~s's S.~mt~      UnebnstitutjouUy Limits the Categories of.EViden~e a·
           C~pit..l Jll.r;Y M,y FiJJd 1\'JltigatP,J.g a.ad to W~.rra11t a ~ife Sea~ence
           The Supreme Court requ:ires that. a jury "be permitted to 4 consider fully' (]
~tiga~ evide»,~"           tim provides a basis for, a ~tence of life rather: than- death."
  .                                                                                          .
Abdui-Kabir v. Qtiarte17!Uill, 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.i<m op~n tp ~

capital jury c_aruJ..ot be li,m_i~d to evidet1c~ t_h1i~ reJat~ solely         t()   th~- defend~~'s
                                                   170



                                                                                                 183
                         •                                               •
culplbillty., the nat:ute of his crime, or what the crime says             ~ut that   individual
defendant. &i! Ab.du}-Kab.ir, 550 U:$.          -~   246   (e~tabli~hing   ·a low   ~old        f.or
what constitutes "initigatfug evidcmce~" vfz., that which "migh~ prQYid~ a basls for
refusin
 .    . g to ~          .. . death
             . -. . ·se the   ... ·- pe. . en ·a particular mdivl:dual ' notWfth.stan~i.;.,..
                                      .nalty.                             . ..      . ...U'6 the
                                                                                               .

.sever:iq; .of his crime ·or his potential to coniniit similar· offens.e.s· ·m th¢. fimn'e,)~
 Fat example; evidence· that a defendarit has adju;~ weli "irt priso~ prior to his trial
qualifies as Jllitigating evidenc¢· bea:use ~111~ is JJO question but 1;hat [mferenc;:es
drawn from the evidence] would b.e 'mitigating' "in the sense tha~. they might s¢rve
'as a basis· for ~ s~tence less· than de~.'" $ktpper v. SQJdh Caroli-nt:z-, 476 U..S. 1,
4.,5 (1986) (quoting Lo!;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;n<lc:$erv.il:)g of -~ death sentence. Such
                                                  171



                                                                                                 184
                           •                                            •
 evid¢1:1ce is e.qually D:l~ip.gful for jurors· as ba~kground and character ev·icleQ~
 wheil deciding Whether to          impose a .sentenCe of death. See Penry I, 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~ $triekl!11U/.
   li. Even if Failure to Preserve the· Trial Reeord Will N:(Jt Ah,JY"
       .A..Ut(Jmsdt~J.Iy S•Q.stY ~ l)e6.d~~t Perfor•ance Prong of' Striddaitd,
       tiie Deficient C.ondiit.t of CargO's Cou.nsel in 'l'hi.s Case W~r~_nts ~
       Findiilg of Defid'eilt Penonn:anee
     BefQre the start of Cargill's capital trial, defense counsel failed to request that
the court re¢rter record .an proceeding! mch.iding, bUt IiQt limiu,<J to, b~"n.cb
~.l.lfe.ren~' <A~~~ior;tS H.:t ch.a,m_bers tb,a:t- CQJ1teined the case,      and aO objections
an4 rulings tb.~in--d~~ tl)~             ~t ~ tb.j_~· ~·~ w~ved ~Y ~pell~te cl_a.i~
Qrigi~~t(ng ~m ~ cfu;cu~JQn$~· ~ Va_#e, 109 S.W.34 ~ 50~·--o9. ThiS fai)ure
wa.s comwtm.de4. by co~l's ~ecJ ~~uiescence to off~the+record bench
conferences onc:e proceedings began. DUring cargill's trial, the coUrt rep~y
held substantive dlscussions off the: record and counsei repeatedly failed to go back
~n th~     reco!V to   ~ate WQa~             was s.aid or   ord~    by the   co~rt    dutjng tho8e·
c:i~c~io~-
       A.ccordii:xg    tQ    the ~~, s.ev~ty qj~s.$iops were b~ld off the record
                                     '
d~~g voi_t dire, pte•tn.~ pn>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~ <l.~tl¢~~t #or#iance, as              it
efi.~tiv~ly w~ved Cargi_ll's a~iljty to raise appellate ciaims regardlng the 'iSSue's
4.is.~ off the record.

   C. This lilquiry Mus.t 'take In~ Aceou)lt ~he ll)iji,~nt- Difiieulties of·
      Estabtlsbbig Prej'udlt.e Wh~n a "Subst:anfi...l aD.d C11Jd2Jl P.,r.tjon" of dJe
      Tra.1,1~eript is MiSSing

       In the absence of a cleat and complete rec~i'd, it ~s dfffiC1llt t9 detemiji)e
Wb~   took pi@Ce dUring tiiaL As .sue~ arguments aboUt possible prejudice .suffer
sinc:e th~ will frequently be viewed            a:s ~ve.         R~ tlli.~, tn~- Fjttb,

C'ircu.it has beid that s·pecific prejudice need not he shown if one can establish that
c,. . sUbstantial portion of the trial tnul$cript is· abs~nt In Unfte4 Sta.~e.s v.   Selva, ~9
F·.2d 13.03, JjOS..06 (5th Cit. 197:7), the court held that-an ap~Uant need not show
ptejucijc~   cro direct appeal if: ( 1) a "substantial and cru¢ial portion" of the trial
transcript iS missing and (2) h~ iS represented on app~~ by counsel oth~ ~hm.t 1:1~
trial laW)'er; 'nt~ court reascn:t~ tha,t, under th~s~ ciit\lffl.S~Ce.$, "c;o~el ~ot
re~01,1~ly b~ ~pectc;d to show SJ?eci_fic prejudice7' because '•even the most careful
consideration    of' the   avmlabie     ~cnpt.  will nQt pe_li'D.jt U$ to ~~em wh¢tb~
reversible error· occurred while the proceedings Wert: not b.emg r®:Orded." Id at
1306. Altb.9ugl:) tJte F.if:\lt ClrcWt. rul_il)g ~$ not bm.44"tg o~ a stat~ court, the
reasoning. in Sfclva nevertheless apPlies here,
       In Cargill's case, there ate few contextUal ch.ies for determining the .sUbject
~~_e,r of ~-e majQpty of th~ seyenty unrecorded djsc~ipns. Def~n.se col.l,g~e,l'$
d_eficient perfonnance in falling to preserve a complete record leads to -a most

                                                     1.77



                                                                                              190
                        •                                       •
. troubliilg res·u~t:· insulation from meaningful ap~llate review. Therefore a reyersai
of Cttrgill 's ·C9Qvteti~n and ~tence   l.s m~rj~ ~ l,lo.~ d~t;i~ie(l~ petfOrn)ai.lce an~
prej~di.c;:e SJ"e ~fi~

                                           v.
                              PM~ FQR U..LJE.F

WHEREFORE, ~berly Dianne Cargill prays that this Court}
       1. Order an evidenti$ty hearing fur the· pl,lll)O:se ·of ex&Jilin_ing the m~~ of
          her claims;
       2:-: V~ h,~ CQI;lY~ction ~4 4~ s~n,tence;
       .3. Grant any other relief that: law orjUsticemay~quire.




DATED:        August 19,'2014




                                             178


                                                                                      191
                      •                                       •
STATE OF TEXAS            §
CQUNrY OF SMtnl           §


VS.UFICArtON


        B.E.F.O;RE ~. ~~ llllde.rs'ign~ aWh~.r.iW, on tlrls 4.y ~nallyapp~d
J~et Gilger•VanderZandel)     wha 'UpOn being duly ·sworn by me testified as folloW!:


        L    I am a member ()(the State Bar of Texas ..

        2.    I am the duly authorize:d attorney for Kim~rly Cargill, having the
             .ut;hQri.ty to prepa~e ·and w verifY Ms. Cargiil's Appllca.tiQ~ fot Past-
             Convictio~ Wrlt oflh,beas CorpU:S•


        3.   I liave Pi'ePared and ~vc; read the (orego~ A.Pplj.cation (or Post-.
             Conviction Writ of'Habcas Corpus~ and I believe all.allegations m'it
             tQb¢~e~




SUBSCRIBED AND S'WORN'TO BEFORE ME
2014.



                                                                          ofTexas




                                            1'i9



                                                                                    192
                         •                                         •
                             CERT:iFlCATE OF S~.VI~
l,   tb~ u,td~igned-, declare      and certify that l have: serve.d the foremoing       Jp(ti~
Application for Writ ofH@.eas. Corpus by ~d to:.                                ·   ·

L_~r,.~ Rhym~$.                                          Honorable Jack Skeen
CrimiJ)al P<:tst•Trial                                   Judge, 24 t st Dlstrict Court
Smith Co¢.ty District Clerk                              S~th Co\lllty Courthc;»tise
l oo N. Broadway, S_uite 3180                            1.0() N,_ B.ro~way, Root.n22()
Tyle_r, Te~ 7$70?                                        f:ylet, Texas: 75102
(Original and one 'copy, via hand delivery)              (One ~opy via hand ®livery)

S'mith County Distri¢t .Attm:n~
AITN: Mlke West.
i 00 N. Broadway, SUjt.e 400
Tyl_~r, T~xas 75702
(One Copy via.h~~ d~l.ivezy)

Kimberly Carglil
TDCJ # 999512
M.o'Untain Vlew Unit
2305 .Ransom Road
Gat~llet T~_as'76S~8
(One copy., via mail)

     Tbjs certjfication is executed on AugUst i9, i014 at Austin, Texas.

     I de(:lare undey   pe~l)'   of peJ',jucy that the foregoing i . ®e   ~4 eor_tect to the·
best of my knowledge. ·                     ·                    ·




                                                                                           193
                       •                                      •
                             Lois Rogers
Smith County Courthouse                                     (903) 590-1660
100 N. Broadway, Room 204   Smith County                  Fax (903) 590-1661
Tyler, Texas 75702
                            District Clerk



 I, Lois Rogers, Clerk of the 241st District Court of Smith

 County, Texas, do hereby certify that the documents contained in this

 record to which this certification is attached are all of the documents

 specified by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(a) and all other

 documents timely requested by a party to this proceeding under Texas

 Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(b ).


 Given under my hand and seal at my office inTyler, Smith County, Texas

 this 6/2/2016.



                                    Lois Rogers, Smith County District Clerk


                                    By: /s/ g'f4Ut Lwi4
                                        Blair Lewis
