"[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"
How later courts described this case
- "[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"
- ~~ssing the cumulative effect of the State's.lmpropet arguments tO determine whether the defendant was prejucij~ed
- "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
- noting th~t, by alleging "ineffective ~i_stai
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.