Nelson Gongora v. Rick Thaler, Director

REVISED March 1, 2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 27, 2013

No. 07-70031

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

NELSON GONGORA,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and OWEN, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Nelson Gongora was convicted in Texas state court for capital murder and

sentenced to death. After the state court denied habeas relief, Gongora

petitioned the district court for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, requesting that his

conviction and sentence be set aside and a new trial ordered. The district court

denied relief. We granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on two issues: (1)

whether Gongora is entitled to habeas relief because the prosecutor commented

during his closing argument on Gongora’s failure to testify; and (2) whether, in

No. 07-70031

light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Tison v. Arizona,1 Gongora could be

sentenced to death based on a jury finding that he anticipated murder would

result from his participation in robbery of the victim.2 We find that the

extraordinarily extensive comments on Gongora’s failure to testify resulted in

actual prejudice, and we GRANT Gongora’s habeas petition and vacate his

conviction.

I.

Texas charged Nelson Gongora with capital murder for the killing of

Delfino Sierra during the course of a robbery. Although the indictment charged

that Gongora shot Sierra, at trial, the State sought to convict Gongora either as

the shooter or under the alternate theory that Gongora was a participant in a

robbery in the course of which Sierra was murdered by one of Gongora’s co-

defendants, Albert Orosco. The jury heard sharply conflicting evidence

regarding Gongora’s role in the offense, including evidence that the shooter may

have been someone other than either Gongora or Orosco.

The State’s first witness, Sonia Ramos, told the jury that she was driving

on the night of April 7, 2001 when she noticed three Hispanic men walking on

the side of the road; the man in the middle (Sierra) had on a cowboy hat. As she

turned to look toward a friend’s house, she saw the man on the left shoot Sierra.

She then looked back, and saw a van parked in a driveway with its reverse lights

on. The man who had been on the right side of Sierra ran “like he was running

towards the van,” and the man who shot Sierra “kind of backed up” and “kind of

looking to what he had done . . . then turned around like to go towards the van.”

Ramos could not see the mens’ faces.

1

481 U.S. 137 (1987).

2

Gongora v. Quarterman, No. 07-70031, 2008 WL 4656992, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 22,

2008) (Gongora IV).

2

No. 07-70031

Juan Vargas was the State’s next witness. Vargas also had been indicted

for Sierra’s murder. Vargas admitted that he was the driver of the van.

Arrested about three weeks after Sierra’s shooting, he gave a sworn, written

statement to police identifying James Luedtke and Carlos Almanza as the two

who had emerged from the van to rob Sierra and identifying Almanza as Sierra’s

shooter. Police interviewed him again a few weeks later. This time, Vargas

identified Gongora as the shooter. He said that it was in fact Gongora and

Orosco, and not Almanza and Luedke, who had approached Sierra. At trial,

Vargas testified that he had initially lied to the police when he identified

Almanza and Luedtke because he feared retaliation from Gongora. But that fear

was apparently soothed by his plea agreement. Under that agreement, in

exchange for pleading guilty and testifying against Gongora, Vargas would

receive a twenty-three year sentence for Sierra’s murder and not be prosecuted

at all for a second shooting.

With plea agreement in hand, Vargas testified that on the night of April

7, 2001, he was driving his van accompanied by Gongora, Almanza, Albert

Orosco, Steven Gongora (“Steven”), and Luedtke (“Guero”) when they saw Sierra

walking down the street and decided to rob him. Gongora, Almanza, and Vargas

had all taken heroin earlier in the evening. Vargas told the jury that when he

pulled over, Gongora and Orosco jumped out of the van, ran toward Sierra, and

demanded his money. When Sierra began to run, Gongora shot him in the head

with a .38 caliber handgun that belonged to Vargas. Vargas said he had given

the gun to Gongora earlier in the night for protection. Gongora and Orosco then

returned to the van. Vargas asked what Gongora did, and Gongora said “I had

to do what I had to do” and told everyone to remain silent. The group then

returned to Gongora’s house for a cookout.

Vargas and Gongora were leaders in the criminal street gang Puro Li’l

Mafia (PLM). Vargas testified that about two and a half hours after Sierra’s

3

No. 07-70031

shooting, Almanza became a member of PLM by doing a drive-by shooting.

Vargas was the driver for that shooting, and Gongora was in the van as well.

Vargas testified that the shooting by Almanza was in retaliation for drive-by

shootings at Gongora’s house. During the shooting, Gongora stood outside the

van armed with a nine-millimeter handgun. The victim of this shooting

survived. Vargas admitted that he was high on heroin and intoxicated with beer

at the time of both shootings and that this impaired his ability to recall how

things happened.

Several months after Vargas revised his account of Sierra’s shooting,

police interviewed Dylan Griffith, who met with the group in Vargas’s van after

Sierra’s shooting. At trial, Griffith, a defense witness, testified that when

Vargas’s van pulled up Vargas was yelling at somebody, apparently Orosco,

“because they were having a conflict over something.” When Orosco emerged

from the van, he had a .38 in his waistband and was bragging about killing

someone, saying, “I shot some wet back.” Griffith asked why Orosco did that and

Orosco said they had tried to rob the person. Griffith then asked what they got

from the robbery and Orosco said, “Nothing. I done took his soul and his

dreams. That’s all I want.”

After Griffith was first interviewed by the police, he got in touch with

James Luedtke (“Guero”) and told him the police were trying to locate “Guero.”

Luedtke asked what the police wanted and Griffith said they just wanted a

statement of what happened. Griffith testified that Luedtke then said, “So all

I got to do is write down Albert shot him?” Griffith said, yes, if that was what

happened, and Luedtke said: “I ain’t — I ain’t going down for it. I’ll put it on

whoever I got to, as long as I don’t go down for it.” Luedtke seemed frightened

of being arrested.

At trial, Luedtke was called as a witness for the prosecution. Police

officers did not talk to Luedtke until six months before trial. He was scared

4

No. 07-70031

when he first talked to the investigator, fearing a charge of capital murder.

Luedtke told police and later testified that Orosco had said “Let’s get this guy,”

and that Gongora and Orosco then approached the man and Gongora “told him

pretty much ‘casa la febio,’” which, according to Luedtke, meant “Give me your

money.” Luedtke stated that he was in the back — in the third row — of the van

when this happened, but that he was able to hear because the side windows of

the van were down. Luedtke testified that he saw Gongora pull a gun, and that

when Orosco and Gongora returned to the car, Gongora said “I took his dreams,”

apparently bragging. Gongora also said: “Nobody say nothing. Nobody seen

nothing. Nobody heard nothing.” Luedtke said that Gongora and Orosco were

behind the victim and Gongora was on the right and Orosco on the left. The day

of Sierra’s shooting, Luedtke had been doing drugs (heroin and pot) and

drinking.

Ramiro Enriquez, a defense witness who had been in prison with Vargas

and Almanza, testified that Almanza told him that Almanza and two others had

gotten out of Vargas’s van and approached Sierra, and that Almanza had done

the shooting. Almanza told Enriquez that he was standing over the victim and

the other two people came up and said something to the effect of “Hey, let’s go,

go, go.”3

The jury also learned of Gongora’s written statement, which he gave after

he was arrested about two-and-a-half months after Sierra’s murder. He wrote:

3

In his previous sworn written statement, Enriquez said was not sure how many

people, according to Almanza, got out of the van and crossed the street toward Sierra.

However, on cross-examination at trial, the prosecutor elicited that Enriquez had told the

prosecutor at some point that it was Carlos and two others. Although the prosecutor phrased

a series of questions that made reference to a group of three as about what Enriquez had

previously told him Carlos said, he then followed up with a question: “And this is what you

swear Carlos told you?” To which Enriquez responded, “Yes.” On re-direct, the defense elicited

that Enriquez actually still was not sure about the number of people Carlos had indicated

approached Sierra.

5

No. 07-70031

We passed [Sierra] up and pulled into a little store before [Sierra]

passed the railroad tracks. We did a U-turn in the parking lot and

went back towards the guy was walking. . . . All we wanted to do is

get a little money and go about our business. Next thing I

remember, the side door opened, all of us . . . were going to get out.

Then there were gunshots. I turned around and saw the guy that

was wearing the cowboy hat laying on the ground. I think there was

about three fast shots fired. Right after the shots, all of us jumped

back in the van and we left.

Gongora stated that he did not know who fired the shots.

Both Orosco and Almanza invoked their Fifth Amendment right against

self-incrimination and gave no testimony before the jury.

II.

The trial court instructed the jury that it could convict Gongora if it found

the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Gongora shot Sierra

during the course of a robbery; or that Gongora entered into a conspiracy with

Orosco to rob Sierra, that Orosco shot Sierra during the course of that attempted

robbery, that the shooting was in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that

Gongora should have anticipated the shooting. The jury found Gongora guilty,

and he was ultimately sentenced to death. The CCA affirmed Gongora’s

conviction and sentence on direct appeal.4 Gongora’s state habeas petition was

rejected by the state trial court, and the CCA affirmed the trial court’s decision.5

In February 2007, Gongora filed the underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition

for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, claiming that constitutional

errors infected both his trial and sentencing proceedings. The district court

4

Gongora v. State, No. AP-74636, 2006 WL 234987 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), cert. denied,

549 U.S. 860 (2006) (Gongora I).

5

See Ex parte Gongora, No. WR-60115-02, 2006 WL 3308713 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 15,

2006) (Gongora II).

6

No. 07-70031

denied relief,6 and we granted a COA on two issues: (1) Gongora’s claim that

comments by the prosecutor during closing argument violated his Fifth

Amendment right not to testify and resulted in actual prejudice, and (2) his

claim that the imposition of the death penalty in his case would violate his right

to due process of law and to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment

under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and Tison v. Arizona.7 We

ultimately do not reach the second issue.

III.

We review Gongora’s habeas petition under the deferential standard of

review provided in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(AEDPA). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), when a habeas claim has been adjudicated

on the merits in the state courts, federal habeas relief may not be granted unless

the federal habeas court finds that the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court” or was “based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding.”8

A legal principle is “clearly established” only when it is embodied in a

holding of the Supreme Court.9 For purposes of § 2254(d)(1), a state court

decision “involves an unreasonable application of th[e] Court’s clearly

established precedents if the state court applies th[e] Court’s precedents to the

6

Gongora v. Quarterman, 498 F. Supp. 2d 919, 931 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (Gongora III).

7

481 U.S. 137 (1987).

8

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2).

9

Thaler v. Haynes, 130 S. Ct. 1171, 1173 (2010).

7

No. 07-70031

facts in an objectively unreasonable manner.”10 The Supreme Court has

repeatedly admonished that “an unreasonable application of federal law is

different from an incorrect application of federal law.”11 Thus, “a federal habeas

court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its

independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly

established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.”12 “A state court’s

determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as

‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state court’s

decision.”13 Within the AEDPA framework, we review the district court’s

conclusions of law de novo.14

IV.

We now turn to Gongora’s Fifth Amendment claim. In Griffin v.

California, the Supreme Court held that “the Fifth Amendment . . . forbids

either comment by the prosecution on the accused’s silence or instructions by the

court that such silence is evidence of guilt.”15 The Court has since clarified that

comment on a defendant’s silence is permissible in some instances, as where “the

prosecutor’s reference to the defendant’s opportunity to testify is a fair response

10

Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 141 (2005) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,

405 (2000)). In contrast, a state court decision is “contrary” to clearly established Court

precedent if “it applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [the Court’s] cases,

or if it confronts a set of facts that is materially indistinguishable from a decision of th[e] Court

but reaches a different result.” Id.

11

Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855, 1862 (2010) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 410).

12

Id. (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 411).

13

Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786 (2011) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado,

541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)).

14

Nelson v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d 287, 293 (5th Cir. 2006) (en banc).

15

380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965).

8

No. 07-70031

to a claim made by defendant or his counsel.”16 But the rule is unchanged that

a prosecutor “may not treat a defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent

at trial as substantive evidence of guilt.”17 A Griffin error is subject to harmless

error analysis.18 On direct appeal, a state court cannot hold harmless a Griffin

error unless the court is “able to declare a belief that [the violation] was

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”19

Our evaluation of a Fifth Amendment claim like Gongora’s proceeds in two

steps. First, we must decide under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) whether fairminded

jurists could disagree that a Griffin error occurred.20 We must then decide

whether the Fifth Amendment violation was harmless.21 When a state court on

direct appeal has determined under Chapman that a Griffin error was harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt, a petitioner cannot obtain federal habeas relief based

merely on a finding, per AEDPA, that no jurist could reasonably conclude that

the Fifth Amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rather, applying the standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Brecht v.

Abrahamson,22 the federal court must determine whether the Fifth Amendment

violation “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the

jury’s verdict.”23

16

United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 32 (1988).

17

Id. at 34.

18

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23–25 (1967).

19

Id. at 24; Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 116 (2007).

20

See Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 786.

21

See Fry, 551 U.S. at 120.

22

507 U.S. 619 (1993).

23

Id. at 631. In this circuit, the assessment of harmless error under Brecht is a mixed

question of fact and law, and we thus review the district court’s determination de novo. See,

9

No. 07-70031

Here it appears the CCA did not apply Chapman and made no finding that

any Fifth Amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Regardless, Gongora must still clear the hurdle of Brecht: We “assess the

prejudicial impact of [the prosecutor’s comments on Gongora’s silence] under the

‘substantial and injurious effect’ standard set forth in Brecht, whether or not the

state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness

under . . . Chapman.”24

A.

During closing argument at the guilt-innocence phase of Gongora’s trial,

the prosecutor made the following relevant comments (emphasis added):

[PROSECUTOR:] . . . I want to talk about the people you heard

from. . . . Who did you expect us to bring to you? There’s six people

inside that van. When you look at it, here it is. Who would you

expect for us to give to you to establish who the shooter is? Are you

going to be satisfied in a case with gang members just looking at one

person, even though he’s telling you the exact truth, no matter

what? Even if the time that he first told this story, he told the

truth—he told the truth about someone he’s scared to death of—this

is James Luedtke. He had nothing against him. He had no crime

pending. He had no reason to hide the truth. He had no reason to

talk to us, but he told us the truth.

You listen to people inside there. Who else would you want to hear

from, though? The shooter? We’re not going to talk to that person.

We’re not going to make a deal with that person. This person

deserves what they get. This person right here—

[Pointing to Gongora’s name on a chart.]

e.g., Garcia v. Quarterman, 454 F.3d 441, 444 (5th Cir. 2006).

24

Fry, 551 U.S. at 121–22. The Supreme Court has explained: “[I]t is implausible that,

without saying so, AEDPA replaced the Brecht standard of ‘actual prejudice’ . . . with the more

liberal AEDPA/Chapman standard which requires only that the state court’s harmless-beyond-

a-reasonable-doubt determination be unreasonable.” Id. at 119–20 (citation omitted) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

10

No. 07-70031

Nelson Gongora, the shooter. That’s the person on trial. That’s the

person who deserves to be found guilty of capital murder.

Who should we go ahead and talk to? Who should we go ahead and

present to you? Should we talk to the shooter? Should we talk to—

[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Your Honor, I’m going to object. That’s a

comment on the failure to testify.

[PROSECUTOR:] Let me make that clear. I don’t mean talk to the

shooter. What I mean is this. Who—

Defense counsel then asked for a ruling on the objection, and the trial court

sustained it; defense counsel then asked for a curative instruction:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Could we get an instruction to the jury to

disregard that comment?

THE COURT: Jury will so disregard.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Move for mistrial, your honor.

THE COURT: Denied.

[PROSECUTOR:] Let me say this. And I don’t want to give the

wrong impression in any sort of way. We’re asking, who do you

expect to take the stand? Who do you expect to hear from, right?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Your Honor, I object. That’s a continuation

of the previous comments, and I, again, object to commenting on the

failure to testify.

The court again sustained Gongora’s objection to the prosecutor’s comment,

granted his request to instruct the jury to disregard the comment, and overruled

his motion for a mistrial. The prosecutor continued:

[PROSECUTOR:] I don’t want—to make it clear, y’all, Defendant

has a Fifth Amendment right not to testify. And, of course—and I

don’t want to give any wrong impression on that whatsoever. Okay?

What I want to talk about is this. When you talk about the

credibility of a person, I wish you—and I made a—I made a big

11

No. 07-70031

mistake there. I’ll make it very clear. I’m not talking about, do you

want to hear from him, because you can’t do that.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Your Honor, again, I’m going to object. It’s

on the same continuing subject matter. We object to comment on the

failure . . . to testify.

THE COURT: As to that particular statement, overruled.

[PROSECUTOR:] Let me back up and tell you this. Let me define it

by the roles in the car. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Okay?

The roles in the car are this. . . . And then you have a person inside

the car who is the Defendant’s brother, right? Where is that person?

We know the person was there. They could have brought that

person, but you never heard from that person. And that’s—

[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Your Honor, I’m going to object as to what

that person is and ask to approach the bench to make a record.

THE COURT: Counsel approach.

(At the bench, on the record:)

[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] I’ll be brief.

Judge, our objection is that we issued bench warrants and

subpoenas. We asked to have people brought in. They took the Fifth.

And when he says “that person,” that diagram is still up there

showing Albert [Orosco] and everybody else, and that is an improper

comment, and it’s not invited.

[PROSECUTOR:] Judge, I’m trying to correct that right now to

make it better in terms of I’m just talking about the roles of the

persons involved.

THE COURT: All right. Sustain the objection, Counselor.

[PROSECUTOR #2:] Excuse me. Let me make one comment for the

record also.

12

No. 07-70031

Immediately— what [the prosecutor] was talking about there, so it’s

clear for the record, was that he mentioned the name “Steven

Gongora.” He mentioned the name, and he said, “The Defendant’s

brother.” And he said, “Where is that person?”

Steven Gongora is the Defendant’s brother, and his name is also on

the chart, and that’s what he was talking about.

THE COURT: All right. You need to clear it up, Counselor.

[PROSECUTOR:] I will.

Defense counsel then asked if his objection was sustained. The trial court

sustained the objection and, on request of defense counsel, instructed the jury

to disregard the comment. The trial court then overruled appellant’s motion for

mistrial. The prosecutor continued:

[THE PROSECUTOR:] Ladies and gentlemen, I want to wrap this

up, because that’s what I’m talking about, the confusion in the case.

When I—when you’re talking about the people inside the car, this

is it. You have the person inside the van and, from all the testimony,

established one person is the shooter. You have a person in the car

who got out and could possibly have stopped the killing from ever

taking place. You have a person inside the car, by the testimony,

you all know was involved in another shooting later that night. You

have a person in the car who was related to the Defendant. That is

his brother. Right? Then you have a person inside there who is just

present. Okay?

...

Those are the different roles of the persons inside the car. You ask

who—you know, you hear from this case, and who should—you

know, how to determine the credibility. Who do you want to hear

from? Who do you expect to hear from? The person who wasn’t

involved at all, that had nothing at all, just present during that

deal? Of course, you hear from that person.

When you’re considering and evaluating the credibility of the next

person—and that’s who I’m talking about in talking about who

you’re going to hear from. I’m talking about, when listening to Juan

13

No. 07-70031

Vargas, there’s different people who played different roles. When

you consider the fact that we actually spoke to him, that’s what I’m

talking about. I’m not talking about who would you want to hear

from, who would you expect us to call, but I meant to define it in the

terms of the roles of those involved in the case. Okay?

....

That’s what I wanted you to consider. That’s what I was trying to

discuss about the different roles and who you would expect to hear

from or expect us, you know, to be looking at. That was it. Just

examine their roles.

In its opinion rejecting Gongora’s claims on direct appeal, the CCA

admitted that “the prosecutor’s actual comments tended to be inartful and often

confusing,” but stated that, “viewed in context, the complained-of comments

appear to be the prosecutor’s attempt to comment on appellant’s failure to

produce witnesses other than appellant, which is a permissible area of

comment.”25 The CCA concluded that the record showed “the prosecutor’s

comments were not so blatant that they rendered the instructions to disregard

ineffective” and held that “the judge reasonably concluded that the instructions

to disregard effectively removed any prejudice caused by the prosecutor’s

comments.”26

The federal district court reviewing Gongora’s § 2254 petition found that

the prosecutor’s comments constituted constitutional error because the

prosecutor intended to comment on Gongora’s silence and that “the character of

the remarks were such that the jury would necessarily construe them as

comments on Gongora’s silence.”27 Nonetheless, the district court found the

error to be harmless, concluding that “there [was] no evidence . . . of a nexus

25

Gongora I, 2006 WL 234987, at *10.

26

Id.

27

Gongora III, 498 F. Supp. 2d at 926.

14

No. 07-70031

between the prosecutor’s improper remarks during argument and the jury’s

decisions” and presuming that the jury followed the cautionary and curative

instructions given by the trial court.28

B.

1.

At the first step of our analysis, we agree with the district court that

Gongora has met his burden of showing a constitutional violation. The

prosecutor repeatedly referred to Gongora’s failure to testify, and whatever the

prosecutor’s subjective intent in making the remarks, “the character of the

remark[s] [was] such that the jury would naturally and necessarily construe

[them] as . . . comment[s] on the defendant’s silence.”29 Indeed, the state no

longer maintains that the prosecutor’s comments on Gongora’s failure to testify

did not violate the Fifth Amendment. To the extent that the CCA reached a

contrary conclusion, it unreasonably applied the clearly established federal law

of Griffin and its progeny.30 To conclude otherwise empties all meaning of this

cornerstone of rights upon which our criminal justice system rests. Its very

centrality renders it a primer rule — etched in the minds of all players in a

criminal case. Single episodic violations will creep in, but repeated and direct

violations are both inexplicable and inexcusable. Certainly not excusable by

ignorance or inexperience, as we will explain.

2.

At the second step, we assess the prejudicial impact of this constitutional

error, applying the standard set forth in Brecht. We make this assessment “in

28

Id. at 927.

29

Jackson v. Jackson, 194 F.3d 641, 652 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).

30

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

15

No. 07-70031

light of the record as a whole.”31 As the Supreme Court has explained, the Brecht

standard does not require the petitioner to establish that it is more likely than

not that the constitutional violation resulted in actual prejudice: “When a federal

judge in a habeas proceeding is in grave doubt about whether a trial error of

federal law had ‘substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the

jury’s verdict,’ that error is not harmless. And, the petitioner must win.”32

Several factors are relevant to this inquiry, including whether the comments

were “extensive,” whether “an inference of guilt from silence [was] stressed to

the jury as a basis for conviction,” and whether “there is evidence that could

have supported acquittal.”33 We also consider the effect of any cautionary or

curative instruction given to the jury.34 Considering each of these factors, we

conclude that the error was not harmless under Brecht.35

a. Extent of the Comments

31

Brecht, 507 U.S. at 638; see also United States v. Pierre, 958 F.2d 1304, 1312 (5th Cir.

1992) (en banc) (“To determine the potential prejudicial effect of the statements, we must

consider the context in which the prosecutor made them.”).

32

O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 436 (1995). The Court has “deliberately phrase[d]

the issue in terms of a judge’s grave doubt, instead of in terms of ‘burden of proof.’” Id.

33

Anderson v. Nelson, 390 U.S. 523, 523–24 (1968); see also United States v. Johnston,

127 F.3d 380, 398 (5th Cir. 1997) (considering “the magnitude of the prejudicial effect of the

remark” and “the strength of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt”).

34

See Johnston, 127 F.3d at 398 (listing “the efficacy of any cautionary instruction” as

a factor to consider in assessing the harmlessness of a prosecutor’s improper comments); see

also Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 767 n.8 (1987) (finding “no reason to believe that the jury

in [the] case was incapable of obeying . . . curative instructions” given after the introduction

of inadmissible evidence).

35

Where, as here, the state appellate court made no finding under Chapman, the

Supreme Court has suggested that it “makes no sense to require formal application of both

tests (AEDPA/Chapman and Brecht) when the latter obviously subsumes the former.” Fry, 551

U.S. at 120. We note, though, that as our Brecht analysis implies, the CCA could not have

reasonably determined that the error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

16

No. 07-70031

As the district court observed, “the prosecutor’s remarks on Gongora’s

failure to testify were numerous and blatant.”36 Rather than a single question

or incidental statement, the prosecutor made a series of at least five comments

referring to Gongora’s silence as he argued to the jury that Gongora was the

shooter. In the guise of clearing up what his earlier comments meant, the

prosecutor continued to make comments relating back to the fact that Gongora

had not testified. The judge repeatedly cautioned the prosecutor, yet the

prosecutor further highlighted the reference by persisting in his train of “who

you would expect to hear from” argument. This factor weighs against a finding

that the error was harmless.

b. Inference of Guilt Stressed to the Jury

The prosecutor’s initial comment clearly and strenuously — regardless of

whether the comments were intentional or inartful — emphasized Gongora’s

guilt to the jury based on his failure to testify:

You listen to people inside there. Who else would you want to hear

from, though? The shooter? We’re not going to talk to that person.

. . . This person right here—

[Pointing to Gongora’s name on a chart.]

Nelson Gongora, the shooter. That’s the person on trial. That’s the

person who deserves to be found guilty of capital murder. Who

should we go ahead and talk to? Who should we go ahead and

present to you? Should we talk to the shooter? Should we talk to—

A principal focus of the prosecutor’s closing argument, and central to the State’s

case, was the credibility of co-conspirators’ statements that Gongora was the

shooter. It appears as though the prosecutor attempted to bolster the credibility

of those statements by repeatedly stressing the fact that some co-conspirators

took the stand, while persistently questioning Gongora’s claim of not-guilty by

reference to his refusal to take the stand. The argument went to the core of the

36

Gongora III, 498 F. Supp. 2d at 926.

17

No. 07-70031

State’s case and aggressively prompted the jury to infer guilt based on Gongora’s

failure to testify. Further, the comments came at the very end of the

prosecution’s closing arguments.

Examined in context, the prosecution’s subsequent comments on Gongora’s

silence might be read, as the State and the dissent contend, as a product of a

prosecutor tripping over his words as he inartfully attempted to correct his

initial mistake. But their effect, coming as they did after the prosecutor’s initial

statement stressing an inference of guilt, was to reinforce the impression of

Gongora’s guilt from his failure to testify. It also matters not that the

prosecutor’s later comment merely recited that Gongora “has a Fifth

Amendment right not to testify.” As we have previously observed, a reference

of this sort by the prosecutor “is far different” than a cautionary instruction

about a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right not to testify given by the court.37

Even as the prosecutor noted Gongora’s Fifth Amendment right, the function of

the prosecutor’s comment was to “focus[] the jury’s attention on the fact that the

defendants did not testify.”38 While telling the jury of Gongora’s right, he

commented on its exercise. This translated into a clear message: Gongora’s right

not to testify is not a right to be free of the jury weighing the exercise of that

right against him.

This factor, too, thus weighs against a finding of harmless error. The Fifth

Amendment violation here did not consist of an “isolated comment,” and

whatever the prosecutor’s subjective intent, his manifest purpose was to “strike

at the jugular of the defense.”39

37

Johnston, 127 F.3d at 398.

38

Id.

39

United States v. Griffith, 118 F.3d 318, 325 (5th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks

omitted) (finding that a Griffin violation did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights where

“it was an isolated comment, which did not ‘strike at the jugular’ of the defense, and which the

jury was immediately instructed to disregard” and the “spontaneous remark [was] intended

18

No. 07-70031

c. Curative and Cautionary Instructions

While the trial court issued general cautionary instructions about the

defendant’s constitutional right not to testify at voir dire and again immediately

before closing argument,40 the prosecutor’s comments followed those

instructions. Moreover, although two of the prosecutor’s improper remarks

were promptly followed by sustained objections and curative instructions, those

instructions — telling the jury to “disregard” the comment — were perfunctory

and devoid of specificity. Finally, the trial court did not sustain all of Gongora’s

objections to the improper remarks. Specifically, the court overruled Gongora’s

objection to the last of the improper comments, in which the prosecutor stated,

“I’ll make it very clear. I’m not talking about, do you want to hear from him,

because you can’t do that.” While as a general rule, juries are presumed to

follow instructions given by the court,41 neither this court nor the Supreme Court

has ever held that the mere fact that a curative or cautionary instruction was

offered establishes harmlessness under Brecht.42 Indeed, the Supreme Court has

noted that “[t]here are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or

cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital

to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system

to call attention to [the defendant’s] disruptive behavior during [the prosecutor’s] argument,

and not to imply that he was harboring guilty secrets”).

40

The court’s instruction prior to closing argument read as follows:

In a criminal case the law permits the Defendant to testify in his own behalf but

he is not compelled to do so, and the same law provides that the fact that a

defendant does not testify shall not be considered as a circumstance against

him. You will, therefore, not consider the fact that the Defendant did not testify

as a circumstance against him; and you will not during your deliberations allude

to, comment on, or in any manner refer to the fact that the Defendant has not

testified.

41

See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540–41 (1993).

42

See, e.g., Johnston, 127 F.3d at 398.

19

No. 07-70031

cannot be ignored.”43 Here, the efficacy of the trial court’s initial cautionary

instructions was diminished by the lack of a strong admonishment following the

statements, the fact that the cautionary instruction preceded the problematic

statements, the court’s overruling of Gongora’s objection to the prosecutor’s final

remark on his silence, and the mixed message resulting from allowing the jury

to consider the comments in some respects.

d. Evidence Supporting Acquittal or Conviction

We also consider the evidence of guilt and innocence presented at trial.

The prosecution maintained throughout that Gongora and Orosco had

approached Sierra and that Gongora was the shooter. This theory relied on the

trial testimony of two of Gongora’s co-conspirators, Juan Vargas and James

Luedtke, both of whom had credibility issues. The evidence of guilt in this case

was not overwhelming, and there was substantial evidence supporting acquittal.

First, the jury had reason to question Vargas’s and Luedtke’s testimony

that Gongora was the shooter. According to Vargas’s initial, written and sworn

confession (prior to any plea agreement), Carlos Almanza and James Luedtke

approached Sierra and Almanza was the shooter. The statement of Vargas’s

wife, given to a detective, was consistent with the facts in that first confession.

It was only after Vargas was re-interviewed by Detective Ortega (when he was

seeking a plea bargain) that Vargas orally contradicted his initial written

statement to claim that Gongora and Orosco exited the van to approach Sierra.

Dylan Griffith, with whom Luedtke had lived at the time of the offense,

testified that when he met up with Luedtke and the others in Vargas’s van after

the shooting, Albert Orosco had a .38 in his waistband and was bragging about

having killed a man, saying he took “his dreams” (the words that Luedtke

43

Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 207 (1987) (quoting Bruton v. United States, 391

U.S. 123, 135–36 (1968)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Donnelly v.

DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 644 (1974) (acknowledging that “some occurrences at trial may

be too clearly prejudicial for such a curative instruction to mitigate their effect”).

20

No. 07-70031

attributed to Gongora). In addition, Griffith testified that Luedtke had

originally asked Griffith whether he should tell police that Orosco did it, and

when Griffith said Luedtke should tell the truth about whatever happened,

Luedtke said he was not “going down” for it.

Moreover, while Vargas replaced Almanza and Luedtke with Gongora and

Orosco in his second statement to police, he did not indicate in that statement

that he had actually seen Gongora shoot Sierra. Indeed, it would have been

difficult for Vargas or Luedtke to have actually seen the shooting, given their

positions in the van and the van’s location at the time. In addition, the diagram

drawn by one of the detectives based on his interview of Vargas shows that

Gongora — according to Vargas — would have been walking on the right of

Sierra. Luedtke, too, placed Gongora on the right. But Sonia Ramos, the State’s

lead-off witness and the only independent eyewitness in the case, stated that the

man walking on the left of Sierra shot him; her testimony was consistent with

forensic evidence that showed a bullet had hit the back, left side of Sierra’s head.

Vargas’s second statement to police had put Orosco on the left. The State offered

no explanation of this significant difficulty, which was created by its own

witnesses on direct examination.

Second, even taking into account the alternative theory offered to the jury

— that Orosco and Gongora entered into a conspiracy to rob Sierra and that

Orosco shot Sierra in furtherance of that conspiracy — the evidence against

Gongora was far from overwhelming, for at least two reasons. First, the

alternative theory not only required the jury to find that Gongora and Orosco

entered into a conspiracy to rob Sierra and that Orosco shot Sierra in

furtherance of the conspiracy, but also that the shooting “should have been

anticipated” by Gongora. Yet the State presented no direct evidence that

Gongora should have anticipated a shooting of Sierra by Orosco and made no

21

No. 07-70031

effort to argue that point in its closing arguments.44 Second, there was evidence

indicating that neither Gongora nor Orosco shot Sierra. Ramiro Enriquez, who

had no stake in the case, testified that he was a friend of Almanza in prison and

that Almanza had said he did the shooting. That testimony largely aligned with

Vargas’s original sworn statement in which he had said that Almanza and

Luedtke had approached Sierra and that Almanza was the shooter. The tension

between Vargas’s testimony that he saw Gongora shoot Sierra and Vargas’s

indication that Gongora was on Sierra’s right not only cast doubt on Vargas’s

claim that Gongora was the shooter, but also more generally on the credibility

of Vargas’s revised account of what occurred. Gongora’s written statement

provided to detectives asserted that he was not the shooter; it made no mention

of Orosco; and, contrary to the CCA’s summary of the evidence, it did not

indicate that Gongora approached Sierra.

Finally, the notes sent out by the jury during deliberations suggest that

the prosecutor’s comments reflected a focus on which of the PLM members in the

van had testified and which had not. One note requested Vargas’s first

statement to the detectives and another asked about Vargas’s response to a

44

The dissent insists that “the evidence is overwhelming that, at the very last, Gongora

was guilty as a party to capital murder,” pointing to Gongora’s written statement, in which

Gongora admitted that he and others exited the van to “get a little money [from Sierra] and

go about our business.” But in its focus on the evidence of Gongora’s participation in the

conspiracy to rob Sierra, the dissent overlooks the fact that the jury could not convict Gongora

unless it also determined that Gongora “should have . . . anticipated” that Sierra’s murder

would result from carrying out the conspiracy.

22

No. 07-70031

question from defense counsel about which people were outside the van,45

hinting that the jury questioned the credibility of Vargas’s testimony.

***

In sum, the Fifth Amendment violation in this case was not “an isolated

comment in a sea of evidence.”46 The violation consisted of repeated comments

that began after the court issued its cautionary instruction and continued

following each of the court’s brief curative instructions. The physical evidence

and the statement of the only non-biased eyewitness did not support the co-

conspirators’ testimony that Gongora was the shooter. The evidence that

Gongora at least approached Sierra with Orosco to attempt a robbery was

somewhat stronger. However, contrary to the state’s contention during closing

arguments, the evidence was not “undisputed” that Gongora was guilty as a co-

45

Specifically, Jury Note # 3 stated: “We need the original statement of Juan Vargas

of April 27th and his court testimony.” The trial court responded that Vargas’s original

statement to police was not evidence. Jury Note # 5 stated: “On Juan Vargas Statement on

Mon March 24th I would like to know when the defense ask[ed] ‘who was outside the van’ he

mention 2 people who were outside the van, what were the names he said.” The court

responded: “If you wish to receive the testimony, it will be necessary for you to certify that you

are in dispute as to a specific statement of the witness, and you should request that part of the

witness’ statement on the specific point in dispute, and only on that point which is in dispute.”

The jury then appears to have revised the original note, crossing out “mention” and replacing

it with “stated,” crossing out “who” (in the phrase “who were outside the van”), crossing out

“said” and replacing it with “stated,” and adding: “Three jurors could not hear the response of

Juan Vargas.” The court then responded: “The specific question you requested was not asked.

Please specify whether you are asking about a specific question or a general topic on that issue.

If you wish to receive the testimony, it will be necessary for you to certify that you are in

dispute as to a specific statement of the witness, and you should request that part of the

witness’ statement on the specific point in dispute, and only on that point which is in dispute.”

The jury did not resubmit the request. The only other jury note requesting evidence or

testimony was Jury Note # 1. That note requested “all evidentiary exhibits, except the

bullets,” “photos of any who testified that were in the van,” and “the easel with all exhibits.”

46

Cotton v. Cockrell, 343 F.3d 746, 752 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (finding that a comment by the prosecutor was harmless where two

non-interested witnesses identified the defendant as the attacker and the defendant had

admitted to an acquaintance that he had “killed a D.A.”); see also Nethery v. Collins, 993 F.2d

1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that a prosecutor’s improper comment did not have a

substantial and injurious effect in light of the “overwhelming evidence of guilt”).

23

No. 07-70031

conspirator, in particular given that the State’s main witness had originally

identified two others as the people who had approached and killed Sierra — one

of whom bragged about the killing to Ramiro Enriquez, an uninvolved party.

Indeed, the jury seemed particularly concerned about Vargas’s shifting

statements as to who had approached Sierra. Ultimately, “when a court is ‘in

virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error’ under the Brecht standard,

the court should ‘treat the error . . . as if it affected the verdict.’”47 Because the

record here leaves us “in grave doubt as to the harmlessness of [the] error,”

Gongora is entitled to relief.48

V.

Because Gongora was denied a right to a fair trial by the prosecutor’s

comments in violation of his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, we REVERSE

the judgment of the district court, GRANT Gongora’s petition for habeas relief,

and vacate his conviction. Gongora will be released from custody unless within

six months of the mandate of this court he is again brought to trial or the case

is otherwise terminated by plea or other disposition under state law.

47

Fry, 551 U.S. at 121 n.3 (quoting O’Neal, 513 U.S. at 435).

48

O’Neal, 513 U.S. at 437.

24

No. 07-70031

OWEN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

The majority opinion seriously misapprehends what constitutes actual

harm, and it requires the State to retry Gongora or release him even though the

evidence is overwhelming that, at the very least, Gongora was guilty as a party

to capital murder. The majority opinion holds that both the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals (TCCA) and the federal district court were unreasonable in

denying relief to Gongora. I respectfully dissent. I cannot agree with the

majority opinion’s conclusion that “the extraordinarily extensive comments [by

the prosecutor] on Gongora’s failure to testify resulted in actual prejudice.”1 The

prosecutor’s comments were neither “extraordinarily extensive” nor actually

prejudicial.

The prosecutor’s problematic statements did not have a “substantial and

injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict”2 of guilt because

the jury instructions permitted the jury to convict Gongora of capital murder by

finding that he entered into a conspiracy to rob the victim, Sierra, and that

Gongora should have anticipated his coconspirator would shoot the victim. The

evidence was overwhelming that only two men exited the van to rob the victim.

Gongora admitted, in a written confession, that he intended to rob Sierra and

that he exited the van. While Gongora claimed that all six occupants got out of

the van to commit robbery, every other account of the attempted robbery and

shooting was that only two men left the van. The prosecutor’s improper

comments were focused on convincing the jury that Gongora was the actual

shooter, an alternative ground on which the jury could have found Gongora

guilty. The prosecutor’s comments about Gongora’s failure to testify had little,

1

Ante at 2.

2

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States,

328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

25

No. 07-70031

if any, bearing on Gongora’s guilt as a conspirator and responsible party in light

of Gongora’s own confession that he exited the van to rob Sierra.

With regard to the number and extent of the prosecutor’s improper

comments, considered in context, the prosecutor commented three times, at

most, on Gongora’s failure to testify, and these comments were themselves

confusing. They were made in conjunction with the prosecutor’s arguments

about the credibility of two occupants of the van during the shooting who

testified at Gongora’s trial and on the failure of Gongora to call as a witness his

brother Stephen Gongora, who was also in the van during the shooting.

An entirely separate question is whether Gongora’s conviction can be

upheld since the jury issues allowed the jury to find him guilty of capital murder,

as an alternative ground, under Texas’s “law of parties,” which permits

conviction of capital murder on a finding that the defendant anticipated a

human life would be taken. The majority opinion does not reach this issue.

Though the jury issues may have been infirm under the Eighth Amendment,

United States Supreme Court precedent that has not been expressly overruled

permits Texas courts to make the finding that Gongora had the requisite mental

state to satisfy the Eighth Amendment’s requirements. The TCCA made that

finding and upheld Gongora’s conviction on direct appeal.

I would affirm the district court’s judgment denying habeas relief.

I

It is apparent that this has been a difficult case for us to resolve. The fact

that we ordered oral argument solely on whether a certificate of appealability

(COA) was warranted is evidence of the uncertainty we had as to the merits of

the issues presented. We nevertheless concluded that a COA should issue.3 We

3

Gongora v. Quarterman, No. 07-70031, 2008 WL 4656992, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 22,

2008).

26

No. 07-70031

then heard arguments a second time, only then reaching the merits of the two

issues now before us, and our consideration of those questions has been lengthy.

The first of the two issues pertains to statements made by one of the

prosecutors, Granger, during closing arguments. To put these statements in

context, it is helpful to review the closing arguments in their entirety. Another

prosecutor, Rousseau, began the State’s closing argument. The first point that

Rousseau made to the jury was that Gongora could be found guilty even if he

was not the “person who pulled the trigger” and that “[t]he evidence in this case

is undisputed that the man is guilty as a party. That is without a doubt.” With

regard to Texas’s law of parties, Rousseau told the jury that because of Texas’s

law of parties, “the answer, is he guilty or not guilty, is an easy question. Yes,

he’s guilty.” The prosecutor then focused on an alternate ground that could

support a verdict of a guilt, which was a finding that Gongora was “the one who

pulled the trigger.” Rousseau said that he would spend most of his time on this

issue and proceeded to discuss the evidence that indicated that Gongora shot the

victim and why evidence that Albert Orosco was the shooter should be

discounted.

Following Rousseau’s presentation, an attorney for Gongora began the

defense’s closing argument. He, too, recounted the evidence, pointing out that

Juan Vargas changed his initial statement in which Vargas had said that Carlos

Almanza was the shooter and that James Luedtke had exited the van with

Almanza. Gongora’s counsel conceded to the jury that other than this recanted

statement, “Dylan Griffith is the only person that says Carlos [Almanza] did it.”

The thrust of the argument was that there was varied testimony as to who was

the shooter. The candidates included not only Gongora but also Orosco and

Almanza. Gongora’s other counsel then argued, attempting to convince the jury

it should not find that a robbery or attempted robbery occurred because the

shooter—either Almanza or Orosco, counsel posited—changed his mind as he

27

No. 07-70031

approached the victim and killed Sierra rather than proceeding with a robbery.

The motive for the murder, counsel contended, was some sort of insult from the

victim to the shooter. Counsel then discussed the credibility of various

witnesses, in particular Juan Vargas’s lack of credibility. Little was said to call

into question Gongora’s guilt as a nonshooter.

Granger then argued for the State. His first point was a reminder to the

jury to “[r]emember the law of parties. The law of parties is clear.” He discussed

the substance of that law, contending that Gongora was guilty of capital murder

under it and again asserting that “[t]he law’s clear. The law’s very much on our

side in this case.” Granger asked the jury to consider the facts, pointing to

Gongora’s written confession to establish conspiracy to commit robbery.

Granger then turned to the alternate theory of guilt and examined at some

length the varying evidence as to who actually shot the victim. One point that

Granger emphasized to the jury was that every witness, including Sonia Ramos,

a disinterested person who was driving past as the murder occurred, testified

that two men got out of the van to accost the victim. The only contrary evidence

was Gongora’s written confession, which said that “we all” got out of the van. At

a minimum, counsel asserted, the credible evidence established that Gongora

was one of those two men. Granger then argued that the consistency of the

accounts of what happened “establishes the credibility” of the State’s witnesses.

The evidence reflects that there were six people inside the van just before

the victim was killed. They were:

Juan Vargas, the driver, who testified

James Luedtke, who testified

Nelson Gongora, the defendant, who asserted the Fifth Amendment

Carlos Almanza, who asserted the Fifth Amendment

Albert Orosco, who asserted the Fifth Amendment

Steven Gongora, the defendant’s brother, who was not called as a witness

The prosecutor who presented the final closing argument, Granger, talked to the

jury about the two men inside the van who testified, Vargas and Luedtke, and

28

No. 07-70031

another who was inside the van, Stephen Gongora, who did not testify and who

did not assert his Fifth Amendment rights. The prosecutor said, “When [those

who had exited to rob the victim] got back inside the van, then consider what

was said there.” It was then that the statements at issue commenced. Granger

told the following to the jury:

Before you get there, I want to talk about the people you heard from.

We’re talking about Juan [Vargas] and James [Luedtke] through

this entire deal. I used his first name, because, in this case, we have

little brothers involved, you know, Steven Gongora, you know, Pablo

Vargas. I’m using first names to keep everybody clear.

Who did you expect us to bring to you? There’s six people inside

that van. When you look at it, here it is. Who would you expect for

us to give to you to establish who the shooter is? Are you going to

be satisfied in a case with gang members just looking at one person,

even though he’s telling you the exact truth, no matter what? Even

if the time that he first told this story, he told the truth—he told the

truth about someone he’s scared to death of [Gongora]—this is

James Luedtke. He had nothing against him. He had no crime

pending. He had no reason to hide the truth. He had no reason to

talk to us, but he told us the truth.

You listen to people inside there. Who else would you want to hear

from, though? The shooter? We’re not going to talk to that person.

We’re not going to make a deal with that person. This person

deserves what they get. This person right here. . . . Nelson Gongora,

the shooter. That’s the person on trial. That’s the person who

deserves to be found guilty of capital murder.

Who should we go ahead and talk to? Who should we go ahead and

present to you? Should we talk to the shooter? Should we talk to—

At this point, Gongora’s attorney objected, “That’s a comment on the failure to

testify,” and he requested a jury instruction to disregard the comment. He also

moved for a mistrial. The trial judge sustained the objection, issued an

instruction to disregard, and overruled Gongora’s motion for a mistrial.

The prosecutor continued, “Let me say this. And I don’t want to give the

wrong impression in any sort of way. We’re asking, who do you expect to take the

29

No. 07-70031

stand? Who do you expect to hear from, right?” Gongora’s attorney again

objected, and the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the comment.

Gongora’s counsel moved for a mistrial, which was denied.

The prosecutor then attempted to address his error:

I don’t want—to make it clear, y’all, Defendant has a Fifth

Amendment right not to testify. And, of course—and I don’t want

to give any wrong impression on that whatsoever. Okay?

What I want to talk about is this. When you talk about the

credibility of a person, I wish you—and I made a—I made a big

mistake there. I’ll make it very clear. I’m not talking about, do you

want to hear from him, because you can’t do that.

Gongora’s counsel again objected, but that objection was overruled “as to that

particular statement.” The prosecutor continued,

Let me back up and tell you this. Let me define it by the roles in the

car. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Okay?

The roles in the car are this. You have a person inside the car who

is the shooter. You have a person inside the car who got out with

the shooter. You have a person inside the car who was guilty—or,

actually, may have participated in another shooting later that night.

You have a person inside the car who is just sitting there who is

present. And then you have a person inside the car who is the

Defendant’s brother, right? Where is that person? We know the

person was there. They could have brought that person, but you

never heard from that person. And that’s—

Gongora’s counsel interjected an objection, and the judge called counsel to the

bench. Gongora’s attorney asserted that bench warrants and subpoenas had

been issued, but that “they [the witnesses other than Gongora] took the Fifth.”

Gongora’s counsel also objected that the prosecutor had been pointing to a

diagram “showing Albert [Orosco] and everybody else” while commenting on

those witnesses’, not Gongora’s, failure to testify. The objection was sustained.

One of the State’s other prosecutors, Rousseau, then commented for the

record, saying,

30

No. 07-70031

Immediately—what J.D. [Granger] was talking about there, so it’s

clear for the record, was that he mentioned the name “Steven

Gongora.” He mentioned the name, and he said, “The Defendant’s

brother.” And he said, “Where is that person?”

Steven Gongora is the Defendant’s brother, and his name is also on

the chart, and that’s what he was talking about.

The trial judge responded, “All right. You need to clear it up, Counselor.” At the

request of Gongora’s counsel, the judge then reiterated that the objection was

sustained, instructed the jury to disregard, and denied Gongora’s motion for a

mistrial. Granger then continued, without any further objection by Gongora’s

counsel, as follows:

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to wrap this up, because that’s what

I’m talking about, the confusion in the case.

When I—when you’re talking about the people inside the car, this

is it. You have the person inside the van and, from all the

testimony, established one person is the shooter. You have a person

in the car who got out and could possibly have stopped the killing

from ever taking place. You have a person inside the car, by the

testimony, you all know was involved in another shooting later that

night. You have a person in the car who was related to the

Defendant. That is his brother. Right? Then you have a person

inside there who is just present. Okay? . . . .

Those are the different roles of the persons inside the car. You ask

who—you know, you hear from this case, and who should—you

know, how to determine the credibility. Who do you want to hear

from? Who do you expect to hear from? The person who wasn’t

involved at all, that had nothing at all, just present during that

deal? Of course, you hear from that person.

When you’re considering and evaluating the credibility of the next

person—and that’s who I’m talking about in talking about who

you’re going to hear from. I’m talking about, when listening to Juan

Vargas, there’s different people who played different roles. When

you consider the fact that we actually spoke to him, that’s what I’m

talking about. I’m not talking about who would you want to hear

from, who would you expect us to call, but I meant to define it in the

terms of the roles of those involved in the case. Okay?

31

No. 07-70031

The roles that are defined in this case are abundantly clear. When

you look at all the roles of those persons involved, the person in this

case who is, you know, least culpable, besides the person who didn’t

do anything, is the driver, right?

That’s what I wanted you to consider. That’s what I was trying to

discuss about the different roles and who you would expect to hear

from or expect us, you know, to be looking at. That was it. Just

examine their roles.

I agree that the statements italicized in the above quotations were an

impermissible comment on Gongora’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights.

However, other of the statements that the panel majority’s opinion concludes

“strenuously. . . emphasized Gongora’s guilt to the jury based on his failure to

testify”4 do not clearly fall into that category. Those statements are instead the

prosecutor’s explanation of who he meant when he asked, “[D]o you want to hear

from him[?]” The statement, “I’ll make it very clear. I’m not talking about, do

you want to hear from him, because you can’t do that,” does refer to the

Gongora’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights, but the context of the

statement makes clear that the prosecutor, in asking who “do you want to hear

from,” was referring to Vargas, Luedtke, and Stephen Gongora, the three people

in the van who did not assert their Fifth Amendment rights. Similarly, the final

two statements italicized in the majority opinion referred to the occupants of the

van who did not assert the Fifth Amendment. It is telling that Gongora’s

counsel did not make any objection at trial to these two arguments that the

majority opinion says are among five egregious statements. In these final two

statements on which the panel majority relies, the prosecutor’s point, while

clumsily made, was that the State called Vargas and Luedtke as witnesses.

Gongora could have called, but did not call, the only other occupant of the van

who did not assert the Fifth Amendment, Gongora’s brother. Gongora’s counsel

4

Ante at 17.

32

No. 07-70031

understood the argument that the prosecutor was making in this regard and did

not object.

Gongora argued in his direct appeal to the TCCA that the prosecutor’s

comments were unconstitutional, but the state court disagreed. The Texas court

reasoned, “When viewed in context, the complained-of comments appear to be

the prosecutor’s attempt to comment on [Gongora’s] failure to produce witnesses

other than [Gongora], which is a permissible area of comment.”5 The state court

acknowledged that the prosecutor’s comments “tended to be inartful and often

confusing, leading the trial judge to sustain appellant’s objections to the remarks

and to instruct the jury to disregard them.”6 Nevertheless, the state court

concluded that the trial court “did not abuse its discretion in thereafter

overruling [Gongora’s] various motions for mistrial.”7 The court explained that

“[o]n this record, the prosecutor’s comments were not so blatant that they

rendered the instructions to disregard ineffective,” and the trial judge

“reasonably concluded that the instructions to disregard effectively removed any

prejudice caused by the prosecutor’s comments.”8

On federal habeas review, the district court “concluded that the

prosecutor’s remarks concerning Gongora’s failure to testify amount[ed] to

constitutional error.”9 But the district court ultimately held that the

constitutional error was harmless. There was no “evidence in the record that

[the] remarks ‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining

5

Gongora v. State, No. AP-74636, 2006 WL 234987, at *10 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 1,

2006) (en banc).

6

Id.

7

Id.

8

Id.

9

Gongora v. Quarterman, 498 F. Supp. 2d 919, 927 (N.D. Tex. 2007).

33

No. 07-70031

the jury’s verdict’ as required for the granting of federal habeas relief.”10 The

district court also noted that the trial judge had issued several curative and

cautionary jury instructions regarding the Fifth Amendment privilege against

self-incrimination.11 Because “[j]uries are presumed to follow their instructions,”

the district court concluded, these instructions further mitigated the harm from

the comments.12

II

Gongora may obtain federal habeas relief on his claim of improper

prosecutorial comment only if that constitutional error was not harmless. “[I]n

§ 2254 proceedings a court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional

error in a state-court criminal trial under the ‘substantial and injurious effect’

standard set forth in Brecht [v. Abrahamson], whether or not the state appellate

court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness under . . . Chapman

[v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967)].”13 In Brecht, the Supreme Court established

the standard that a constitutional error is harmless unless the habeas petitioner

shows that it “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining

the jury’s verdict.”14

Gongora has not shown that the constitutional error had substantial and

injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. The first hurdle

that Gongora must overcome is the effect of the curative and cautionary jury

instructions at Gongora’s trial. I agree with the district court that these

instructions mitigated the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s comments. The

10

Id. (quoting Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 116 (2007)).

11

Id.

12

Id.

13

Fry, 551 U.S. at 121-22 (citations omitted).

14

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993).

34

No. 07-70031

trial judge, in addition to issuing curative instructions during the prosecutor’s

closing argument, admonished the jurors several times that they could not and

must not consider Gongora’s choice not to testify as evidence of guilt. The judge

issued such cautionary instructions at voir dire and again immediately before

closing arguments, when it instructed the jury:

In a criminal case the law permits the Defendant to testify in his

own behalf but he is not compelled to do so, and the same law

provides that the fact that a defendant does not testify shall not be

considered as a circumstance against him. You will, therefore, not

consider the fact that the Defendant did not testify as a

circumstance against him; and you will not during your

deliberations allude to, comment on, or in any manner refer to the

fact that the Defendant has not testified.

Such jury instructions are “powerful tool[s] . . . to protect the [Fifth

Amendment] privilege” and give the trial judge a “unique power . . . to reduce”

speculation “about why a defendant stands mute in the face of a criminal

accusation.”15 Absent a showing to the contrary, we presume that the jury

heeded the judge’s instructions.16 On the basis of the record, and considering the

evidence of guilt and the presumptively effective jury instructions, the improper

comments did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in

determining the jury’s verdict.

Gongora confessed in writing that he intended to rob the victim. He

confessed in writing that he left the van to rob the victim. Although he said that

everyone else in the van also exited to rob the victim, he is the sole person to give

that account. The disinterested eye witness who was driving past as the

shooting occurred testified that only two men were accosting the victim. In

15

Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288, 303 (1981).

16

Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540-41 (1993); see also Portuondo v. Agard, 529

U.S. 61, 67 (2000) (“It is reasonable enough to expect a jury to comply with [a curative]

instruction since, as we observed in Griffin, the inference of guilt from silence is not always

‘natural or irresistible.’” (quoting Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965))).

35

No. 07-70031

Vargas’s original, subsequently withdrawn, statement to authorities as well as

his later statement, he said that only two men exited the van to commit the

robbery. The jury unquestionably concluded that Gongora was one of those two

men and that one of them was armed with the gun that shot the victim.

Gongora admitted that he left the van. The only question was who was the

actual shooter. The fact that Gongora may not have pulled the trigger did not

absolve him of guilt under the charge given to the jury.

Even were the question before the jury limited to whether Gongora was

the shooter, there is no actual prejudice demonstrated on the record before us.

For the reasons discussed above, the trial judge’s instructions were adequate.

The evidence that Gongora was not the shooter is not as strong as the

majority opinion suggests. The majority opinion makes much of the testimony

of Sonia Ramos, a disinterested witness who was driving past as the shooting

occurred. She did now know any of the parties involved. She could say only on

which side of the victim the shooter stood. The majority opinion says that

Ramos’s testimony conflicts with Vargas’s placement of Gongora and Orosco.

However, it is not at all clear from the record what left or right meant to either

Vargas or Ramos in the context of Ramos driving past the scene of the murder

at approximately thirty miles an hour and looking back over her shoulder from

a vantage point that was different from Vargas’s. More importantly, the record

about what Vargas said as to the positioning of Gongora and Orosco comes from

a diagram drawn by a detective based on his interview with Vargas. Notably,

the original diagram, drawn contemporaneously with the interview, does not

show Gongora and Orosco in distinct positions. Instead, the diagram contains

arrows pointing from “(Nelson / Albert)” to two Xs marking their position. The

detective created the diagram to aid his “own personal understanding” based on

his interpretation of Vargas’s recollection of the event. Vargas neither created

the diagram nor testified to its accuracy at trial.

36

No. 07-70031

In sum, Gongora has not shown that the prosecutor’s violations of the Fifth

Amendment substantially influenced the jury’s verdict that he was guilty of

capital murder.

III

Gongora additionally argues that his sentence of capital punishment

violates the Eighth Amendment, as applied to the states pursuant to the

Fourteenth Amendment, based upon the Supreme Court’s clearly established

holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey,17 Ring v. Arizona,18 and Blakely v.

Washington,19 which Gongora says call into question the continued vitality of

Enmund v. Florida,20 Tison v. Arizona,21 and Cabana v. Bullock.22 Gongora

contends that the “anti-parties” charge as used in Texas is unconstitutional

because the jury was never required to find that he committed capital murder

either by his own acts or by his substantial participation in the robbery of the

victim with at least reckless indifference to the life of the victim. The jury

instructions at the conclusion of the guilt/innocence phase of the trial permitted

the jury to find Gongora guilty of capital murder if it found that the murder of

the victim during the conspiracy to rob him was an offense that should have

been anticipated.23 During the sentencing phase, the questions submitted

17

530 U.S. 466 (2000).

18

536 U.S. 584 (2002).

19

542 U.S. 296 (2004).

20

458 U.S. 782 (1982).

21

481 U.S. 137 (1987).

22

474 U.S. 376 (1986), overruled in part by Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987).

23

The jury instructions in this case stated, in pertinent part, as follows:

If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony

is committed by one of the conspirators, then all conspirators are guilty of the

felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense

37

No. 07-70031

permitted the jury to find that Gongora either intended to kill the victim or

anticipated that a human life would be taken.24

The majority opinion did not reach this issue because of its disposition of

the Fifth Amendment question. I nevertheless would deny habeas relief in this

case because unless and until the Supreme Court overrules its existing

precedent, state courts, including state appellate courts, are permitted to make

the finding that the defendant had the mental state required to satisfy the

Eighth Amendment’s requirements.25

Under Texas law, it is a capital crime to commit murder in the course of

attempted robbery.26 One who did not actually commit the murder may also be

convicted of capital murder under Texas law based on the law of parties. By

statute, a defendant who did not kill the victim and who did not intend for the

murder to occur may nevertheless be convicted of a capital offense if, in an

attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit a felony, the murder “was

committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have

been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.”27 The

was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should

have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy. Robbery

is a felony.

24

The issues submitted to the jury at the sentencing phase included “[w]hether the

Defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the

deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would

be taken.”

25

See Hopkins v. Reeves, 524 U.S. 88, 100 (1998); Cabana, 474 U.S. at 392.

26

The Texas Penal Code provides as follows:

(a) A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under

Section 19.02(b)(1) and: . . .

(2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or

attempting to commit kidnaping, burglary, robbery . . . .

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2).

27

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.02(b).

38

No. 07-70031

instructions to the jury in this case permitted the jury to convict Gongora under

these statutory provisions.

Pursuant to Texas’s capital-sentencing scheme, after the jury found

Gongora guilty of capital murder, it was required to answer three special issues

to determine whether he was eligible for the death penalty.28 Special issue

number two asked the jury to answer the following question: “Do you find from

the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant actually caused the

death of Delfino Sierra or did not actually cause the death of Delfino Sierra, but

intended to kill Delfino Sierra or another or anticipated that a human life would

be taken?” Gongora contends that this special issue, combined with the law-of-

parties instruction at the guilt/innocence phase of his trial, permitted the jury

to sentence him to death on a finding of culpability no greater than that he

anticipated a life would be taken, a level of culpability too low to comport with

the requirements of Enmund and Tison.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Enmund and Tison both address the

degree of responsibility the Eighth Amendment requires for the imposition of

28

Article 37.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the issues

submitted to the jury shall include the following:

(1) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts

of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society; and

(2) in cases in which the jury charge at the guilt or innocence stage permitted

the jury to find the defendant guilty as a party under Sections 7.01 and 7.02,

Penal Code, whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased

or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the

deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken. . . .

[And if the answers to these questions are in the affirmative:]

[(3)] Whether, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the

circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s character and background, and the

personal moral culpability of the defendant, there is a sufficient mitigating

circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment

without parole rather than a death sentence be imposed.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.071(b), (e)(1).

39

No. 07-70031

capital punishment after felony-murder convictions. In Enmund, the Supreme

Court held that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon a defendant who,

though involved in a felony, did not kill, attempt to kill, intend that a killing

take place, or anticipate that lethal force would be used.29 In Tison, the Supreme

Court qualified Enmund by holding that “major participation in the felony

committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to

satisfy the Enmund culpability requirement.”30

The Supreme Court has also held that the findings mandated by Enmund

and Tison need not be made during trial proceedings.31 The Supreme Court

expressly held that “the Eighth Amendment does not require that a jury make

the findings required by Enmund.”32 The death penalty may be imposed if “the

requisite findings are made in an adequate proceeding before some appropriate

tribunal—be it an appellate court, a trial judge, or a jury.”33 This holding was

reaffirmed in Hopkins v. Reeves.34

When a federal habeas court reviews a claim that the death penalty has

been imposed without the findings mandated by Enmund and Tison,

the court must examine the entire course of the state-court

proceedings against the defendant in order to determine whether,

29

See Cabana, 474 U.S. at 386 (“Enmund . . . imposes a categorical rule: a person who

has not in fact killed, attempted to kill, or intended that a killing take place or that lethal force

be used may not be sentenced to death.”); see also Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 798

(1982).

30

Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 158 (1987).

31

See Hopkins v. Reeves, 524 U.S. 88, 100 (1998) (“Tison and Enmund do not affect the

showing that a State must make at a defendant’s trial for felony murder, so long as their

requirement is satisfied at some point thereafter.”).

32

Cabana, 474 U.S. at 392.

33

Id. (emphasis added).

34

See Reeves, 524 U.S. at 100 (emphasizing that Cabana “held that a State could

comply with Enmund’s requirement at sentencing or even on appeal”).

40

No. 07-70031

at some point in the process, the requisite factual finding as to the

defendant’s culpability has been made. If it has, the finding must

be presumed correct . . . , and unless the habeas petitioner can bear

the heavy burden of overcoming the presumption, the court is

obliged to hold that the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in

Enmund is not offended by the death sentence.35

In this case, the TCCA made the requisite finding on direct appeal, stating, “The

testimony in the instant case showed that [Gongora] himself exited the van and

shot the victim. Thus, he was a major participant in an offense who possessed

‘reckless indifference’ towards the murder.”36 As a result, the TCCA rejected

Gongora’s claim that his death sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.37

Pursuant to Cabana, the TCCA was permitted to make the requisite Tison

finding that Gongora was a major participant in the robbery who possessed

reckless indifference towards the murder.38 The TCCA made that finding here,

and Gongora’s argument that the TCCA unreasonably ignored evidence he

believes to be in his favor is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of

correctness accorded to the state court’s findings.39 Under Cabana, Gongora’s

death sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment.

Gongora contends, however, that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ring

v. Arizona40 and Apprendi v. New Jersey41 clearly established that only a jury,

35

Cabana, 474 U.S. at 387-88 (citation omitted).

36

Gongora v. State, No. AP-74636, 2006 WL 234987, at *12 (Tex. Crim. App. Feb. 1,

2006) (en banc).

37

See id. (“Considering the evidence, the fact that the jury was authorized by the charge

to convict appellant as a party does not make Article 37.071, section 2(b)(2) unconstitutional

as applied to appellant in this case.”).

38

See Cabana, 474 U.S. at 387.

39

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

40

536 U.S. 584 (2002).

41

530 U.S. 466 (2000).

41

No. 07-70031

and not a judge, may make the findings mandated by Enmund and Tison. I do

not agree. The Supreme Court has admonished federal courts time and again

to construe its holdings narrowly for purposes of federal habeas review, and the

Supreme Court “has held on numerous occasions that it is not ‘an unreasonable

application of clearly established Federal law’ for a state court to decline to apply

a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by [the Supreme

Court].”42

The Enmund, Tison, and Cabana line of cases makes clear that the Eighth

Amendment is “a substantive limitation on sentencing, and like other such

limits it need not be enforced by the jury.”43 The Supreme Court’s decision in

Cabana explained at some length that its “ruling in Enmund does not concern

the guilt or innocence of the defendant—it establishes no new elements of the

crime of murder that must be found by the jury.”44 This bears repeating. The

limitations that the Enmund decision found to be imposed by the Eighth

Amendment do not add elements to a state’s statutory elements of a capital

offense. The opinion in Cabana makes the following observations at various

junctures:

Enmund “does not affect the state’s definition of any substantive

offense, even a capital offense.” Enmund holds only that the

principles of proportionality embodied in the Eighth Amendment

bar imposition of the death penalty upon a class of persons who may

nonetheless be guilty of the crime of capital murder as defined by

42

Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 122 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted);

see also Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 125-26 (2008) (per curiam) (rejecting petitioner’s

claim under § 2254(d)(1) because “[n]o decision of this Court . . . squarely addresses the issue

in this case” and “[b]ecause our cases give no clear answer to the question presented”); Carey

v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 77 (2006) (rejecting petitioner’s claim “[g]iven the lack of holdings

from this Court” on the rule urged).

43

Cabana, 474 U.S. at 386.

44

Id. at 385.

42

No. 07-70031

state law: that is, the class of murderers who did not themselves

kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill.45

***

We are unable to understand Justice BLACKMUN’s statement that

we have failed to grasp “the distinction . . . between defining an

offense and being entitled to execute a defendant.” As stated in the

text, we recognize that there is a class of persons whom the State

may define as having committed capital murder but whom the State

may not permissibly execute. The point we are making, however, is

that while the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of such

defendants, it does not supply a new element of the crime of capital

murder that must be found by the jury; hence, such cases as Cole v.

Arkansas, which hold that the inadequacy of a jury’s findings on the

issue of guilt or innocence may not be corrected by an appellate

court, are inapposite.46

***

[T]he decision whether a sentence is so disproportionate as to

violate the Eighth Amendment in any particular case, like other

questions bearing on whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional

rights have been violated, has long been viewed as one that a trial

judge or an appellate court is fully competent to make.47

***

Enmund . . . imposes a categorical rule: a person who has not in fact

killed, attempted to kill, or intended that a killing take place or that

lethal force be used may not be sentenced to death. Nonetheless,

the rule remains a substantive limitation on sentencing, and like

other such limits it need not be enforced by the jury.

Indeed, Enmund does not impose any particular form of procedure

upon the States. The Eighth Amendment is satisfied so long as the

death penalty is not imposed upon a person ineligible under

Enmund for such punishment. If a person sentenced to death in

fact killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, the Eighth

Amendment itself is not violated by his or her execution regardless

of who makes the determination of the requisite culpability; by the

45

Id. (citations omitted).

46

Id. at 385 n.3.

47

Id. at 386.

43

No. 07-70031

same token, if a person sentenced to death lacks the requisite

culpability, the Eighth Amendment violation can be adequately

remedied by any court that has the power to find the facts and

vacate the sentence. At what precise point in its criminal process a

State chooses to make the Enmund determination is of little concern

from the standpoint of the Constitution. The State has considerable

freedom to structure its capital sentencing system as it sees fit, for

“[a]s the Court has several times made clear, we are unwilling to

say that there is any one right way for a State to set up its capital

sentencing scheme.”48

If a state were to require in a statute the minimum requirements set forth

in Enmund and Tison as an element of an offense or as a sentencing factor that

could increase the severity of a sentence, then the Sixth Amendment, through

the Fourteenth Amendment, would require a jury to find the requisite facts.

That is the teaching of the decisions subsequent to Cabana on which Gongora

relies.

The actual holdings in Apprendi and Ring were that when a state statute

permits punishment to be increased based on the existence of particular facts,

a jury must make the factual findings. Although the rationale of Apprendi and

Ring calls into question the reasoning in Enmund, Tison, and Cabana, those

cases have not been overruled. Nor are the actual holdings in Apprendi and

Ring in conflict with the holdings in Enmund, Tison, and Cabana.

In Apprendi, a state statute set the maximum penalty for possession of a

firearm for unlawful purposes at ten years.49 However, another statute

permitted a judge to impose an “extended term” of imprisonment if the judge

found that the defendant had acted to intimidate a person or a group because of

race or other enumerated characteristics or beliefs.50 The Supreme Court held

48

Id. at 386-87 (quoting Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 464 (1984)).

49

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 468 (2000).

50

Id. at 468-69.

44

No. 07-70031

that “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed

statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a

reasonable doubt.”51 That decision did not consider whether requirements

imposed by the Eighth Amendment beyond the statutory elements of the offense

or statutory sentencing enhancements must be found by a jury.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ring extended this principle to the

capital-punishment context and overruled Walton v. Arizona52 in part.53 In so

doing however, the Supreme Court discussed the state court’s Enmund

findings,54 specifically citing Enmund and Tison, but it did not hold that state

courts can no longer make such Eighth Amendment findings. The only state

court findings at issue in Ring were the trial judge’s finding of one statutory

aggravating factor, which was that the offense was committed in “an especially

heinous, cruel or depraved manner.”55 In framing the issue that was actually

decided, the Ring opinion observed that based on the jury’s findings alone, only

a life sentence could have been imposed under state law.56 A death sentence

could be imposed under the Arizona statute at issue only if “at least one

51

Id. at 490 (emphasis added).

52

497 U.S. 639 (1990).

53

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 (2002) (citing Walton, 497 U.S. 639).

54

Id. at 594 (“Because Ring was convicted of felony murder, not premeditated murder,

the judge recognized that Ring was eligible for the death penalty only if he was Magoch’s

actual killer or if he was ‘a major participant in the armed robbery that led to the killing and

exhibited a reckless disregard or indifference for human life.’”); id. (explaining that the trial

judge “concluded that Ring ‘is the one who shot and killed Mr. Magoch’” and that “[t]he judge

also found that Ring was a major participant in the robbery and that armed robbery ‘is

unquestionably a crime which carries with it a grave risk of death.’”).

55

Id. at 595 (internal quotation marks omitted).

56

Id. at 597.

45

No. 07-70031

aggravating factor is found.”57 The Supreme Court’s actual holding is limited to

the issue decided, which was “whether that aggravating factor may be found by

the judge, as Arizona law specifies, or whether the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial

guarantee . . . requires that the aggravating factor determination be entrusted

to the jury.”58 The Court did not address whether the Enmund findings must be

made by a jury. The Supreme Court overruled Walton only to the extent that

Walton held that statutorily required aggravating factors could be found by a

state judge or appellate court.59

Neither Ring nor Apprendi—nor any other decision of the Supreme

Court—has explicitly overruled Cabana’s holding that a trial judge or appellate

court may make the Eighth Amendment findings mandated by Enmund and

Tison. The Supreme Court has repeatedly “reaffirm[ed] that ‘[i]f a precedent of

[the Supreme Court] has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on

reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should

follow the case which directly controls, leaving to [the Supreme Court] the

prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’”60 Whether the Supreme Court will

continue to adhere to the reasoning and holdings of Enmund, Tison, and Cabana

is highly questionable. However, because no clearly established holding of the

Supreme Court overruled Cabana’s holding that an appellate court may make

the findings mandated by Enmund and Tison, Gongora’s second claim must fail.

57

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

58

Id. (emphasis added).

59

See id. at 598-99, 609; id. at 609 (“[W]e overrule Walton to the extent that it allows

a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for

imposition of the death penalty.”).

60

Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997) (second alteration in original) (quoting

Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)); see also State

Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997) (“[I]t is this Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of

its precedents.”).

46

No. 07-70031

* * *

In conclusion, I would deny Gongora’s application for a writ of habeas

corpus because neither of his claims satisfy the requirements for a grant of the

writ.

47