Chambers v. Johnson ( 2000 )

Revised August 8, 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40896
TONY NEYSHEA CHAMBERS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal From the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
July 24, 2000
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(Opinion, June 20, 2000, 5th Cir., 2000, ____F.3d____)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The petition for rehearing calls our attention to two factual
errors in our opinion of June 20, 2000. We, therefore, modify the
opinion as follows: (1) The third paragraph of Part I of the
opinion is modified to read:
The following day, Bailey’s body was discovered in
a wooded area near the middle school gym. The crime
scene showed evidence of a sexual assault, and an autopsy
uncovered abdominal wounds and evidence of sexual assault
prior to death. The police discovered Bailey’s body
while Chambers was being voluntarily questioned at the
local police station. When confronted with news of the
body’s discovery, Chambers became emotional and stated
his remorse for “hurt[ing]” Bailey. Chambers gave an
extensive videotaped confession after the police advised
him of his Miranda rights. He also signed a written
statement acknowledging that he had been given his
Miranda warnings and admitting to leaving the basketball
game with Bailey, having sex with her in the woods near
the gym, and choking her for about three minutes. He
claimed, however, that he left her alive. Later that
night, Chambers gave a more complete statement after
again acknowledging that he had received and understood
his Miranda warnings. In this statement, Chambers
admitted to choking Bailey during intercourse, tying her
to a tree with her shoe laces, choking her while tied,
untying her, and puncturing her stomach with a scalpel
and protractor. This confession contained details, such
as the cut design left on Bailey’s abdomen, that were not
publicly known. Thereafter, Chambers told detectives
where he had disposed of the scalpel and protractor, and
the detectives, with Chambers’s help, were able to
recover both items. Possibly due to a recent rain, the
police found no fingerprints or blood on these weapons.
(2) The second paragraph of Part III, section B., is modified to
read:
In support of this claim, Chambers argues that
investigators purposefully used an interrogator, Officer
Alexander, and interrogation tactics that had recently
been shown to elicit a false confession from another
suspect. In addition, he argues that another false
confession Officer Alexander obtained several years
before he questioned Chambers should have put the
officers on heightened notice that Chambers’s confessions
were materially untrue. As stated above, the state
courts have found that the officers used no coercive
tactics in questioning Chambers. See generally Pemberton
v. Collins, 991 F.2d 1218, 1225 (5th Cir. 1993). These
state court rulings are not unreasonable in light of the
evidence.
2
Because the above modifications do not change either our
analysis or the result, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
3