Holberg v. Lumpkin ( 2023 )

Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
___________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-70010 FILED
___________ March 13, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Brittany Marlowe Holberg, Clerk
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:15-CV-285
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
A Texas jury convicted Brittany Holberg of murder and sentenced her
to death. After direct appeal and collateral review in state court, she
petitioned a federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the
constitutionality of the verdict and sentence. The district court denied relief.
Holberg now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to bring her habeas
case before this court. We hold that reasonable jurists could debate the
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
district court’s resolution of her ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady
claims and GRANT a COA in part.
I.
Holberg murdered A.B. Towery, Sr., in his apartment in 1996. 1 A
Texas jury convicted her in 1998 and sentenced her to death, and the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction. 2 A Texas court denied
Holberg’s state habeas claim in 2014, and she subsequently filed a federal
petition for habeas corpus in the Northern District of Texas. In August of
2021, the district court denied Holberg’s petition and denied a COA.
Holberg seeks a COA from this court on five claims of error: (1)
applying deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA) to state habeas court proceedings that “employed factfinding
procedures not adequate for reaching correct results;” (2) denying discovery
during federal habeas proceedings; (3) denial of due process resulting from
prosecutorial misconduct related to coercion of false testimony, in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) denial of due process resulting from a
Brady violation, 3 in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(5) ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
II.
To obtain a COA, Holberg must make a “substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 4 She must demonstrate that “jurists of
1
Various state and federal courts have recounted the facts of this case. See Holberg v. State,
38 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Holberg v. Davis, No. 2:15-CV-285-Z, 2021 WL
3603347, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2021).
2
Holberg v. State, 38 S.W.3d at 139.
3
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
4
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
2
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [her]
constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 5 Furthermore,
“[w]here the petitioner faces the death penalty, ‘any doubts as to whether a
COA should issue must be resolved’ in the petitioner’s favor.’” 6 Although a
petitioner seeking a COA must demonstrate “‘something more than the
absence of frivolity’ or the existence of mere ‘good faith,’” 7 our analysis of a
COA application entails only a “limit[ed],” “threshold inquiry,” 8 one made
against the overarching backdrop of the deference due in federal habeas
proceedings.
Federal courts must generally defer to state courts’ factual
determinations “unless the adjudication of the claim . . . resulted in a
decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light
of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 9 Federal habeas
courts must also defer to state court determinations of law unless the state
court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of”
clearly established Supreme Court law. 10 AEDPA deference does not apply,
however, where “the petitioner properly exhausted his claim by raising it in
the state court, but the state court did not adjudicate that particular claim on
the merits.” 11
5
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
6
Allen v. Stephens, 805 F.3d 617, 625 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Medellin v. Dretke, 371 F.3d
270, 275 (5th Cir.2004)).
7
Miller–El, 537 U.S. at 338 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).
8
Id. at 327
9
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011).
10
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
11
Carty v. Thaler, 583 F.3d 244, 253 (5th Cir. 2009).
3
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
III.
Holberg asserts that the district court erred by applying AEDPA
deference to the state habeas court’s findings. Despite AEDPA’s
requirement for federal courts to defer to state court findings of fact, Holberg
maintains that the state habeas court’s findings are based on an “incomplete
record and deserve no deference under the AEDPA.” But “a full and fair
hearing is not a prerequisite to the operation of AEDPA’s deferential
scheme.” 12 So even if the state habeas court limited Holberg’s access to
discovery, AEDPA demands that federal courts presume the correctness of
a state court’s factfinding.
This does not mean that Holberg was bereft of options for further
factfinding. A federal court may allow a habeas petitioner to conduct further
discovery for good cause. 13 Holberg asserts that the district court erred in
denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing, that throughout state and
federal habeas proceedings, she has had no opportunity to examine
prosecutors’ conduct—the core of her habeas claim.
We turn to the claims, mindful that while “a petition challenging an
evidentiary ruling may only be entertained as corollary to a constitutional
violation,” 14 and her challenge to the denial of discovery cannot provide
independent grounds for granting a COA, it may be raised on appeal
alongside her constitutional claims.
Even if this panel were to review the district court’s denial of
discovery as a free-standing claim, we could not find error. Holberg did not
12
Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 941, 946 (5th Cir. 2001).
13
Rector v. Johnson, 120 F.3d 551, 562 (5th Cir. 1997).
14
Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Alix v. Quarterman, 309
Fed. App’x. 875, 878 (5th Cir. 2009)).
4
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
submit a proper motion for discovery to the district court. In 2015, the district
court struck her initial discovery motion for exceeding the page limit, and it
denied her motion for leave to exceed the page limit. 15 Holberg failed to
submit a revised motion for discovery. No reasonable jurist could debate the
district court’s denial of discovery where a habeas petitioner is afforded the
opportunity to correct a layman’s error but does not seize it.
IV.
Holberg’s remaining claims arise from two parts of her criminal trial.
First, Holberg claims that testimony given by a key witness, Vicki
Kirkpatrick, was false and coerced, amounting to prosecutorial misconduct
and a Brady violation. She claims that suppression of Kirkpatrick’s status as
a paid police informant represents an additional Brady violation. Second,
Holberg claims ineffective assistance of counsel at the punishment phase.
Kirkpatrick shared a prison cell with Holberg. She testified at trial that
Holberg made gruesome statements extolling the murder with no remorse.
Kirkpatrick recanted her testimony in a 2011 deposition taken during
Holberg’s state habeas proceedings, asserting that the state prosecutor
scripted and coerced her testimony at Holberg’s trial. She testified that
Holberg was remorseful about the killing, that Holberg claimed she acted in
self-defense, and that the prosecutor promised Kirkpatrick a lighter sentence
in a contemporaneous burglary case in exchange for her testimony.
A Brady violation occurs when “the prosecutor fails to disclose certain
evidence favorable to the accused” and that evidence is material to the
outcome of the case such that “there is a reasonable probability that, had the
evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would
15
Holberg moved to submit a 55-page motion for discovery, but the district court denied
leave to exceed court’s usual 25-page limit. See N.D. Texas Local Rule 7.2(c).
5
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
have been different. A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.” 16
The state habeas court found Kirkpatrick’s recantation to be
incredible, determining that her testimony at trial was not false. The court
based its conclusion in part on the consistency of Kirkpatrick’s statements
around the time of Holberg’s trial. The district court, in turn, examined
Kirkpatrick’s statements, her subsequent burglary trial, inconsistencies in
her 2011 statements, and additional affidavits Holberg submitted, finding that
the state habeas court’s determination was reasonable. After our review of
the record, and given AEDPA deference to the state habeas court’s findings
of fact, we conclude reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s
resolution regarding Kirkpatrick’s recantation of testimony.
Holberg also raises the issue of Kirkpatrick’s status as a paid
informant for local police in unrelated matters, which she contends the state
did not disclose to the defense. The state habeas court considered and
rejected Holberg’s Brady claim regarding Kirkpatrick’s work as a police
informant. The district court also expressed doubt that anyone outside the
police department knew that Kirkpatrick was an informant; yet the court
assumed, without deciding, that the prosecution suppressed the information.
The district court concluded that even if the state suppressed Kirkpatrick’s
status as a paid informant, that information would not be material because it
would not undermine confidence in the outcome of Holberg’s trial. The
district court reasoned that the facts before the state habeas court indicated
16
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 680, 682 (1985). The government’s alleged failure
to disclose any deal between Kirkpatrick and the state would also contravene Giglio v. United States,
405 U.S. 150 (1972).
6
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
Kirkpatrick’s work as an informant may have actually bolstered her
credibility as a witness.
Reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s resolution of
Holberg’s Brady claim. The Supreme Court has held that suppression of a
witness’s informant status satisfies all three Brady elements when the state
pays the informant for participating in the case—although there is no
evidence the state paid Kirkpatrick to participate in Holberg’s case. 17 The
district court’s determination that Kirkpatrick’s informant status may have
acted as a double-edged sword for the defense conflicts with precedent that
informers “raise serious questions of credibility” 18 and often receive
decreased weight in the eyes of a jury. 19 Suppression of Kirkpatrick’s
informant status would have also hindered the defense’s development of any
related Giglio or Massiah claims, 20 precisely the claims Holberg has
encountered difficulties exploring in habeas proceedings. Furthermore,
because Kirkpatrick’s testimony entered the jury’s deliberations at both the
guilt and punishment phases of trial, 21 the Brady claim applies to both
Holberg’s guilty verdict and her death sentence. These considerations
demonstrate that reasonable jurists could debate whether suppression of
17
Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 685, 703 (2004).
18
On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747, 757 (1952).
19
Banks, 540 U.S. at 701–02 (“Jurors suspect [informants’] motives from the moment they
hear about them in a case, and they frequently disregard their testimony altogether as highly
untrustworthy and unreliable . . . .”) (quoting Stephen Trott, Words of Warning for Prosecutors Using
Criminals as Witnesses, 47 HASTINGS L.J. 1381, 1385 (1996)).
20
Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 206 (1964) (holding that a defendant’s Sixth
Amendment rights are violated when the government deploys an informant to interrogate the
defendant following indictment); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
21
See also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.071(d)(1) (requiring the jury to “consider all
evidence admitted at the guilt or innocence stage and the punishment stage”).
7
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
Kirkpatrick’s informant status would be sufficiently material to undermine
confidence in Holberg’s conviction for capital murder.
Holberg additionally claims that her trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance during the punishment phase by failing to fully investigate and
present mitigation issues, object to certain evidence, or properly prepare the
defense’s expert witness. In addition to overcoming AEDPA deference,
under which the state’s application of Supreme Court precedent must be
“unreasonable,” 22 Holberg must show “(1) that [her] trial counsel rendered
deficient performance, and (2) that the deficient performance resulted in
actual prejudice.” 23 She must show “that there is a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different.” 24 However, “strategic choices must be
respected in these circumstances if they are based on professional
judgment.” 25 This analysis includes layers of deference to both trial counsel
and the state court, rendering it “doubly deferential.” 26
The state habeas court rejected Holberg’s claims that trial counsel
could have successfully objected to the specific pieces of evidence presented
at the mitigation stage, relying on state law to find no legitimate basis for
objection. The state habeas court also rejected Holberg’s assertion that trial
counsel failed to investigate adequately and present mitigating evidence. The
district court found that none of these holdings contradicted clearly
established federal law or represented an unreasonable determination of the
22
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011).
23
King v. Davis, 883 F.3d 577, 586 (5th Cir. 2018).
24
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).
25
Id. at 681.
26
Cullen, 563 U.S. at 190.
8
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
facts based on the evidence. 27 After review of the record, we conclude that
reasonable jurists could not debate that Holberg’s trial counsel’s objections
and preparation of the defense witness amounted to the “reasonably effective
assistance” Strickland requires. 28
A reasonable jurist could find defense counsel’s preparation and
presentation of mitigation evidence wanting, however, based on clearly
established Supreme Court law. The state trial court submitted the two
required questions to the jury at the sentencing stage of the death penalty
case: (1) whether there is a probability that Holberg would commit criminal
acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society, and
(2) whether any mitigating circumstances warranted a sentence of life
imprisonment without parole rather than a death sentence. 29 Holberg’s
defense counsel relied entirely on the first question, hoping to persuade the
jury that Holberg lacked the markers of future dangerousness. The defense
abandoned the mitigation issue, stating during its opening argument that “we
will not proceed to [q]uestion [number two].” After review of trial counsel’s
strategic decisions leading up to the mitigation stage, the district court
determined that “Holberg’s defense team undertook an extensive,
objectively reasonable, investigation into Holberg’s offense and
background.” Reasonable jurists could disagree about the district court’s
assessment that defense counsel made reasonable professional judgments in
27
The district court reviewed de novo Holberg’s claim that trial counsel’s failed to object to
expert testimony regarding future dangerousness. In a separate 2010 case, the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals rejected the methodology the expert used to form his opinions on Holberg’s
propensity for future dangerousness. The district court determined that Holberg’s trial counsel
cannot be faulted for failing to predict in 1998 that such an argument would be successful. No
reasonable jurist could disagree with this holding.
28
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687.
29
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.071.
9
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
its investigation and decision not to pursue half of Holberg’s defense against
the death penalty.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the critical nature of
mitigation evidence in death penalty cases, given that it tends to sway “the
jury’s appraisal of [the defendant’s] moral culpability.” 30 In many cases
where the Supreme Court has held assistance ineffective, defense counsel
presented at least some mitigation evidence to the jury, 31 in contrast to
Holberg’s case where defense counsel presented none. In addition, the
evidence Holberg’s counsel declined to place before the jury during
sentencing is similar to that which the Supreme Court has deemed critical for
the jury to hear in other death penalty cases, including repeated sexual
abuse 32 and a deeply troubled childhood marked by caretakers’ drug and
alcohol addictions. 33 Furthermore, neither deference to trial counsel’s
strategic decisions, nor the purported double-edged nature of omitted
evidence, precludes a finding that counsel provided ineffective assistance. 34
Reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s conclusion in evaluating
whether defense counsel’s failure to present mitigation evidence—as
permitted under Texas law and favored by Supreme Court jurisprudence—
fell below federal standards for sufficient performance.
30
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 398 (2000); see also Andrus v. Texas, 140 S. Ct. 1875,
1882 (2020); Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 41 (2009); Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 390–93
(2005); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 535 (2003); Canales v. Lumpkin, 142 S. Ct. 2563 (2022)(Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). But see Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 795 (1987).
31
See, e.g., Williams, 529 U.S. at 369; Porter, 558 U.S. at 32.
32
Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 535.
33
Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 535; Porter, 558 U.S. at 41.
34
Williams, 529 at 396
10
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
The prosecution heavily emphasized this lack of mitigation in its
closing argument in favor of the death penalty, asking “where is the
mitigating evidence?” and asserting that Holberg “had everything handed to
her on a silver platter” as a child. Defense counsel, perhaps realizing their
mistake, attempted to re-characterize some evidence as mitigation in their
own closing arguments, at which point the omission may have been too late
to remedy. Reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s conclusion
regarding whether defense counsel’s failure to proceed to the mitigation
issue prejudiced Holberg, particularly in light of the jury’s eleven hours of
deliberation before returning her death sentence.
Holberg has made a substantial showing of the denial of her Sixth
Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during the punishment
phase of her capital trial. She is entitled to a COA on that claim.
V.
The motion for a certificate of appealability is GRANTED on
Holberg’s Brady claim related to Kirkpatrick’s informant status and her
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the punishment phase of her
capital trial.
11
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
Stuart Kyle Duncan, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part:
I respectfully dissent from the decision to grant a COA on Holberg’s
Brady and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims.
The Brady claim necessarily fails because it would require extending
Supreme Court precedent, which contravenes AEDPA. See Langley v. Prince,
926 F.3d 145, 159 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc). All agree Kirkpatrick was a paid
informant “in unrelated matters,” but not in Holberg’s case. See Op. at 7.
Yet the Supreme Court has held only that the prosecution violates Brady by
not revealing it paid a witness in the defendant’s own case. See Banks v.
Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 699, 702–03 (2004). As to the distinct situation here,
our court previously granted a COA on a similar Brady claim but then
rejected it as outside Banks. See Dennes v. Davis, 797 F. App’x 835, 842 (5th
Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (“Banks is distinguishable . . . because the
arrangement between Balderas and Harris County existed prior to and wholly
independent of the case against Dennes.”). I would not replough this
unfertile ground. 1
The IAC claim fails because counsel’s investigation into mitigating
evidence was plainly sufficient. The question is not whether counsel’s
decision to forego presenting certain mitigating evidence was objectively
unreasonable, cf. Op. at 9–11, but whether the “investigation” supporting
that decision “was itself reasonable.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 523
(2003) (citation omitted); see also Clark v. Thaler, 673 F.3d 410 427 (5th Cir.
2012) (“[P]resenting mitigating factors in a closing argument is not
required.”). As the district court explained, “Holberg’s defense team
undertook an extensive, objectively reasonable, investigation into Holberg’s
1
I leave aside other potential flaws in the Brady claim, such as whether it was procedurally
defaulted.
12
Case: 21-70010 Document: 00516675304 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/13/2023
No. 21-70010
offense and background,” interviewing scores of witnesses, compiling nearly
200 pages of mitigation materials, and hiring a mental-health expert. The
court also concluded, after minutely examining the record, that defense
counsel “made objectively reasonable decisions regarding the scope of their
investigation,” as well as reasonable decisions to emphasize certain
mitigating evidence over other evidence that was potentially harmful. As a
result, I cannot find it debatable whether counsel’s handling of mitigating
evidence was objectively reasonable under Strickland, especially given the
“doubly deferential” standard insulating the state habeas court’s decision.
See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 190 (2011).
I realize, of course, that whether to grant a COA involves a “threshold
inquiry” and not an in-depth dissection of the merits. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Still, the COA calculus “requires . . . a general
assessment of [the] merits,” including AEDPA. Ibid. In light of that, I would
not find that Holberg has made a substantial showing of a Brady or IAC
violation and, accordingly, I would deny a COA on those claims. 2
2
I concur in denying COA on the other claims addressed in the majority opinion.
13