Broadnax v. Davis
| Decision Date | 23 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1758-N |
| Parties | JAMES GARFIELD BROADNAX, Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Petitioner James Garfield Broadnax filed this federal habeas corpus action pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his August 2009 Dallas County conviction for capital murder and sentence of death. For the reasons discussed below, Broadnax is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief or a Certificate of Appealability from this Court.
During the early morning hours of June 19, 2008, Broadnax and his cousin Demarius Cummings fatally shot and robbed Stephen Swan and Matthew Butler in the parking lot of Butler's recording studio in downtown Garland. There is no genuine dispute about these facts. Within days of his arrest, Broadnax gave a series of recorded interviews with four Dallas area television stations during which he confessed in graphic terms to fatally shooting Swan and Butler, robbing them, and driving away from the crime scene in Swan's vehicle.1 During one of his televisioninterviews, all of which were later broadcast, Broadnax informed his interviewer that he hoped to receive the death penalty and insisted that, if he did not receive the death penalty, he would kill again.
On September 15, 2008, a Dallas County grand jury indicted Broadnax on a single count of capital murder, to wit, intentionally causing the death of Stephen Swan by shooting Swan with a firearm, a deadly weapon, in the course of committing and attempting to commit Swan's robbery.2
The guilt-innocence phase of Broadnax's capital murder trial commenced on August 10, 2009.3 The prosecution called three of the television reporters who interviewed Broadnax and played recordings of their interviews with Broadnax, as well as presented a host of other witnesses who (a) established Swan's cause of death, (b) linked Broadnax and Cummings to Swan's vehicle (the one in which they were traveling at the time of their arrest) and a set of tools belonging to Swan which Cummings and Broadnax pawned the day of the murders, and (c) linked Broadnax and Cummings to a handgun later determined to be the murder weapon. The defense presented a series of witnesses through whom it attempted to show that Broadnax was intoxicated on PCP and marijuana at the time of his offense and was suffering from the long-lasting effects of his PCP ingestion, including experiencing psychotic delusions, at the time he gave his televised interviews.The jury returned its verdict on August 12, 2009, finding Broadnax guilty of capital murder.4
The punishment phase of Broadnax's capital murder trial commenced on August 13, 2009.5 The prosecution presented (1) victim impact testimony from Butler's mother and Swan's mother, (2) testimony concerning the results of Butler's autopsy, (3) the custodian of Dallas County Jail inmate telephone records, (4) a pair of investigators for the Dallas County District Attorney's Office, (5) a Dallas County Jail Special Response Team officer who helped supervise a shakedown of Broadnax's cell during which Broadnax became agitated and had to be restrained physically, (6) a Dallas County Jail detention officer who broke up a fight between Broadnax and another inmate in the jail's recreational area, (7) a Dallas County Jail detention officer who witnessed Broadnax strike a different inmate in an unprovoked assault only weeks before the start of Broadnax's capital murder trial and the inmate Broadnax assaulted, (8) a member of the Dallas Police Department's gang unit, who identified various symbols and phrases Broadnax employed in his drawings and writings as indicating Broadnax's gang membership,6 and (9) the assistant Warden of a Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") unit, who explained the TDCJ'ssystem for classifying prisoners, the TDCJ's prison disciplinary procedures, and other aspects of prison life in Texas.7
Broadnax's defense team called (1) a research psychologist who testified regarding the processes of brain development in humans, (2) a psychiatrist who treated Broadnax at the Dallas County Jail and diagnosed Broadnax with substance abuse-induced psychosis, (3) a professor and researcher in clinical pharmacology who opined that Broadnax was under the influence of marijuana and PCP at the time of his offense and during his interviews several days later, (4) a cousin of Broadnax's mother, who testified to Broadnax's good character as a child, (5) a trio of Broadnax's maternal aunts, concerning Broadnax's abusive childhood, (6) Broadnax's mother, who testified extensively regarding her own difficulties growing up, Broadnax's family background, her many unstable relationships with men, and Broadnax's extremely unstable, difficult, childhood, (7) Broadnax's brother-in-law, who testified regarding Broadnax's good character traits and responsible behavior as a baby sitter, (8) two of Broadnax's cousins, who testified to Broadnax's good character, (9) the Dallas County Jail inmate with whom Broadnax fought in the recreational area, who testified he started the fight between them because he felt Broadnax had disrespected him, (10) two persons who knew Broadnax's family, who testified via deposition about the difficult challenges Broadnax faced growing up, (11) Broadnax's sister, who testified about Broadnax's unstable abusive childhood, her own experiences growing up with their abusive mother, and Broadnax's difficult teenage years, and (12) one of Broadnax's mother's ex-husbands, who testified that he ended their relationship and threw Broadnax's mother out of his house after she beat Broadnax so badly his back was bloody.
After the defense rested at the punishment phase of trial, in rebuttal the prosecution (1) introduced Broadnax's Dallas County Jail commissary account records and a series of recordings of telephone calls Broadnax made from the Dallas County Jail on the same day the jury returned its verdict at the guilt-innocence phase of trial, (2) presented the testimony of a forensic psychologist, who read a list of the characteristics of a psychopathic personality, explained in layman's terms what each of the terms in the list meant, but also admitted that he had not interviewed Broadnax and expressly declined to offer an opinion as to whether Broadnax possessed any of the traits of a psychopathic personality he identified and defined for the jury,8 and (3) presented more victim impact testimony from Swan's younger sister and brother.
On August 20, 2009, the jury returned its punishment phase verdict, answering the Texas capital sentencing scheme's future dangerousness special issue affirmatively and the mitigation special issue negatively.9 After excusing the jury, the trial court pronounced sentence, imposing the death penalty.10
Broadnax appealed his conviction and sentence.11 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Broadnax's conviction and sentence. Broadnax v. State, AP-76,207, 2011 WL 6225399 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 14, 2011), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 828 (2012).
Broadnax subsequently filed an application for state habeas corpus relief.12 The state trial court held an evidentiary hearing in Broadnax's state habeas corpus proceeding on December 7,2012 and heard testimony from (1) a trio of Dallas area criminal defense attorneys regarding their experiences with media requests to interview their own clients at the Dallas County Jail and their belief the Dallas County Sheriff's Department encouraged jail inmates to talk to the media, (2) Broadnax's trial defense team's court-appointed investigator regarding his unsuccessful efforts prior to trial to interview and serve subpoenas on the members of the media who interviewed Broadnax, (3) an educational specialist and gang awareness trainer who represented himself as a gang expert, (4) two of Broadnax's three criminal defense attorneys from his capital murder trial, who testified concerning their strategic decision-making, and (5) a professor of psychology at Texas A&M University who opined that the list of psychopathic personality characteristics which Dr. Price introduced to the jury and the definition of Antisocial Personality Disorder introduced during the cross-examination of Dr. Lane were both scientifically invalid as predictors of future violence in prison.13
On September 17, 2014, the state habeas trial court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommendation that state habeas corpus relief be denied, concluding in pertinent part that (1) the reporters who interviewed Broadnax prior to trial were not acting asagents of the State, (2) there was no showing the testimony of either B.K. Nelson or Dr. Price was factually inaccurate or otherwise false, (3) Chapter 61 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure does not deal with the admissibility of evidence of gang membership, (4) the evidence of Broadnax's fascination with the Gangster Disciples was overwhelming, and (5) attorney Lollar furnished credible testimony regarding the defense team's strategic reasons for not challenging the punishment phase trial testimony of Dr. Price and Detective Nelson.14 On May 20, 2015, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Broadnax's state habeas corpus application in an unpublished order adopting the trial court's findings and conclusions. Ex parte James Garfield Broadnax, WR-81,573-01, 2015 WL 2452758 , cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 77 (2015).15
Broadnax filed his original petition for federal habeas corpus relief on May 18, 2016 [ECF no. 29]. On November 18, 2016, Broadnax filed his first amended federal habeas corpus petition, asserting a variety of claims of ineffective assistance by his state trial and appellate counsel, claims of...
To continue reading
Request your trial