Byrom v. Epps, 11-70026
| Decision Date | 28 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-70026,11-70026 |
| Parties | MICHELLE BYROM, Petitioner—Appellant v. CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent—Appellee |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
*
Michelle Byrom ("Byrom") was charged with capital murder following the death of her husband, Edward Byrom, Sr. ("Edward"). The jury found Byrom guilty, and the state court judge sentenced her to death. Byrom's appeal and petition for post-conviction relief were both denied by the Mississippi Supreme Court. Thereafter, Byrom petitioned for federal habeas relief on twelve separate grounds. The district court denied Byrom's petition, but granted her request fora certificate of appealability ("COA") on five claims: (1) whether evidence was improperly suppressed; (2) whether Byrom had statements taken in violation of her privilege against self-incrimination; (3) whether the trial court failed to consider all mitigating evidence; (4) whether her waiver of a jury sentencing was valid;1 and (5) whether counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present all available mitigating evidence. In addition to appealing most of those claims for which a COA was granted, Byrom has moved for an expanded COA on two issues considered by the district court: (1) whether the exclusion of jailhouse letters from Byrom's son as a discovery sanction violated Byrom's rights; and (2) whether Byrom received ineffective assistance of counsel when her trial attorney committed a discovery violation, thereby causing the exclusion of her son's jailhouse letters. For the reasons that follow, we deny Byrom's motion for an expanded COA and deny her habeas petition.
On June 4, 1999, Byrom was admitted to the Iuka Hospital in Iuka, Mississippi with double pneumonia. Her admission was part of a recurring series of illnesses caused in part by substance abuse and self harm.2 She was dropped off at the hospital by her husband, Edward, who then returned home. Later that day, responding to a 911 call from Byrom's son, Edward Byrom, Jr. ("Junior"), police found Edward slumped over a coffee table in the family's home. Edward had been shot four times in the chest with his own nine-millimeter pistol. After questioning Byrom and Junior in the hours after the murder, thepolice came to believe that Byrom had hired one of Junior's friends, Joey Gillis ("Gillis"), to murder Edward in exchange for $15,000 of Edward's life insurance policy. All three individuals—Byrom, Junior, and Gillis—were subsequently arrested.
By all accounts, the Byrom household was a particularly discordant place. Byrom and Edward frequently fought about money-related issues, and Junior would sometimes intervene when the fights escalated. Edward was physically, sexually, and verbally abusive to Byrom. He often abused Junior as well, generally in response to Junior's partying, drinking, and drug use. Byrom and Edward themselves drank frequently, and it appears the family's fights were worse when alcohol was involved. Junior claims that, in the six months leading up to Edward's murder, the family would engage in heated arguments that involved yelling and cursing at least twice a week. Byrom also suffered verbal, physical, and sexual abuse as a child at the hands of her stepfather, which resulted in her leaving home at around age fifteen.
According to Byrom and Junior, Edward frequently withdrew into the family's entertainment room when he was home, often eating and sleeping there. That room, which had shag carpet on the walls and black plastic over the windows, had functioned as a sound studio at one point. However, Byrom claims that Edward had more recently used the room to indulge his addiction to pornography. As part of that addiction, Byrom alleges that Edward forced her to engage in sexual acts, some of which he videotaped. Byrom's claims were partially substantiated by videotapes recovered by police.
Byrom claims that Edward's recurrent threats and abuse prevented her from leaving him. Instead, she arranged to have Edward murdered. Junior testified that Byrom approached him about having Edward murdered sometime in May 1999, after a particularly rowdy party at which Edward became belligerent and abusive to both Byrom and Junior. Junior testified that,approximately one week before the murder, he asked his friend, Gillis, about murdering Edward. Gillis would either commit the murder himself or find someone else to do it and would receive $15,000 in exchange. After two failed attempts, Edward was murdered on June 4, 1999.
Although the precise order of Byrom's and Junior's initial interviews with police is disputed, it seems that police became suspicious of Junior at the crime scene and took him into custody for questioning as a result.3 An investigator from the Mississippi Highway Patrol went to the hospital to interview Byrom, but police did not suspect Byrom's involvement at the time; they went to ask about weapons in the home and the relationship between Edward and Junior. However, Junior made suspicious statements during his interview with the police, which prompted them to return to the hospital at around 10:47 p.m. to question Byrom further. It was during that interview that Byrom began implicating herself, Junior, and Gillis in a murder-for-hire plot. On October 21, 1999, Byrom was indicted under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(2)(d), which criminalizes murder perpetrated by a person who has been offered or who has received anything of value for committing a murder, as well as all parties to the murder.
During their incarceration, Byrom and Junior exchanged a number of letters. In at least two of these letters—letters that police did not intercept— Junior accepts complete responsibility for Edward's murder and disclaims the existence of a murder-for-hire conspiracy. In one of the letters, Junior claims he alone murdered Edward and that he did so for purely personal reasons. In the other letter, Junior describes the murder in detail. Defense counsel came intopossession of the letters some time before trial. Then, at Byrom's pretrial hearing in October 2000, defense counsel alluded to the existence of letters, acknowledging the possession of materials intended for use as impeachment evidence against Junior if he testified consistently with the prosecution's murder-for-hire theory.4 Defense counsel was told to produce the material or risk its exclusion at trial. Counsel refused.
At trial, Junior testified against his mother in support of the prosecution's murder-for-hire theory. During cross-examination, defense counsel attempted to impeach Junior using the first letter to suggest that there was no murder-for-hire plot. The prosecution objected because the letter had not previously been disclosed. Byrom's attorney claimed that the applicable rule did not mandate pretrial disclosure since Junior and the letter were not part of the defense's case-in-chief. The court recessed for the day to consider the issue, and the prosecution was given an opportunity to question Junior about the letters. When asked whether he had withheld any other evidence, Byrom's attorney stated that they had "other impeachment evidence" that they intended to use to "impeach the daylights" out of Junior. Counsel was admonished that further nondisclosure would result in exclusion of the evidence and further delay; nondisclosure was at counsel's "own peril."
The next day, the court determined that the letter would be excluded as a sanction for counsel's deliberate discovery violation. The court, however, limited the scope of its sanction. Byrom's counsel was allowed to ask Junior about the letter's contents using direct quotes, but counsel could neither handle the letter nor reference its existence in front of the jury. The court acknowledged that this amounted to splitting hairs, but nevertheless felt that this remedy properly redressed counsel's discovery violation. Counsel attemptedto impeach Junior with the second letter as well, which resulted in a second recess and an identical sanction.
During cross-examination of Junior, counsel was able to read directly from the letters, and Junior admitted to many of the facts Byrom's attorney sought to establish. For instance, Junior admitted to telling different stories to different people regarding his role in Edward's death; Junior admitted that he wrote to his mother taking responsibility for the murder; and he admitted that he had told others that no murder-for-hire conspiracy existed. Junior nevertheless denied other details from the letters, including that he alone killed Edward.
On re-direct, the prosecution questioned Junior about the circumstances surrounding the jailhouse letters. Junior testified that he and Byrom had realized their letters were being intercepted and that the letters in question had been written with an audience of law enforcement officers in mind. Junior claimed that he wrote the letters at a time of deep depression, during which he was "ready to take the rap for everything."
The jury found Byrom guilty of capital murder on November 17, 2000. After her conviction, Byrom petitioned to waive her right to a jury sentencing. The prosecution concurred with Byrom's request, and the court found that Byrom had made a valid waiver of her right. At the sentencing hearing, Byrom did not present any witnesses.5 Instead, she offered the reports of a defense expert and a court-ordered psychiatrist, as well as the medical records from a doctor. These reports and records documented Byrom's long history of abuse and illness. After considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the judge sentenced Byrom to death by lethal injection.
Byrom's direct appeal and petition for post-conviction relief were both denied by the Mississippi Supreme Court. Byrom v....
To continue reading
Request your trial