Hebert v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 10 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-30191,17-30191 |
| Citation | 890 F.3d 213 |
| Parties | Amy HEBERT, Petitioner–Appellant v. James ROGERS, Warden, Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women, Respondent–Appellee |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Letty Spring Di Giulio, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner–Appellant.
Joseph S. Soignet, District Attorney's Office for the Parish of Lafourche, Thibodaux, LA, for Respondent–Appellee.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
This habeas case is about a woman who, awaking in the night to an alleged voice telling her to kill her children, grabbed several kitchen knives and repeatedly stabbed her young children, leaving them to bleed to death. Upon being charged with first degree murder, she pled not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury found her guilty but did not sentence her to death. After exhausting all forms of direct or collateral relief in Louisiana, Amy Hebert filed a petition for habeas relief in federal court. The district court denied relief but granted a certificate of appealability. Hebert raises two issues before us: (1) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the State's allegedly discriminatory peremptory strikes; and (2) a rational jury could not have found that Hebert was sane at the time of the killings. We affirm.
Amy Hebert had two children, a nine-year old girl named Camille and a seven-year old boy named Braxton. In 2005, Hebert and her husband, Chad, separated. In 2006, they divorced after she learned about Chad's affair with a woman from work, Kimberly. Over the next year, Chad's relationship with Kimberly became more serious, and they started to plan a wedding, which was set for 2008. The children also had been developing a closer relationship with Kimberly, a fact that Hebert observed and resented. Chad began building a new home, where both children would have their own room.
In the late summer of 2007, Hebert stabbed both of her children to death at their home in Matthews, Louisiana. Both children suffered dozens of stabs wounds
in the chest, back, and scalp, and ultimately bled to death. After killing both children, Hebert placed their bodies in her bed. She then killed the family dog, made a pot of coffee, wrote two notes, and attempted to take her own life. She slashed her wrists until she exposed her tendons; punctured her lungs, collapsing them; and inflicted cuts to her legs, skull, neck, and eyelids. Then, Hebert lay down in her bed to die beside her children.
Hebert's former father-in-law discovered this grisly scene the next morning, and he summoned the police. When the authorities arrived and entered the master bedroom, Hebert lifted a large knife and yelled, "Get the f- - - out." The police subdued her with a taser. The authorities' attempts to resuscitate the children were unsuccessful. Hebert was taken to the hospital.
The police discovered the two notes that Hebert had written. The first note was addressed to Chad. It stated:
The second note, which was addressed to Hebert's former mother-in-law, stated:
Upon her arrival at the hospital, Hebert received treatment for her physical wounds
along with mental treatment from Dr. Alexandra Phillips, a psychiatrist. Initially, Hebert was unresponsive. A few days after the children's deaths, Hebert informed Dr. Phillips that she had been hearing "the words of Satan for a long time." In response to a question from Dr. Phillips, Hebert said that "Satan was in the room and was laughing at her." Hebert then proceeded to scream, and Dr. Phillips concluded that Hebert was "completely psychotic" and prescribed anti-psychotic medicine for her.
The State of Louisiana charged Hebert with first-degree murder of her children. Hebert pled not guilty by reason of insanity. A trial was held in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.
The jury venire comprised 200 people, 112 of whom were women. Both parties received 12 peremptory strikes and two alternate juror peremptory strikes. Before the final jury was selected, 23 women and 10 men were randomly selected to sit on the jury. The court struck four men for cause or hardship, and Hebert used four peremptory strikes on men, which left just two men on the panel. The State used 11 peremptory strikes and one alternate peremptory strike against women. Hebert's counsel did not object. The final jury included 10 women and two men, together with three men and one woman as alternate jurors.
The jury heard testimony from six experts during the guilt phase of the trial. The defense called four experts: Dr. Alexandra Phillips, Dr. David Self, Dr. Glenn Ahava, and Dr. Phillip Resnick. Dr. Phillips prescribed anti-psychotic medication for Hebert after concluding that she was "completely psychotic" when she claimed that she saw and heard Satan in the hospital room. Dr. Resnick opined that Hebert was psychotic1 when she killed her children because she was having auditory hallucinations in which she heard the voice of Satan commanding her to kill the children and then commit suicide to keep the family together. The voice, according to Hebert, then instructed her to write the notes left at the scene of the crime. Dr. Ahava, an expert in forensic psychology, testified that Hebert was psychotic and likely could not distinguish right from wrong on the day of the offense based on her history of mental health problems and the excessive number of stabs wounds
on the children. Dr. Self, an expert in forensic psychiatry, diagnosed Hebert as suffering from major depression with recurrent and severe psychosis. He further concluded that Hebert must have been psychotic because "only the most psychotic people attack their own eyes."
In response, the State called two rebuttal experts: Dr. Rafael Salcedo and Dr. George Seiden. Dr. Salcedo, an expert in clinical and forensic psychology, conceded at trial that Hebert suffered from a psychotic disorder
but concluded that Hebert was still able to distinguish right from wrong. In reaching this conclusion, Dr. Salcedo relied on Hebert's notes, which he opined revealed the logical mental process of someone seeking revenge through a retribution killing. Dr. Seiden, an expert in general and forensic psychiatry, opined that Hebert was capable of telling right from wrong because there was no evidence that Hebert exhibited psychosis before killing her children. He also relied on the notes as evidence of Hebert's mental state, and he opined that the line "Sorry Daddy, Celeste & Renee" showed Hebert understood the wrongfulness of her actions.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the death penalty, and the court sentenced Hebert to life imprisonment. Hebert filed a direct appeal to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed her conviction and sentence. Hebert then unsuccessfully pursued habeas relief in state court. In response to a claim that its peremptory strikes discriminated against women, the State provided gender-neutral reasons for using its peremptory strikes. After exhausting all other avenues of relief, Hebert filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The district court denied her petition for relief, but it granted a COA on all issues raised. Hebert timely appealed.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") prohibits a federal court from granting habeas relief unless the decision of the state court "(1) ... was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) ... was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A state court's decision is contrary to clearly established precedent if the rule it applies "contradicts the governing law set forth in the [Supreme Court's] cases," or if the state court confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of the Supreme Court yet reaches a different result. Wooten v. Thaler , 598 F.3d 215, 218 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Wallace v. Quarterman , 516 F.3d 351, 354 (5th Cir. 2008) ). A state court commits an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent if it identifies the correct legal rule but unreasonably applies that rule to the facts. Id. (citing Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 407, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) ).
"Determining whether a state court's decision resulted from an unreasonable legal or factual conclusion does not require that there be an opinion from the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Banks
... ... “The credibility of the witnesses and the ... weight of the evidence is the exclusive province of the ... jury.” Hebert v. Rogers , 890 F.3d 213, 225 ... (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). It is purely a matter of ... state law and is not cognizable on ... ...
-
Langley v. Prince
...or thoroughness with which state courts must spell out their reasoning to be entitled to AEDPA deference"); Hebert v. Rogers , 890 F.3d 213, 221 (5th Cir. 2018) (explaining "the brevity of a state court’s opinion is immaterial" and noting "a state court’s decision does not need to be thorou......
-
State v. Turner, 2016-KA-1841
...Ms. Weir so as to preclude any meaningful comparison and negate any inference of discriminatory intent. See, e.g. , Hebert v. Rogers , 890 F.3d 213, 223 (5th Cir. 2018) ("While a comparator-juror is not required to be identical in all regards, the comparator-juror must be similar in the rel......
-
Chism v. Middlebrooks
... ... “The credibility of the witnesses and the ... weight of the evidence is the exclusive province of the ... jury.” Hebert v. Rogers , 890 F.3d 213, 225 ... (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). It is purely a matter of ... state law and is not cognizable on ... ...
-
Trials
...v. Cristobal, 293 F.3d 134, 144 (4th Cir. 2002) (requiring defendant prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence); Hebert v. Rogers, 890 F.3d 213, 224-25 (5th Cir. 2018) (requiring defendant prove insanity by preponderance of evidence); U.S. v. Odeh, 815 F.3d 968, 980 (6th Cir. 2016) (r......
-
Review Proceedings
...2007) (due process not violated because evidence sufficient for rational trier of fact to find petitioner guilty); Hebert v. Rogers, 890 F.3d 213, 227 (5th Cir. 2018) (due process not violated where jury rejected defendant’s Insanity defense because defense expert’s testimony contradicted......
-
Preliminaries
...plaintiff used his four peremptory strikes on white jurors does not make a prima facie case for a Batson challenge. Hebert v. Rogers , 890 F.3d 213, 221 (5th Cir. 2018). To establish discriminatory use of peremptory challenges, a defendant must present a prima facie case that the state disc......