Young v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 07 February 2014
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. MO-07-CA-002-RAJ
• Citation: Young v. Stephens, CIVIL NO. MO-07-CA-002-RAJ (W.D. Tex. Feb 07, 2014)
• Parties: CLINTON LEE YOUNG, TDCJ No. 999447, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

CLINTON LEE YOUNG, TDCJ No. 999447, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director,Texas Department of Criminal Justice,Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

CIVIL NO. MO-07-CA-002-RAJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND DIVISION

Dated: February 7, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RELIEF

PetitionerClinton Lee Young filed this federal habeas corpus action pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 challenging his Midland County conviction for capital murder and sentence of death.For the reasons set forth at length hereinafter, petitioner is entitled to neither federal habeas relief nor a Certificate of Appealability.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.STATEMENT OF THECASE.........................................................................................9

A.The Offenses.............................................................................................................9

1.The Murder of DoyleDouglas......................................................................9

2.The Kidnaping, Robbery, and Murder of SamuelPetrey............................15

B. Indictments.............................................................................................................19

C. Guilt-Innocence Phase of Trial...............................................................................20

1.Prosecution'sEvidence...............................................................................20

2.The Defense'sEvidence...............................................................................28

3.The Verdict.................................................................................................28

D.Punishment Phase of Trial......................................................................................29

1.The Prosecution's Case-in-Chief................................................................29

2.The Defense's Case-in-Chief......................................................................43

3.Prosecution's RebuttalEvidence................................................................544.Defense's RebuttalEvidence......................................................................57

5.Prosecution's Sur-Rebuttal.........................................................................59

6.The Jury's Deliberations and Verdict.........................................................59

E. Motion for NewTrial..............................................................................................62

F. DirectAppeal..........................................................................................................67

G. First (and Second) State Habeas CorpusProceedings............................................68

H.Proceedings in this Court........................................................................................77

I.Return to State Court(Third State Habeas Proceeding).........................................78

1.Petitioner's Third State Habeas CorpusApplication..................................78

2.Evidentiary Hearing Ordered on SomeClaims..........................................79

3.EvidentiaryHearing....................................................................................79

4.State Habeas Trial Court's Findings &Conclusions..................................91

5.Texas Court of Criminal Appeals'Ruling..................................................92

6.Return to this Court....................................................................................92

II.STANDARD OFREVIEW..............................................................................................93

III.BRADY, GIGLIO/NAPUE & CONFRONTATION CLAUSE CLAIMS (Claims 1 & 25).................................................................................................................98

A.The Claims..............................................................................................................98

1.Page and Ray's Alleged PleaAgreements..................................................98

2.Alleged Impeachment Evidence Against ExpertMerillat..........................98

B. State CourtDisposition..........................................................................................99

1.Claims Concerning Alleged Secret Deals for Page &Ray.........................99

2.Impeachment Evidence AgainstMerillat...................................................99

C.Clearly Established FederalLaw..........................................................................100

1.BradyClaims............................................................................................100

2.Giglio/Napue (Knowing Use of Perjured Testimony)Claim...................102

D. AEDPA Analysis of Claims Relating to Page and Ray........................................103

E.Analysis of Claim Concerning Impeachment of A.P. Merillat.............................108

1.Procedural Default Generally...................................................................108

2.The Duty to Exhaust Available StateRemedies.......................................109

3.Procedural Default on UnexhaustedClaims.............................................113

4.Longstanding Exceptions to Procedural DefaultDoctrine.......................115

5.Inapplicable Recently Recognized NarrowException.............................116

6.Conclusions Regarding ProceduralDefault..............................................117

7.Alternatively, No Merit on De NovoReview...........................................118

F. AEDPA & De Novo Review of ConfrontationClause Claims.............................127

IV.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CLAIMS (Claims 5, 6, 12 & 18)...............................130

A.The Claims...........................................................................................................130

B. State CourtDisposition........................................................................................130

C. AEDPA Analysis..................................................................................................131

1.Clearly Established FederalLaw..............................................................131

2.Same Scheme and Course of Conduct......................................................132

3.Petrey was Murdered During His Kidnaping and Robbery......................1344.FutureDangerousness...............................................................................135

5.Personal MoralCulpability.......................................................................138

6. Conclusions.................................................................................................139

V.CHALLENGES TO THE TEXAS CAPITAL SENTENCING SCHEME (Claims 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20 & 21)...............................................................................140

A.Overview of the Claims........................................................................................140

B. State CourtDisposition..........................................................................................141

C.Clearly Established Federal Law: An Overview of Recent EighthAmendment Jurisprudence........................................................................143

D.Challenges to Prosecutorial Discretion at IndictmentStage.................................149

E. Absence of a Burden of Proof on Mitigation SpecialIssue..................................152

F.Lack of Meaningful State Appellate Review on Jury's Answer to

Mitigation SpecialIssue.......................................................................................163

G.Failure to Include Sentencing Factors in theIndictment......................................166

H.The Texas Twelve/TenRule................................................................................177

I.Failure to Give Hung JuryInstruction..................................................................182

VI.CHALLENGE TO PUNISHMENT PHASE JURY CHARGE (Claim 3)...............185

A.The Claim.............................................................................................................185

B. State CourtDisposition.........................................................................................186

1.Punishment Phase JuryCharge.................................................................186

2.Prosecution's Punishment Phase JuryArgument.....................................188

3.Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' Direct AppealRuling........................189

C. AEDPA Analysis..................................................................................................190

D.In the Alternative, ProceduralDefault..................................................................195

VII.ALLEGED PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (Claims 26, 27, 28, 29)...............195

A.The Claims...........................................................................................................195

B. State CourtDisposition........................................................................................196

C. ProceduralDefault................................................................................................198

D.De NovoReview...................................................................................................198

E.Lost or DestroyedEvidence..................................................................................199

1.The ConstitutionalStandard.....................................................................199

2.ShellCasings............................................................................................200

3.Lost Convenience Store Surveillance VideoTape...................................202

4.Unidentified Eyewitness to Petrey'sAbduction.......................................204

F.Interference with MitigationSpecialist.................................................................206

G.More Prosecutorial Misconduct (Comments & Questions)............................

...