Young v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 07 February 2014
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. MO-07-CA-002-RAJ
• 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

Petitioner Clinton 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 THE CASE.........................................................................................9

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

1. The Murder of Doyle Douglas......................................................................9

2. The Kidnaping, Robbery, and Murder of Samuel Petrey............................15

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

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

1. Prosecution's Evidence...............................................................................20

2. The Defense's Evidence...............................................................................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 Rebuttal Evidence................................................................544. Defense's Rebuttal Evidence......................................................................57

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

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

E. Motion for New Trial..............................................................................................62

F. Direct Appeal..........................................................................................................67

G. First (and Second) State Habeas Corpus Proceedings............................................68

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

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

1. Petitioner's Third State Habeas Corpus Application..................................78

2. Evidentiary Hearing Ordered on Some Claims..........................................79

3. Evidentiary Hearing....................................................................................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 OF REVIEW..............................................................................................93

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

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

1. Page and Ray's Alleged Plea Agreements..................................................98

2. Alleged Impeachment Evidence Against Expert Merillat..........................98

B. State Court Disposition..........................................................................................99

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

2. Impeachment Evidence Against Merillat...................................................99

C. Clearly Established Federal Law..........................................................................100

1. Brady Claims............................................................................................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 State Remedies.......................................109

3. Procedural Default on Unexhausted Claims.............................................113

4. Longstanding Exceptions to Procedural Default Doctrine.......................115

5. Inapplicable Recently Recognized Narrow Exception.............................116

6. Conclusions Regarding Procedural Default..............................................117

7. Alternatively, No Merit on De Novo Review...........................................118

F. AEDPA & De Novo Review of Confrontation Clause Claims.............................127

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

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

B. State Court Disposition........................................................................................130

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

1. Clearly Established Federal Law..............................................................131

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

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

5. Personal Moral Culpability.......................................................................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 Court Disposition..........................................................................................141

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

D. Challenges to Prosecutorial Discretion at Indictment Stage.................................149

E. Absence of a Burden of Proof on Mitigation Special Issue..................................152

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

Mitigation Special Issue.......................................................................................163

G. Failure to Include Sentencing Factors in the Indictment......................................166

H. The Texas Twelve/Ten Rule................................................................................177

I. Failure to Give Hung Jury Instruction..................................................................182

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

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

B. State Court Disposition.........................................................................................186

1. Punishment Phase Jury Charge.................................................................186

2. Prosecution's Punishment Phase Jury Argument.....................................188

3. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' Direct Appeal Ruling........................189

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

D. In the Alternative, Procedural Default..................................................................195

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

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

B. State Court Disposition........................................................................................196

C. Procedural Default................................................................................................198

D. De Novo Review...................................................................................................198

E. Lost or Destroyed Evidence..................................................................................199

1. The Constitutional Standard.....................................................................199

2. Shell Casings............................................................................................200

3. Lost Convenience Store Surveillance Video Tape...................................202

4. Unidentified Eyewitness to Petrey's Abduction.......................................204

F. Interference with Mitigation Specialist.................................................................206

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

...