Questioning analysis of 5th Circuit denial of COA by Capital Defence Network

http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/wag.asp
For the Week of: 11/12/2006

COA denied to Texas death row inmate Gregory Wright

On November 17, 2006, the Fifth Circuit (Garza, with Smith and Prado) issued an opinion denying a COA to
Gregory Wright. Wright v. Quarterman. HisConfrontation Clause claim was found by the state appellate court
to be waived because Wright´s trial attorney failed to federalize his objection. The Fifth Circuit concluded that
it was "not debatable amongst jurists of reason that the Texas court´s application of the contemporaneous
objection rule constitutes an adequate and independent procedural bar to Wright´s Confrontation Clause claim."
Wright had also alleged that his trial attorney was ineffective in failing to raise the Confrontation Clause objection.
The state habeas court ruled that counsel had made a considered strategic decision not to do so. The district court
instead denied the claim on the ground that the state court could reasonably have decided that Wright could not
establish prejudice. In a footnote, the Fifth Circuit explained the propriety of the district court´s analysis by citing
case law establishing that federal courts applying 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d) review only the ultimate decision of
the state court, not its reasoning. No mention is made of Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), where the
Supreme Court ruled that section 2254(d) did not apply to the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance
of counsel claim where the state court resolved the claim solely on the performance prong. The Fifth Circuit
declined to issue a COA on Wright´s ineffective assistance claim on the ground that it was not debatable
amongst jurists of reason "that the state court could have reasonably concluded that Wright cannot demonstrate
that he was prejudiced by his counsel´s failure to object." Finally, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Wright´s Brady
claim was not debatable amongst jurists of reason, thereby avoiding ruling on whether Wright had overcome
the procedural default of the claim with his showing of actual innocence. The court noted, but did not weigh in
on, a split in the circuits on the issue of whether Schlup´s miscarriage of justice test can be satisfied with
newly presented evidence (i.e., evidence that was not presented at trial) or if the evidence has to have
been newly discovered (i.e., not reasonably available at the time of trial).

Home

---

Trial Transcripts	Affidavits	Appeal files	Supporters	Contact/Links	Greg's words	email Greg	Sign petition