Supreme Court of the United States
No. 21-6001
(CAPITAL CASE)
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
________________________
TERENCE TRAMAINE ANDRUS,
Petitioner,
v.
TEXAS,
Respondent.
____________________________
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
____________________________
REPLY TO THE STATE¡¯S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
____________________________
Clifford M. Sloan
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
600 New Jersey Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 662-9387
Cliff.Sloan@georgetown.edu
Kathleen Shelton
1440 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 371-7079
kathleen.shelton@
Gretchen Sims Sween
Counsel of Record
P.O. Box 5083
Austin, Texas 78763-5083
(214) 557-5779
gsweenlaw@
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... ii
REPLY ............................................................................................................................ 1
I.
II.
The State Endorses Rejecting This Court¡¯s Prior
Determinations; Relies On Strawman Arguments; And
Mischaracterizes And Ignores The Habeas Record, Including
Most Of Andrus¡¯s New Mitigating Evidence. .......................................... 2
A.
The State brazenly embraces the CCA¡¯s rejection of this
Court¡¯s express directives and binding conclusions. .................... 2
B.
The State relies on a series of strawman arguments. .................. 4
C.
The State, like the CCA, mischaracterizes and ignores key
evidence in the record. ................................................................... 7
The State Fails To Engage With The Important Issue Presented
Regarding The Destabilizing Effect On The Rule Of Law When
A Lower Court Disregards This Court¡¯s Binding Decisions. ................ 14
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 15
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Andrus v. Texas,
140 S.Ct. 1875 (2020) .................................................................................passim
Briggs v. Penn. R. Co.,
334 U.S. 304 (1948) ........................................................................................... 14
Eddings v. Oklahoma,
455 U.S. 104 (1982) ........................................................................................... 11
Georgia v. Public., Inc.,
140 S.Ct. 1498 (2020) .......................................................................................... 4
Green v. Georgia,
442 U.S. 95 (1979) ............................................................................................. 11
Martin v. Hunter¡¯s Lessee,
1 Wheat. 304 (1816) .......................................................................................... 14
NAACP v. Alabama,
360 U.S. 240 (1959) ........................................................................................... 14
Porter v. McCollum,
558 U.S. 30 (2009) ............................................................................................... 9
Rompilla v. Beard,
545 U.S. 374 (2005) ........................................................................................... 11
In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co.,
160 U.S. 247 (1895) ........................................................................................... 14
Sears v. Humphrey,
751 S.E.2d 365 (Ga. 2013), cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1118 (2014) ................. 5, 6, 7
Sears v. Upton,
130 S.Ct. 3259 (2010) .............................................................................. 5, 6, 7, 9
Sibbald v. United States,
37 U.S. 488 (1838) ............................................................................................. 14
Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984) ....................................................................................passim
ii
Tennard v. Dretke,
542 U.S. 274 (2004) ........................................................................................... 11
Wiggins v. Smith,
539 U.S. 510 (2003) ........................................................................................... 15
RULES
Texas Rule of Evidence 401 ......................................................................................... 11
iii
REPLY
Terence Tramaine Andrus¡¯s petition explains that the lower court¡¯s 5-4
decision on remand, finding no Strickland 1 prejudice, derives from an explicit
rejection of this Court¡¯s determinations and rests on four fundamental errors, any of
which warrants summary reversal. First, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA)
relied on the trial record without considering how trial counsel¡¯s deficient
performance had shaped that record, as this Court explained at length in deciding
that counsel¡¯s performance was constitutionally deficient. Second, the CCA
mischaracterized or simply ignored the mitigating evidence that this Court had
deemed ¡°abundant,¡± ¡°vast,¡± ¡°compelling,¡± ¡°powerful,¡± ¡°myriad,¡± ¡°voluminous,¡± and
previously ¡°untapped.¡± Andrus v. Texas, 140 S.Ct. 1875, 1878, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1886
(2020) (per curiam). Third, the CCA relied on harmful stereotypes about mental
illness and childhood trauma that are contrary to settled science and common sense.
Fourth, the CCA disregarded this Court¡¯s specific guidance, tethered to established
precedents, for assessing Strickland prejudice in this very case.
The State¡¯s Brief in Opposition (BIO) not only embraces but doubles down on
the CCA¡¯s bald rejection of this Court¡¯s previous determinations. In doing so, the
State relies on strawman arguments and mimics the CCA¡¯s erroneous approach by
grossly mischaracterizing the habeas record. This Court should now hold that, if the
State¡¯s punishment-phase evidence had been investigated and appropriately
attacked, and if abundant, readily available mitigating evidence had been
1
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
1
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- vice president of the united states office
- president of the united states job description
- history of the united states flag
- ranks of the united states army
- sociologists think of the united states as
- list of the united states alphabetically
- title 26 of the united states code
- president of the united states list
- weather map of the united states today
- constitution of the united states printable pdf
- populations of the united states in 2020
- racial makeup of the united states 2020