The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling against the top criminal court in the state of Texas in regards to a death penalty case, stating in a 6-3 review that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals must once again examine whether a death row inmate’s “abundant” amount of mitigating evidence that wasn’t presented at his trial should be able to warrant a new punishment trial in order to decide if he should receive life in prison without the possibility of parole or if he should be put to death by lethal injection
The inmate, Terence Andrus, was sentenced to death back in 2012 for two shooting deaths in 2008 in Fort Bend County during a carjacking attempt that was unsuccessful. In 2019, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the recommendation of the trial court that he receive a new punishment trial due to his lawyer failing to raise evidence that could have potentially changed his sentence.
The ruling from the Supreme Court focused on evidence that could have potentially been used to sway the jury from a death sentence for Andrus, such as the following:
*His mother’s drug addiction and prostitution
*Role as caretaker for his siblings whenever his mother would disappear
*His own drug use
*Multiple suicide attemps
*Psychosis diagnosis
The justices wrote the following as part of the majority opinion:
“During Andrus’ capital trial, however, nearly none of this mitigating evidence reached the jury. That is because Andrus’ defense counsel not only neglected to present it; he failed even to look for it.”
The justices further ruled that the work performed by Andrus’ lawyer, former Fort Bend County prosecutor James “Sid” Crowley, who passed away in 2019, was below what would be legally reasonable representation. Therefore, the case was sent back to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to determine whether or not there would be a “reasonable probability” that the jury would have instead delivered a life sentence. Both factors are required to be met in order for a new trial to be granted based on a constitutional violation of effective assistance of counsel.
Furthermore, the justice stated that it wasn’t clear in the rejection from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for a new trial if they even considered whether the representation of Crowley could have affected the decision from the jury. All the opinion from the court stated was that despite the recommendation for a new trial, Andrus failed to show what would be needed for one, which is that legal representation fell below a more objective standard, as well as that there was a reasonable probability that his sentence could have been different had he obtained better counsel.
Aside from the testimony from Andrus, there was almost no evidence presented on what the Supreme Court stated was “a childhood marked by extreme neglect and privation, a family environment filled with violence and abuse.”
The dissenting justices, however, had the following to say:
“Perhaps the Court thinks the CCA should have used CAPITAL LETTERS or bold type. Or maybe it should have added: ‘And we really mean it!!!’ To establish prejudice, Andrus must show ‘a substantial, not just conceivable, likelihood’ that one of the jurors who unanimously agreed on his sentence would not have done so if his trial counsel had presented more mitigation evidence.”