Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 13, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
Charles R. Fulbruge III
___________________________
Clerk
No. 02-41416
___________________________
ANTHONY GRAVES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
VERSUS
JANIE COCKRELL, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
On reflection and after further review of the record, the petition for rehearing persuades us
that Graves has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on his claim that the
state violated the rule under Brady v. Maryland, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), by failing to disclose that
Graves' co-defendant, Carter, implicated his wife as a participant in the commission of the murders
to the prosecution in an interview the evening before Carter testified in Graves' capital murder trial.

The sequence and substance of Carter's statements and recantations the night before he
1

testified are less than clear. On t he evening before he testified in Graves' capital murder trial, the
prosecutor interrogated Carter and had him take a polygraph test. Carter apparently changed his
story about the murders and who was involved several times. In the original opinion, we granted
COA on Graves' claim under Brady that the state failed to disclose to Graves that Carter had
informed the district attorney in this session that Graves was not involved in the charged crime.
During the same interrogation, Carter also implicated his wife in the murders. It appears that
statement is the only time he did so. As described by the prosecutor at Graves' first habeas hearing,
"[A]fter he failed the polygraph here, he broke down and acknowledged that it was he, Graves and
Cookie, the three of them. Specifically, she had the hammer, he had the gun, and Graves had the
knife, and he told us that. But then, to get him to testify, we have to agree, and that's part of the
record, that we wouldn't question about that third; i.e., Cookie."1 In the original opinion, we
concluded that Graves' Brady claim, predicated on Carter's statement implicating his wife, was
procedurally barred. We also concluded that even if Graves could overcome the procedural bar,
Carter's statement that his wife was an accomplice at the scene of the murders was not exculpatory
or material.
After further consideration and review of the record, we are persuaded that reasonable jurists
would find debatable the district court's ruling that Graves' claim was procedurally barred. The
prosecution's reference to Carter's statement about his wife before he testified was so vague that it
may not have put Graves' counsel on notice sufficient to cause counsel to make an inquiry that would
likely lead to full disclosure of Carter's alleged statement implicating his wife in the actual commission
1 The state had Carter testify to this agreement in his direct testimony.
2

of the murders.2 Before Carter testified, the prosecutor did not disclose that Carter implicated his
wife in the murders. He disclosed only that "Mr. Carter took a polygraph and the basic question
involved his wife, Theresa. It shows deception on that polygraph examination." Although Theresa
(also called Cookie) had been indicted, the state's position was that she was involved after the fact.
As discussed above, Carter's statement that is at issue here allegedly placed her at the scene with one
of the murder weapons.
On reflection, we also find that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether Graves'
petition alleging non-disclosure of this statement states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right under Brady because a fact finder could conclude that this information was potentially material
and exculpatory. Carter's statement that Cookie was at the murder scene could have been important
to Graves' defense because the state's theory was that the commission of the multiple murders
required at least two perpetrators. If Graves had been furnished with Carter's statement, it could
have provided him with an argument that those two persons were Carter and his wife rather than
Carter and Graves. The st atement could have also been strong impeachment evidence especially
when considered in conjunction with the fact that Carter's agreement to testify against Graves was
conditioned on a deal that the prosecutor would not ask any questions about his wife's involvement.
The alleged statement exonerating Graves and the alleged statement implicating his wife as
well as the promise by the state not to question Carter about his wife's participation were made in
the same interrogation the evening before Carter testified in Graves' capital murder trial. This
information could have provided a basis for a defense argument that Carter's desire to exonerate his
2 We do not preclude the state from producing additional evidence tending to show that
Graves' counsel was given additional information that put counsel on notice of this statement.
3

wife motivated him to falsely implicate Graves in return for the state's promise to refrain from asking
about his wife's participation in the crime. These statements are so closely tied together that the
district court should consider on remand the combined effect of the state's failure to disclose both
alleged statements on Graves' trial.
Accordingly, we grant in part the petition for panel rehearing and grant COA on Graves'
claim that the state's failure to disclose Carter's alleged statement implicating his wife in the crimes
violated Graves' rights under Brady. We deny the petition for rehearing in all other respects. We
therefore remand this case t o the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine: (l) the
substance of the alleged statement described above, along with Carter's statement allegedlly
exonerating Graves; (2) whether Graves was aware of these statements or exercised due diligence
to discover these statements; (3) whether the state's failure to disclose these statements was material
to Graves' defense under Brady; and (4) for a determination of whether Graves is entitled to relief
on these claims.
No member of the panel nor judge in regular active service of the court having requested that
the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. And 4th Cir. R. 35), the Petition for
Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
Petition for panel rehearing is DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.
Petition for en banc rehearing is DENIED.
4