IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

IN AUSTIN, TEXAS

AND

IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3

IN DALLAS, TEXAS

 

EX PARTE DARLIE LYNN ROUTIER Writ No. W96-39973-J0000000 (Trial Court No. F96-39973-J)

 

FIRST APPLICATION

FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
PURSUANT TO TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 11.071

 

THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE

OF COUNSEL: Michael F. Flanagan, Pro Hac Vice GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC  20036 (202) 955-8500   Rey Rodriguez (SBN 00791557) Richard A. Smith (SBN 24027990) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX  75201 (214) 698-3100	Steven C. Losch (SBN 00789805) 906 Delia Drive Longview, TX 75601 (903) 234-1373
	Counsel for Petitioner Darlie Lynn Routier

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES            vi

INTRODUCTION            1

STATEMENT OF FACTS            3

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF            13

I............ ........... Because Petitioner Is Innocent Of The Crime For Which She Was Convicted, Her Sentence And Conviction Are Unconstitutional Under Schlup v. Delo And Violate The Eighth Amendment And Petitioner’s Federal And State Constitutional Rights To Due Process And A Fundamentally Fair Trial............ 13

A............ Newly Discovered Evidence Supports The Defense’s Theory At Trial That The June 6, 1996, Crime At 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas Was Committed By An Intruder............ 16

1............ A Bloody Fingerprint Lifted From the Glass Table in the Family Room Establishes That an Unknown Adult Was in the Routiers’ Residence on the Morning of June 6, 1996 During or Right After the Attacks............ 17

2............ A Rowlett Woman Returning Home in the Early Morning of June 6, 1996 Observed Two Suspicious Men Walking from the Routier Neighborhood One of Whom Matched Petitioner’s Description of the Assailant............ 18

3............ In the Spring of 1996, Darin Routier Had Intentions to Have His Residence “Hit” to Collect Insurance Proceeds............ 19

B............ Preliminary Analyses by Forensic Experts Have Revealed Physical Evidence Inconsistent With The State’s Circumstantial Case............ 21

1............ Knife Number 4............ 21

2............ Petitioner’s Nightshirt............ 21

3............ Vacuum Cleaner............ 22

4............ Wine Glass............ 22

C............ Petitioner Must Be Given Access to Physical Evidence Not Tested at All or Not Adequately Tested by the State or Defense Counsel to Fully Present Her Claims for Relief............ 22

II............ The Manifestly Defective Reporter’s Record Renders Any Post-Conviction Review Inadequate, Denies Petitioner Her Federal and State Constitutional Rights to Due Process, and Prevents Effective Exercise of Petitioner’s Constitutional and Statutory Rights to Petition This Court for Habeas Corpus Relief............ 24

III............ The Ineffective Assistance of Defense Counsel Deprived Petitioner of Her Federal and State Constitutional Rights to Effective Counsel and a Fundamentally Fair Trial............ 27

A............ Defense Counsel had an Actual Conflict of Interest Under Mickens v. Taylor Because He Was Concurrently Representing Petitioner’s Husband, Darin Routier and as a Condition of His Retention by the Family Agreed to Petitioner’s Detriment not to Implicate Darin Routier............ 27

1............ Defense Counsel’s Attorney-Client Relationship with Darin Routier and Employment Arrangement with the Routier Family Prevented Defense Counsel From Presenting an Effective Defense for Petitioner and From Effectively Cross-Examining Darin Routier at Trial............ 28

2............ Petitioner Did Not Waive Her Right to Conflict-Free Representation of Counsel............ 34

B............ Defense Counsel Failed to Conduct and/or Unreasonably Abandoned its Investigation Into Facts and Evidence Essential to Petitioner’s Defense............ 39

1............ Defense Counsel Failed to Pursue Critical Expert Testimony to Rebut the State’s Scientific Case Against Petitioner............ 40

2............ Defense Counsel Failed to Investigate Evidence Implicating Darin Routier and Thus Did Not Present a Proper Defense for Petitioner............ 53

C............ Defense Counsel Failed to Object to the State Mounting an Unfair Prosecution with Inadmissible Evidence............ 56

1............ The Prosecution Was Allowed to Build its Case for Guilt Substantially on the Basis of Character Evidence............ 58

a............ Propensity Evidence............ 58

b............ Admissions of the Prosecution’s Propensity Evidence Violated Petitioner’s Right to Due Process and Demonstrated that Her Defense Counsel was Ineffective............ 60

2............ The Prosecution Was Allowed to Introduce Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence that Unfairly Prejudiced Petitioner............ 66

3............ The Prosecution Was Allowed to Introduce, Under the Guise of Expert Opinion, Irrelevant Speculation About Petitioner’s Conduct and State of Mind............ 70

a............ Medical Witnesses............ 70

b............ James Cron............ 74

D............ Defense Counsel Failed to Challenge the Constitutionality of the Interrogation of a Sedated Petitioner Confined in her Hospital Bed After Surgery............ 78

E............ Defense Counsel Failed to Object to the State’s Interfering with the Defense’s Access to Witnesses, Which Deprived Petitioner of Her Federal and State Constitutional Rights to Due Process............ 81

F............ Defense Counsel Failed to Offer Evidence from a Secretly Taped Police Video That Would Have Negated a Highly Prejudicial Videotape Offered by the State............ 84

IV............ The Cumulative Effect Of Defense Counsel’s Actions Deprived Petitioner Of Her State And Federal Constitutional Rights To Due Process And A Fundamentally Fair Trial............ 88

V............ Defense Counsel Failed to Challenge Prosecutorial Misconduct At Trial Depriving Petitioner of Her Right to a Fundamentally Fair Trial............ 89

VI............ The State Knowingly Withheld Impeachment Evidence Regarding Two of the State’s Primary Experts In Violation Of Brady v. Maryland and Petitioner’s Constitutional Guarantees To Due Process and a Fundamentally Fair Trial............ 100

A............ The Prosecution Violated Its Duty Under Brady v. Maryland by Failing to Disclose Evidence of Similar Crimes that Would Impeach the Testimony of the State’s Crime Scene Analyst, Special Agent Alan Brantley............ 102

B............ The Prosecution Violated Its Duty Under Brady v. Maryland by Failing to Disclose Known Impeachment Evidence Regarding the History of Mental Illness and Related Employment Problems of the State’s Trace Evidence Analyst, Charles Linch............ 104

1............ The Prosecution Failed to Disclose Charles Linch’s History of Mental Incapacity and Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment for Depression and Alcohol Dependence............ 105

2............ The Prosecution Failed to Disclose That Linch’s Desire for Recognition and Propensity to Testify in High-Profile Capital Murder Cases and Employment Problems at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences Biased His Testimony............ 106

3............ The Prosecution’s Failure to Disclose Evidence Regarding Charles Linch’s Chronic Depression, Alcohol Dependence, and Tenuous Employment Relationship Violated the Prosecution’s Duty Under Brady v. Maryland............ 109

C............ The Prosecution Violated Its Duty Under Brady v. Maryland by Failing to Disclose the Expert Opinion of Psychiatrist Dr. Kenneth Dekleva that Petitioner Would Not Present a Future Danger............ 111

D............ The Multiple Failures of the Prosecution Under Brady v. Maryland Constitute a Material Error that Violated Petitioner’s Right to Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. 1, § 19 of the Texas Constitution............ 113

VII............ The State Failed To Correct The False Testimony of Charles Linch In Violation Of Petitioner’s Federal And State Constitutional Guarantees To Due Process And A Fundamentally Fair Trial............ 113

VIII............ The Cumulative Effect Of The State’s Misconduct Deprived Petitioner Of Her State And Federal Constitutional Rights To Due Process And A Fundamentally Fair Trial............ 116

IX............ The Texas Death Penalty Statute Is Unconstitutional On Its Face And As Applied In Petitioner’s Case............ 118

PRAYER FOR RELIEF            123

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Albrecht v. State, 486 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)..... 59

Atkins v. Virginia, No. 00-8452, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4648 (June 20, 2002)..... 122

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)..... passim

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970)..... 35

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 113 S. Ct. 1710 (1993)..... 60

Brink v. State, No. 14-00-01439-CR, No. 14-00-01440-CR, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 8200 (Tex. App. Dec. 6, 2001)..... 34, 38

Butler v. State, 716 S.W.2d 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)..... passim

Callahan v. United States, 371 F.2d 658 (9th Cir. 1967)..... 81

Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)..... 99

Chessmen v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156 (1957)..... 26

Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)..... 95

Cook v. State, 904 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)..... 101, 116

Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986)..... 90

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)..... 75

Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966)..... 82

Derden v. McNeel, 978 F.2d 1453 (5th Cir. 1992)..... 66

Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974)..... 90

Duffy v. State, 567 S.W.2d 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)..... 96

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995)..... 70

East v. Johnson, 123 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 1997)..... 102

Ex Parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) ..... 114

Ex Parte Brandley, 781 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)..... 1, 95, 116, 117

Ex Parte Castellano, 863 S.W.2d 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)..... 114

Ex Parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)..... 13, 14, 16

Ex Parte Ewing, 570 S.W.2d 941 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)..... 40

Ex Parte Fierro, 934 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)..... 114

Ex Parte Lilly, 656 S.W.2d 490 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983)..... 56

Ex Parte Prejean, 625 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)..... 35

Ex Parte Smith, 561 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)..... 36

Ex Parte Welborn, 785 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)..... 46, 48

Florio v. State, 532 S.W.2d 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)..... 82

Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969)..... 116

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972)..... 119

Garcia v. State, 57 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)..... 27

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)..... 101, 114

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942)..... 34

Gonzales v. State, 685 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)..... 98

Gregory v. United States, 369 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1966)..... 82

Guerra v. Collins, 916 F. Supp. 620 (S.D. Tex. 1995)..... 119

Guidry v. State, 9 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 837 (2000)..... 66

Hardy v. State, 71 S.W.3d 535 (Tex. App. 2002)..... 66

Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)..... 27, 80. 87

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)..... 13, 14, 15, 16

Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978)..... 31, 39

Idaho v. Wright,  497 U.S. 805 (1990)..... 66

Jaubert v. State, No. 0260-01, 0261-01, 0262-01, 0263-01, 0264-01, 2002 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 82 (Tex. Crim. App. April 10, 2002)..... 58

Kines v. Butterworth, 669 F.2d 6 (1st Cir. 1981)..... 81, 82

Koller v. State, 518 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)..... 90, 99

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)..... 102

 

Landrum v. State, 356 S.W.2d 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 1962)..... 36

Linsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir. 1985)..... 114

Loyd v. Whitley, 977 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1992)..... 40, 53

Martinez v. Wainwright, 621 F.2d 184 (5th Cir. 1980)..... 114

McKinney v. Rees, 993 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1993) (Amended June 10, 1993 and reported at 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 9685)..... 60

Menefee v. State, 614 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)..... 92

Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997)..... 77

Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948)..... 59

Mickens v. Taylor, 122 S. Ct. 1237 (2002)..... 27, 39

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978)..... 78, 80

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)..... 56

Muniz v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 1998)..... 78

Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986)..... 16

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)..... 113

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 2d 574 (1997)..... 56

Owens v. State, 827 S.W. 2d 911 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)..... 59

Perillo v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 775 (5th Cir. 2000)..... 28, 30, 31, 32, 34

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)..... 123

Richardson v. State, 744 S.W.2d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), vacated on other grounds, 492 U.S. 914 (1989)..... 110

Rubin v. Gee, No. 01-6411, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 10740 (4th Cir. June 5, 2002)..... 28, 29

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995)..... 14, 15, 16

Sellers v. Estelle, 651 F.2d 1074 (5th Cir. 1981)..... 101

Stahl v. State, 749 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)..... 90

State ex rel. Holmes v. Court of Appeals, 885 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)..... 13, 14

State v. Nkwocha, 31 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. App. 2000)..... 14, 16

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)..... passim

Thomas v. State, 841 S.W.2d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)..... 95, 100

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)..... 122

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)..... passim

United States v. Bontkowski, 865 F.2d 129 (7th Cir. 1989)..... 114

United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984)..... 48

United States v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1975)..... 34, 36, 37, 38

United States v. Greig, 967 F.2d 1018 (5th Cir. 1992)..... 36, 38

United States  v. LeQuire, 943 F.2d 1554 (8th Cir. 1991)..... 99

United States v. Matlock, 491 F.2d 504 (6th Cir. 1974)..... 81

United States v. O’Keefe, 128 F.3d 885 (5th Cir. 1997)..... 114

United