Summary of Argument

After finding that youthful offender Terence Andrus received severely inadequate legal representation during his capital sentencing hearing, this Court remanded his case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) to apply the second prong of Strickland v. Washington, 445 U.S. 668 (1984). Andrus v. Texas, 140 S. Ct. 1875 (2020).

The CCA was directed to carefully review all mitigating evidence advanced by habeas counsel, “a tidal wave” of new proof relating to the abuse, neglect, and traumas Terence suffered as a child. Id. at 1887. This included living in a violent and drug-infested environment tainted by child sex abuse, long periods in solitary confinement as a teen, and medical and other maltreatment while at the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) – an agency placed into receivership because of widespread abuse visited upon its child residents.

The CCA was required to meaningfully assess whether a “reasonable probability” exists that one juror might have “struck a different balance regarding Andrus’ moral culpability” if such mitigating information had been presented at his sentencing hearing. See Andrus v. Texas, 140 S. Ct. at 1887 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

The CCA did not do this.

Instead, after criticizing this Court’s analysis and derogating its authority, the CCA side-stepped nearly all the persuasive proof presented by habeas counsel, mischaracterized mitigation evidence it did discuss, and ignored the impact and importance of expert testimony about youth trauma and counter-indicated youth justice practices.

In doing so, the CCA also abandoned decades of precedent from this Court regarding the juvenile justice system as a place of rehabilitation rather than punishment, In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), adolescents as less morally culpable than adults, Miller v Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and youth crime as often resulting from broken homes and systems. See Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115, n.11 (1982).

Moreover, the CCA took on the role of a second prosecutor, doubling down on its commitment to Terence’s execution based on a tragic criminal episode that occurred when he was high on hallucinogenic drugs. All we can know from the CCA’s “analysis” is that it was unmoved by the vast amount of mitigating evidence – not whether at least one juror would have been.

For all these reasons, this Court should grant Petitioner’s request for a fair capital sentencing hearing where he can be represented by competent counsel who understands the importance of mitigation investigation, expert testimony, and presentation of evidence relating to childhood traumas.

Summary of Argument

In Andrus v. Texas (2020), the Supreme Court remanded Andrus's case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) to determine whether his inadequate legal representation during the capital sentencing phase prejudiced the outcome under the second prong of Strickland v. Washington (1984).

The CCA was instructed to meticulously examine the substantial mitigating evidence presented by habeas counsel, which depicted Andrus's childhood marred by abuse, neglect, and trauma. This evidence included his exposure to violence, drug abuse, and sexual exploitation, as well as his prolonged solitary confinement and mistreatment within the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), an institution that had been placed under receivership due to systemic abuse of its young residents.

The CCA was tasked with evaluating whether there existed a "reasonable probability" that even one juror would have reached a different conclusion regarding Andrus's moral culpability had this mitigating evidence been presented during his sentencing hearing.

However, the CCA failed to fulfill this mandate. It criticized the Supreme Court's analysis and undermined its authority. The CCA largely ignored the compelling mitigating evidence, misrepresented the evidence it did consider, and disregarded the significance of expert testimony on youth trauma and ineffective youth justice practices.

Furthermore, the CCA deviated from established Supreme Court precedent that recognizes the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile justice system (In re Gault, 1967), the diminished moral culpability of adolescents (Miller v. Alabama, 2012), and the systemic factors that often contribute to youth crime (Eddings v. Oklahoma, 1982).

Instead, the CCA assumed the role of a prosecutor, emphasizing Andrus's criminal actions while under the influence of hallucinogens. The CCA's analysis merely revealed its own intransigence rather than providing an assessment of whether a juror's verdict might have been influenced by the mitigating evidence.

Therefore, it is imperative that the Supreme Court grant Andrus's petition for a fair capital sentencing hearing, where he can be represented by competent counsel who comprehends the crucial role of mitigation evidence, expert testimony, and the presentation of childhood trauma in determining moral culpability.

Summary of Argument

Terence Andrus was sentenced to death, but his lawyers did a poor job during the sentencing phase of his trial. The Supreme Court sent his case back to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) to see if his lawyers' mistakes made a difference in his sentence.

The CCA was supposed to look at all the evidence that Andrus's new lawyers presented, which showed that he had a terrible childhood. He grew up in a violent home where drugs and sexual abuse were common. He also spent a lot of time in solitary confinement as a teenager and was abused at the Texas Youth Commission, an agency that was shut down because of how badly it treated kids.

The CCA was supposed to decide if there was a "reasonable probability" that at least one juror would have given Andrus a different sentence if they had known about these things. But the CCA didn't do that.

Instead, the CCA criticized the Supreme Court and ignored most of the evidence that Andrus's lawyers presented. They also ignored what experts said about how trauma can affect young people.

The CCA also forgot about what the Supreme Court has said about how young people should be treated in the justice system. The Supreme Court has said that young people are less responsible for their actions than adults and that the justice system should focus on helping them get better, not punishing them.

The CCA also acted like a prosecutor, trying to justify Andrus's execution based on a crime he committed while high on drugs.

Because of all these reasons, Andrus is asking the Supreme Court to give him a new sentencing hearing where he can have a lawyer who understands the importance of looking into and presenting evidence about childhood trauma.

Summary of Argument

Terence Andrus was given a very bad lawyer when he was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court said this and told the Texas court to look at all the things that should have been said in Terence's defense.

Terence had a terrible childhood. He was abused, neglected, and went through a lot of trauma. He lived in a dangerous place with drugs and child abuse. He was also kept alone in a cell for long periods as a teenager. And at the Texas Youth Commission, where he was supposed to get help, he was mistreated.

The Texas court was supposed to think about how these things might have affected Terence and if any of the jurors who sentenced him to death might have decided differently if they had known about them.

But the Texas court didn't do that. Instead, they ignored most of the evidence, gave the wrong information about the evidence they did talk about, and didn't pay attention to what experts said about how trauma affects young people.

The Texas court also forgot that young people are different from adults and that they are more likely to change and get better. They also forgot that kids often do bad things because they come from broken homes and don't have the support they need.

The Texas court even acted like a prosecutor, trying to make Terence look worse instead of giving him a fair chance. They just wanted to make sure he was executed, even though he was high on drugs when he committed the crime.

Terence deserves a new trial where he has a good lawyer who will tell the jury about all the bad things that happened to him. This will help them understand why he did what he did and give him a chance to show that he can change.

Summary of Argument

Terence was given a bad lawyer when he was on trial for a serious crime. The lawyer didn't tell the jury about all the terrible things that happened to Terence when he was a child. Terence was abused, ignored, and hurt a lot. He also spent a lot of time alone in jail when he was a teenager.

The Supreme Court said that Terence's trial wasn't fair and sent his case back to a court in Texas. The Texas court was supposed to look at all the things that happened to Terence and decide if the jury would have given him a different punishment if they had known about them.

But the Texas court didn't do that. They ignored most of what happened to Terence and said that he still deserved to be punished very harshly. They also said that kids should be punished the same as adults, even though we know that kids are different from adults and often do bad things because of problems at home or school.

Terence's lawyers believe that he deserves a new trial where he can have a lawyer who will tell the jury about all the bad things that happened to him. They think that if the jury knows about Terence's past, they might not punish him so harshly.