Summary of Argument

Terence Tramaine Andrus is back on death row be- cause the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) concluded there was no reasonable probability that even one juror would assess his moral culpability differently after learning about his pervasive and severe adverse childhood experiences. That conclusion is irreconcilable with this Court’s precedents and well-accepted tenets of developmental psychology.

This Court has already held that “the grim facts” of Mr. Andrus’ youth are “powerful mitigating evidence” that his trial counsel should have investigated and presented to the jury. Andrus v. Texas, 140 S. Ct. 1875, 1878, 1883 (2020). In remanding the case to the CCA, the Court left open a single question: whether there was a reasonable probability that the mitigating evi- dence, if developed by competent counsel, could have persuaded one juror to strike a different balance.

The CCA should have answered that question af- firmatively. As an expert testified at Mr. Andrus’ ha- beas hearing, well-established developmental psychol- ogy research confirms that severe abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction during childhood can cause lasting neurological, emotional, and behavioral dam- age. The record shows that Mr. Andrus’ early life was filled with these traumas. Yet, the CCA dismissed the totality of this evidence as “not particularly compel- ling” and not reasonably likely to persuade a single ju- ror not to vote for the death penalty. Ex parte Andrus, 622 S.W.3d 892, 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). It reached this conclusion in part by ignoring much of the habeas record, including many mitigating facts of Mr. Andrus’ life and developmental psychology research concern- ing adverse childhood experiences. Even when the CCA acknowledged mitigating facts, it minimized their significance, often for scientifically discredited reasons.

This Court has vacated death sentences in numer- ous similar cases, reversing the decisions of lower courts that improperly discounted evidence of a defendant’s adverse childhood experiences. Allowing the CCA’s ruling to stand would undercut this precedent and trivialize the harm suffered by severely traumatized children. This Court should grant certiorari and reverse the CCA’s judgment.

Summary of Argument

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) has reinstated the death penalty for Terence Tramaine Andrus. The court decided that evidence of Mr. Andrus' severe childhood trauma would not have swayed any juror to vote against the death penalty. This decision conflicts with previous rulings by the Supreme Court and well-established principles of developmental psychology.

The Supreme Court previously recognized the significant mitigating value of Mr. Andrus' childhood experiences and remanded the case to the CCA. The sole question was whether this evidence could have influenced even one juror to reconsider the death penalty. The CCA determined that it would not, minimizing the significance of the evidence and dismissing the research on adverse childhood experiences.

The CCA's decision disregards a substantial body of research demonstrating that severe childhood trauma can have lasting and profound negative effects on individuals. Moreover, it conflicts with numerous Supreme Court decisions that have overturned lower court rulings that improperly discounted the impact of childhood trauma on defendants. By upholding the CCA's decision, the Supreme Court would undermine its own precedents and trivialize the harm caused by severe childhood trauma. Therefore, the Court should grant certiorari and overturn the CCA's decision.

Summary of Argument

Terence Tramaine Andrus remains on death row due to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ("CCA") decision that there is no reasonable possibility that a single juror would evaluate his moral responsibility differently after knowing about his significant and ongoing adverse childhood experiences. This conclusion conflicts with Supreme Court precedents and well-established principles of developmental psychology.

The Supreme Court previously declared that the "grim facts" of Mr. Andrus' early life constitute "powerful mitigating evidence" that his trial lawyer should have investigated and presented to the jury. Andrus v. Texas, 140 S. Ct. 1875, 1878, 1883 (2020). Upon returning the case to the CCA, the Court left one specific question unanswered: whether there was a reasonable probability that the mitigating evidence, if investigated by competent counsel, could have persuaded a single juror to make a different decision.

The CCA should have responded affirmatively to this question. As an expert testified during Mr. Andrus' habeas hearing, well-documented research in developmental psychology confirms that severe abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction during childhood can lead to long-term neurological, emotional, and behavioral consequences. The record reveals that Mr. Andrus' childhood was deeply impacted by these traumatic experiences. However, the CCA disregarded the totality of this evidence as "not particularly compelling" and unlikely to persuade a single juror to vote against the death penalty. Ex parte Andrus, 622 S.W.3d 892, 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). This conclusion was reached, in part, by ignoring much of the habeas record, including significant mitigating facts from Mr. Andrus' life and research in developmental psychology concerning adverse childhood experiences. Even when acknowledging mitigating facts, the CCA downplayed their significance, often citing scientifically discredited reasons.

The Supreme Court has overturned death sentences in numerous similar cases, overruling lower courts that inappropriately dismissed evidence of a defendant's adverse childhood experiences. Allowing the CCA's decision to stand would undermine this precedent and trivialize the harm experienced by severely traumatized children. The Supreme Court should grant certiorari and overturn the CCA's ruling.

Summary of Argument

Terence Tramaine Andrus is back on death row because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) decided that learning about his difficult childhood wouldn't change any juror's opinion about his guilt. This decision contradicts previous rulings by the Supreme Court and established knowledge in developmental psychology.

The Supreme Court has already recognized that the harsh realities of Mr. Andrus' youth represent strong evidence that his lawyers should have investigated and presented to the jury. The Court sent the case back to the CCA to determine if there was a good chance that this evidence could have persuaded a juror to decide against the death penalty.

The CCA should have answered yes. Experts in developmental psychology confirm that severe abuse, neglect, and family problems during childhood can have lasting effects on the brain, emotions, and behavior. Mr. Andrus' early life was filled with these traumas. However, the CCA dismissed the evidence, saying it wasn't convincing enough to change a juror's vote. They ignored much of the evidence, including details about Mr. Andrus' life and scientific research about childhood experiences. Even when they acknowledged some things, they downplayed their importance, often using outdated ideas.

The Supreme Court has overturned death sentences in similar cases where lower courts ignored evidence of a defendant's difficult childhood. Allowing the CCA's ruling to stand would weaken these precedents and disregard the serious harm experienced by children who go through trauma. The Supreme Court should review the case and overturn the CCA's decision.

Summary of Argument

A person named Terence Andrus is back on death row because a court in Texas said there’s no good reason to think even one jury member would change their mind about his punishment after learning about his tough childhood. This decision is wrong because it doesn't follow what other courts have said and doesn't make sense according to what scientists know about how kids develop.

Courts have already said that Andrus’s bad experiences as a child are really important things that his lawyers should have looked into and told the jury about. The court sent the case back to the Texas court to decide if there’s a good chance the jury would have thought differently about his punishment if his lawyers had talked about his childhood.

The Texas court should have said “yes.” Experts on how kids grow up said that being abused, neglected, and living in a troubled family can really hurt a child’s brain, feelings, and behavior. Andrus had all these problems in his childhood. But the Texas court said this evidence wasn't important enough to change anyone’s mind about the death penalty. They also ignored many important details about Andrus’s life and what scientists say about how bad childhood experiences affect people. They even made excuses for why they didn't think the bad things in his childhood were important.

Other courts have stopped death sentences in similar cases when lower courts didn’t think the defendant’s childhood was important. If the Texas court’s decision stands, it will make all those other court decisions less important and make light of how bad things are for kids who have been hurt a lot. The main court should step in and say that the Texas court was wrong.