SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Terence Tramaine Andrus is back on death row because 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 evidence, if developed by competent counsel, could have persuaded one juror to strike a different balance.

The CCA should have answered that question affirmatively. As an expert testified at Mr. Andrus’ habeas hearing, well-established developmental psychology research confirms that severe abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction during childhood can cause lasting neurological, emotional, and behavioral damage. 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 compelling” and not reasonably likely to persuade a single juror 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 concerning 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 numerous 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

Terence Tramaine Andrus has been returned to death row. This occurred because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) determined that new information about his difficult childhood would not likely change any juror's decision about his moral responsibility. This decision goes against previous rulings by the Supreme Court and established principles of developmental psychology.

The Supreme Court previously stated that the harsh details of Mr. Andrus' youth are "strong mitigating evidence." This evidence should have been investigated and presented to the jury by his original lawyer. When the case was sent back to the CCA, the only question was whether this mitigating evidence, if properly presented, could have convinced at least one juror to reach a different conclusion.

The CCA should have answered yes to that question. An expert witness at Mr. Andrus' hearing explained that severe abuse, neglect, and family problems in childhood can cause long-term harm to a person's brain, emotions, and behavior. Records show Mr. Andrus experienced these traumas early in life. However, the CCA dismissed all this evidence as "not particularly compelling" and unlikely to sway any juror against the death penalty. The court reached this conclusion by overlooking much of the evidence presented, including many facts about Mr. Andrus' life and research on how childhood trauma affects development. Even when the CCA acknowledged these mitigating facts, it downplayed their importance, often using reasons that are not supported by science.

The Supreme Court has overturned death sentences in many similar cases, reversing lower court decisions that did not properly consider evidence of a defendant's difficult childhood. Allowing the CCA's ruling to stand would weaken these previous decisions and lessen the seriousness of harm experienced by severely traumatized children. The Supreme Court should review this case and overturn the CCA's judgment.

Summary

Terence Tramaine Andrus remains on death row. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) decided that new information about Mr. Andrus' difficult childhood would not likely change any juror's mind about his moral responsibility. This decision goes against previous rulings by the Supreme Court and established principles of developmental psychology.

The Supreme Court has previously stated that the harsh details of Mr. Andrus' youth are "powerful mitigating evidence." The Court had sent the case back to the CCA to determine if this evidence, if properly presented by his lawyer, could have convinced at least one juror to consider a different outcome.

The CCA should have agreed that such evidence could have made a difference. An expert witness explained during Mr. Andrus' hearing that severe abuse, neglect, and family problems in childhood can cause long-term harm to a person's brain, emotions, and behavior. Mr. Andrus' early life was marked by these traumas. However, the CCA judged all of this evidence as "not particularly compelling" and unlikely to sway a juror away from the death penalty. The CCA's conclusion partly disregarded much of the evidence presented, including details of Mr. Andrus' life and research on how childhood adversity affects development. Even when the CCA recognized some mitigating facts, it downplayed their importance, sometimes using reasons that lack scientific support.

The Supreme Court has overturned death sentences in many similar cases, reversing lower court decisions that did not properly value evidence of a defendant's difficult childhood. Allowing the CCA's current ruling to stand would weaken these past decisions and lessen the seriousness of harm experienced by children who suffer severe trauma. The Supreme Court should review this case and reverse the CCA's judgment.

Summary

Terence Tramaine Andrus is again on death row. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) decided that learning about his difficult childhood would not have changed any juror's mind about his moral responsibility. This decision does not align with past rulings from this Court or common ideas in developmental psychology.

Background

This Court previously stated that the harsh details of Mr. Andrus's youth were "strong evidence" that could reduce his sentence. His lawyer should have looked into and shared this information with the jury. When the case was sent back to the CCA, the only question was whether this evidence, if properly presented, might have convinced one juror to make a different decision.

CCA's Decision

The CCA should have agreed that the evidence could have made a difference. An expert testified that severe childhood abuse, neglect, and family problems can cause lasting harm to the brain, emotions, and behavior. Mr. Andrus's early life included these traumas. However, the CCA called all this evidence "not particularly compelling" and unlikely to sway any juror from choosing the death penalty. The court reached this conclusion by ignoring much of the evidence and research about how childhood trauma affects development. Even when the CCA acknowledged some facts, it downplayed their importance, sometimes for reasons not supported by science.

Precedent and Request

This Court has often overturned death sentences in similar situations where lower courts undervalued evidence of a defendant's difficult childhood. Allowing the CCA's current ruling to stand would weaken these past decisions and lessen the importance of the harm suffered by severely traumatized children. This Court should review the case and reverse the CCA's judgment.

Summary

Terence Tramaine Andrus is again facing the death penalty. This happened because a court in Texas decided that new information about his very hard childhood would not change any juror's mind. This decision does not match what the highest court has said before, nor does it match what experts know about how children grow.

The highest court has already said that the sad facts of Mr. Andrus's youth are very important reasons to lessen his punishment. That court sent the case back to the Texas court. It asked if there was a good chance that just one juror might have voted differently if they had known all the information about his difficult past.

The Texas court should have said yes. An expert explained that tough times as a child, like abuse or not being cared for, can harm a person's brain, feelings, and behavior for a long time. Mr. Andrus's early life was full of such problems. But the Texas court said this information was "not very strong" and would likely not change any juror's vote against the death penalty. It did this by not looking at all the evidence, including many sad facts about Mr. Andrus's life and what experts say about hard childhoods. Even when the court did look at some facts, it said they were not important, sometimes for reasons that are not supported by science.

The highest court has stopped death sentences in many similar cases. It has disagreed with lower courts that did not give enough weight to evidence of a person's hard childhood. Letting the Texas court's decision stand would go against these past rulings. It would also make less important the harm that very troubled children experience. The highest court should hear this case and overturn the Texas court's decision.