Summary of Argument

The amici curiae defer to the Petitioner’s sub- mission for a comprehensive recitation of the facts. Briefly, as relevant to the amici curiae’s interest, Mr. Andrus is once again before this Court on a writ of ha- beas corpus. After an extensive, eight-day evidentiary hearing that unleashed a “tidal wave” of mitigation ev- idence—a record encompassing 41 full volumes—that was not presented to the sentencing jury, the trial court recommended to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) that relief be granted and Mr. Andrus receive a new sentencing trial. Andrus v. Texas, 140 S. Ct. 1875, 1878–79 (2020) (per curiam).

The CCA disagreed in an unpublished, per cu- riam opinion. Id. at 1878. Mr. Andrus appealed to this Court, which unequivocally held that Mr. Andrus’ trial counsel’s performance fell so far below the objective standard of reasonableness that it was deficient within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Andrus, 140 S. Ct. at 1881–86. This Court remanded the case to the CCA with instructions to determine whether, under the Strickland standard, counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced Mr. Andrus. Id. at 1887.

In a curious act of defiance, the CCA ignored this Court’s instructions. Rather than engage in a robust and genuine Strickland analysis, the CCA focused once again on the record from the underlying trial to the ex- clusion of the habeas record, thereby guaranteeing the same erroneous conclusion that Mr. Andrus was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to locate or present any of the facts that came to light in the eight-day ha- beas hearing. Ex Parte Andrus, 622 S.W.3d 892 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).

The “tidal wave” of mitigation evidence admitted during the habeas proceeding includes substantial de- tails of Mr. Andrus’ upbringing, which—as with many young men in poverty—swept him into the criminal justice system a very young age. The amici curiae ask this Court to view Mr. Andrus’ criminal actions as an adult against the backdrop of his childhood. As a young man, he suffered physical trauma, untreated mental illness, and severe poverty in the then-declining Third Ward in Houston, Texas. His own mother first exposed him to illicit drugs at just six years old. And his forced experience with the rightfully besmirched Texas Youth Commission steered him toward recidivism rather than toward becoming a contributing member of his community.

This background set a young Mr. Andrus into a cycle of incarceration, which, unfortunately, is not unique, especially for children of similar background. Children who grow up in circumstances similar to those confronted by Mr. Andrus frequently return to the criminal justice system, an outcome the amici cu- riae exist to prevent. Had this evidence been presented to the sentencing jury, at least one juror unquestiona- bly would have voted against condemning Mr. Andrus to death.

Summary of Argument

This case involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Mr. Andrus, who was sentenced to death. The case concerns the adequacy of Mr. Andrus' legal representation during his original trial.

During a lengthy evidentiary hearing, a significant amount of mitigating evidence, which was not presented to the original sentencing jury, was introduced. This evidence included details about Mr. Andrus' difficult upbringing, including experiences with poverty, trauma, and untreated mental illness. These circumstances, the amici curiae argue, played a significant role in his subsequent criminal activity.

The amici curiae contend that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) erred in its analysis of the case by focusing on the original trial record instead of the evidence presented during the habeas corpus hearing. They argue that the CCA's approach ignored the importance of the newly discovered mitigating evidence, which they believe would have led to a different outcome for Mr. Andrus.

Summary of Argument

This case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by Mr. Andrus, challenging his death sentence. The Court previously found that Mr. Andrus’ trial counsel’s performance fell below the acceptable standard, but the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) failed to properly assess the prejudice caused by this deficient performance. This amicus curiae brief argues that the CCA erred in its analysis by focusing on the original trial record instead of the substantial mitigation evidence presented during the habeas hearing.

The brief argues that the mitigation evidence, which was not presented at trial, reveals a compelling narrative of Mr. Andrus’ upbringing, characterized by poverty, physical trauma, and mental illness. This evidence suggests that Mr. Andrus’ criminal behavior was a result of these adverse circumstances, highlighting the importance of considering his background during sentencing. The brief contends that if this evidence had been presented to the jury, it is likely that at least one juror would have voted against the death penalty. This amicus curiae brief urges the Court to consider the significant mitigation evidence presented during the habeas hearing and to grant Mr. Andrus a new sentencing trial.

Summary of Argument

This case involves a man named Mr. Andrus who is seeking a new sentencing trial. Mr. Andrus was convicted of a crime and sentenced to death. However, he argues that his lawyer did a poor job representing him.

During a hearing, Mr. Andrus presented a lot of new evidence about his difficult childhood that wasn't shown to the jury during his original trial. This evidence includes information about abuse, mental health problems, and poverty.

The court ruled that Mr. Andrus' lawyer did not adequately represent him. However, a state court refused to grant Mr. Andrus a new sentencing trial, despite the court's ruling. Mr. Andrus is now asking the Supreme Court to overturn the state court's decision.

Summary of Argument

This case is about a man named Mr. Andrus who was sentenced to death. He wants to have his sentence changed.

Mr. Andrus says that his lawyer didn't do a good job representing him at his trial. He had a hearing where a lot of new information about his life was presented. This information showed that Mr. Andrus had a very difficult childhood.

The court said that Mr. Andrus' lawyer didn't do a good job, but the court that sentenced him didn't look at the new information about his life. They only looked at the information from his original trial.

Mr. Andrus wants the court to look at the new information because it shows that he had a hard life and that may have influenced his choices. The people who are supporting Mr. Andrus say that if the jury had known about his difficult childhood, they might not have sentenced him to death.