Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Buck v. Davis

Supreme Court of the United States · 2017 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureCOAcertificate of appealabilityRule 60(b)(6)extraordinary circumstanceshabeas corpusprocedural defaultMartinez v. Ryan

Facts

At the penalty phase of Buck's Texas capital trial, the jury could impose death only if it found Buck likely to commit future acts of violence. Buck's own lawyer called psychologist Dr. Quijano, knowing his report stated that race was a statistical factor in future dangerousness and that being black meant an increased probability of violence; counsel elicited that testimony and introduced the report into evidence. The prosecutor then referred to the same race-based point on cross-examination, and the jury later requested the psychology reports during deliberations before sentencing Buck to death. Buck's ineffective-assistance claim was never heard on the merits because his first state postconviction lawyer failed to raise it, causing procedural default under then-governing law.

Issue

Whether reasonable jurists could debate the denial of Buck's Rule 60(b)(6) motion and his underlying ineffective-assistance claim, so that a certificate of appealability should issue. Relatedly, whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by introducing expert testimony that Buck's race made him more likely to be dangerous in the future, and whether the circumstances justified reopening the federal habeas judgment.

Rule

At the certificate-of-appealability stage, the court asks only whether jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution or conclude the issues deserve encouragement to proceed further; it may not deny a COA only after effectively deciding the merits. Under Strickland, counsel is ineffective when performance falls outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result would have been different. Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is available only in extraordinary circumstances, which may include the risk of injustice to the parties and the risk of undermining public confidence in the judicial process.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal habeas case arising from a death sentence in Georgia, Leon Price files a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to reopen a prior judgment that had dismissed his ineffective-assistance claim as procedurally barred. The district court denies the motion, and the court of appeals reviews Leon's request for a certificate of appealability by writing a 25-page opinion concluding that Leon ultimately cannot prove extraordinary circumstances or prejudice under Strickland.

What is the best assessment of the court of appeals' approach to the certificate-of-appealability request?

Explanation. The governing rule is that the COA inquiry is a threshold one. The appellate court asks whether jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution or conclude the issues deserve encouragement to proceed further. It may not deny a COA only after effectively deciding the merits first. That error is especially clear where the court frames the analysis as whether the prisoner actually proved extraordinary circumstances or actual Strickland prejudice, rather than whether those conclusions are debatable among reasonable jurists. (Derived from Buck v. Davis (2017).)