Whether the Constitution requires a court on habeas review in a capital case to assess cumulatively the prejudice caused by multiple constitutional errors at a criminal trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in a trial that suffered from multiple constitutional errors. Nearly a decade ago, the Fifth Circuit held on petitioner’s federal habeas petition that her trial counsel performed “objectively unreasonably” and denied relief only after deeming it a “close case” whether counsel’s error altered the verdict. In the decisions below, Texas state courts authorized petitioner to file a successive writ and found that the State intentionally suppressed numerous items of Brady evidence, including evidence that a key witness had struck a “deal” with the prosecution in exchange for inculpatory testimony. The Court of Criminal Appeals nonetheless denied relief after finding that the withheld evidence would not have altered the verdict, in part because an effective counsel could have mitigated the Brady harm through crossexamination. The court refused to consider the cumulative prejudice caused by the Brady violations when combined with the already “close case” on prejudice presented by the claim. Federal appellate courts and state high courts are divided over whether the Constitution requires courts on collateral review to assess cumulatively the prejudicial effect of non-defaulted constitutional errors. ii The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Constitution requires a court on habeas review in a capital case to assess cumulatively the prejudice caused by multiple constitutional errors at a criminal trial? 2. Whether the State’s intentional suppression of evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), prejudiced petitioner by itself or in combination with the objectively unreasonable performance of her trial counsel?