Whether the Fifth Circuit and Texas courts improperly applied Barefoot v. Estelle to categorically foreclose claims that unreliable expert testimony on future dangerousness violates the Constitution, and whether the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that the Daubert reliability standard does not apply to expert evidence in capital sentencing hearings

QUESTION PRESENTED In Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), this Court held that the Constitution did not require the categorical exclusion of all expert testimony regarding future dangerousness in a capital case. Yet the Fifth Circuit and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted Barefoot to bar Mr. Coble’s claim that the unreliable testimony of a purported expert on “future dangerousness” violated his federal constitutional rights despite the state court’s holding that the testimony was erroneously admitted under the Texas Rules of Evidence. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993) this Court held that expert testimony must be based on “scientifically valid” methodologies and reasoning. Yet the Fifth Circuit held that the Daubert standard for reliable evidence does not apply to capital sentencing hearings. This case therefore presents the following questions: 1. Have the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals improperly applied Barefoot v. Estelle to categorically foreclose any claim that the admission of unreliable expert testimony in a particular case violates the Constitution? 2. Did the Fifth Circuit improperly hold that expert evidence in sentencing hearings in capital trials is exempt from the normal reliability standards of Daubert and that the Eighth Amendment reliability requirement does not apply to such testimony? Petitioner Billie Wayne Coble respectfully petitions this Court to review the judgment of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. -ii