In a critical ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the conviction and death sentence of Brittany Marlowe Holberg, a Texas woman who has spent 27 years on death row.
The court found that the State of Texas violated her due process rights by withholding exculpatory impeachment evidence regarding a key prosecution witness—violating the constitutional protections established under Brady v. Maryland.
Holberg was convicted in 1998 for the 1996 killing of A.B. Towery Sr., an 80-year-old Amarillo man, in what the prosecution framed as a robbery-motivated murder. However, Holberg has consistently maintained that she acted in self-defense after Towery attacked her.
A major issue in Holberg’s trial was the testimony of Vickie Marie Kirkpatrick, a fellow jailhouse detainee, who claimed Holberg boasted about the murder and described it as “fun and amazing.” The prosecution heavily relied on this testimony to undermine Holberg’s self-defense claim and portray her as remorseless.
The Fifth Circuit found that the State had failed to disclose that Kirkpatrick was a longtime paid confidential informant for the Amarillo police. This evidence, which should have been disclosed to Holberg’s defense under Brady, the court ruled would have cast serious doubt on Kirkpatrick’s credibility.
The ruling noted that Kirkpatrick was actively working as a police informant at the time she was placed in Holberg’s cell. She had received thousands of dollars in payments from law enforcement for her informant work.
Morver, the court ruled that the State held leverage over her, as Kirkpatrick had pending criminal charges that prosecutors later helped dismiss.The prosecution falsely presented Kirkpatrick as a neutral, credible witness with no incentives for testifying.
Holberg’s defense was never given the chance to expose Kirkpatrick’s potential biases, significantly impacting her right to a fair trial.
The majority opinion, written by Judge Patrick Higginbotham, was scathing in its critique of the prosecution’s actions. The ruling emphasized that withholding impeachment evidence violates fundamental constitutional protections: “The State’s intentional nondisclosure of Kirkpatrick’s informant status strikes at the heart of the jury’s conviction, and most assuredly its sentence of death.”
The court ruled that this violated Brady, which requires the government to disclose evidence that is material to guilt or punishment. In Holberg’s case, the failure to disclose Kirkpatrick’s status was clearly material, as her testimony played a central role in securing both Holberg’s conviction and her death sentence.
“This is a showcase of the State’s failure to abide by a core structure of prosecution: the Brady doctrine,” the court writes.
The court also found that Kirkpatrick’s discredited testimony may have swayed the jury to impose the death penalty. Texas law requires jurors to determine whether a defendant poses a “continuing threat to society” before sentencing them to death.
Kirkpatrick’s statements about Holberg relishing the killing were key in convincing the jury that she was dangerous.
The prosecution relied heavily on Kirkpatrick’s testimony to argue that Holberg showed no remorse and would be violent in the future.
However, the court found that if the jury had known Kirkpatrick was a paid informant with incentives to exaggerate or fabricate testimony, at least one juror may have voted against the death penalty, preventing a unanimous death sentence.
Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan dissented, arguing that the conviction should not have been overturned. In his dissent, he wrote: “Holberg admitted to stabbing Towery 58 times, bludgeoning him with multiple objects, and ramming a lamp down his throat. There is no reasonable probability that impeachment of Kirkpatrick would have changed the outcome.”
Duncan contended that the physical evidence against Holberg was overwhelming, making Kirkpatrick’s testimony less consequential to the jury’s verdict.
With Holberg’s conviction and death sentence vacated, her case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Texas authorities must now decide whether to retry Holberg, negotiate a plea deal, or possibly drop the charges altogether.
