HOUSTON — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief for Juan Carlos Alvarez, a Texas death row man who argued that ineffective legal representation and unreliable forensic evidence violated his constitutional rights during his capital murder trial.
According to the Fifth Circuit, Alvarez was charged in 1998 with capital murder for his participation in two separate shootings. In the first incident, the court explained that forensic evidence at the crime scene showed bullet casings recovered from the street were fired from Alvarez’s firearm, and Alvarez later confirmed his involvement to police in a videotaped statement.
The court further detailed that in the second incident, both witness testimony and forensic evidence linked Alvarez to the murders. Court records state that witnesses told police they observed Alvarez loading firearms, leaving his residence with the weapons and later returning with blood on his clothing.
The appellate court noted that forensic testing determined some of the blood found on a recovered shotgun at Alvarez’s home matched one of the victims. In a statement to police, Alvarez admitted he drove to the scene with his weapons and acknowledged that gang members planned to murder someone that day.
Court records show that during his trial, Alvarez was represented by defense attorneys Frumencio Reyes, who served as first chair, and John L. Denninger. After reviewing the evidence presented, the jury found Alvarez guilty, and the judge imposed the death penalty.
After sentencing, Alvarez sought habeas corpus relief, challenging his conviction, according to appellate records. A certificate of appealability was granted on three issues: whether Alvarez was denied effective counsel after one of his lawyers allegedly fell asleep during trial; whether counsel failed to offer additional mitigation evidence; and whether DNA evidence presented at trial was tainted.
The appellate record indicates that in May 2008 the state trial court rejected habeas relief, but in 2010 revisited the case after Alvarez persuaded the court to examine claims concerning forensic evidence. In this second state habeas proceeding, Alvarez alleged misconduct by crime lab personnel and prosecutors for introducing what he described as tainted and sloppy DNA evidence at trial.
That application was dismissed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which labeled it an abuse of the writ.
Court records show that in 2011 the petition was amended and a third habeas application was filed, but counsel was unsuccessful in pursuing litigation. In 2014, Alvarez’s counsel again sought habeas relief, arguing that Reyes had slept during parts of the trial.
That application was also dismissed by the TCCA as an abuse of the writ, and in 2017 the district court denied Alvarez all relief, requests for investigative funds and a certificate of appealability.
According to the appellate court, in 2019 Alvarez moved to supplement the appellate record to pursue new claims in state court. In those claims, Reyes attested that he might have slept during portions of the proceedings because he was recovering from a hospital stay beforehand, but the court explained that the state opposed the motion and determined that the claims failed.
The court said the first issue centered on whether Alvarez was entitled to relief under the Sixth Amendment based on allegations that his attorney fell asleep during trial. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, holding that counsel’s alleged absence during a critical stage of proceedings was insufficient under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 to establish a constitutional violation.
On the second issue, the court said Alvarez claimed trial counsel failed to investigate his personal history and mental deficiencies and failed to present them during the punishment phase. The court noted Alvarez submitted an affidavit from a psychologist suggesting it was possible he suffered from brain damage and PTSD.
The district court found that trial counsel had retained an expert psychologist who interviewed Alvarez multiple times and concluded that no mental conditions existed at the time of the murders. Based on that record, the appellate court found no evidence or argument that unsettled the district court’s findings.
On the final issue, the court said Alvarez urged consideration of developments in DNA science. The court emphasized that the allegedly tainted DNA tests were redone by experts retained by Alvarez’s counsel and again showed the victim’s blood on his firearm, undermining claims of misconduct.
In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Richman wrote that “allowing a death sentence to stand in these circumstances undermines not only confidence in the integrity of the trial itself but the public confidence in the judicial system as a whole.”
Court records cited in the dissent indicate that a juror stated Reyes “would do most of his dozing while the prosecutors were questioning their witnesses,” leading Judge Richman to conclude that Reyes was unable to effectively cross-examine prosecution witnesses while asleep during testimony.
The dissent also noted that the judge who presided over Alvarez’s original trial was Judge Larry Fuller, while the presiding judge in the state habeas proceeding was Judge Hazel Jones. As a result, the habeas trial court judge did not have actual knowledge of what occurred at the original trial.
Despite the concerns raised by the dissenting judge, Alvarez and his appellate attorneys regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling leaves Alvarez on death row.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
