Adanandus v. Johnson, 947 F.Supp. 1021 (W.D. Tex., 1996)- 2 -
For the Constitution to be more than merewords, even those accused of capital murder must have competent advocacy against thestrength and resources of government. Thoughfrequently and pejoratively quoted out of context, Dick the Butcher recognized lawyers as protectors of English rights; hence they must bekilled to achieve illegitimate seizure of sovereignty.
Based on the record before it, thisCourt concludes Mr. Hilbig and attorneys DavidWeiner, Julie Pollock and Stephanie BarclayStevens ably fulfilled their professionalresponsibilities to Mr. Adanandus and to the ruleof law which protects all citizens.
Before the Court are the following petitionsand motions: (1) petitioner's second amended petition for federal habeas corpus relief, filedJune 25, 1996,
(2) respondent's answer andmotion for summary judgment, filed September 12, 1995,
(3) petitioner's motion for evidentiaryhearing, filed July 26, 1995,
(4) respondent's pleading opposing petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing, filed September 12, 1995,
(5) petitioner's reply to respondent's oppositionto an evidentiary hearing, filed October 16,1995,
and (6) more than eight thousand pagesof state court records from petitioner's capitalmurder trial, direct appeal, and state habeascorpus proceeding.
Statement of the Case
On January 28, 1988, petitioner DwightDwayne Adanandus shot and killed VernonHanan while committing an armed robbery of the Continental National Bank ["CNB"] in SanAntonio, Texas. Several eyewitnesses testifiedthat bank teller Patricia Martinez began yellingshe had been robbed immediately after petitioner left her window. Vernon Hanan entered the bank lobby, apparently heard the shouts, and lunged at petitioner as petitioner was attempting to exit the bank. The two men wrestled with each other from the bank lobby into the foyer where petitioner pushed Hanan away from himself anddown, pointed his gun at Hanan, and fired thefatal shot. Bank security cameras recordedalmost the entire series of events leading up tothe fatal shooting. There has never been anygenuine dispute as to the operative facts.
Petitioner was indicted in cause no. 88-CR-1454on a charge of capital murder on April 12,1988.
Jury selection in petitioner's state court trial began on March 29, 1989.
The guilt-innocence phase of petitioner's trial began May 1, 1989.
On May 9, 1989, the jury found petitioner guiltyof the offense of capital murder.
The next day,the punishment phase of petitioner's trial began,and two days later, May 12, 1989, the juryreturned its verdict on the punishment specialissues. The trial court sentenced petitioner todeath.
Page 1032Petitioner appealed his conviction andsentence. In an opinion issued June 16, 1993, theTexas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed petitioner's conviction and sentence.
TheUnited States Supreme Court denied petitioner's petition for certiorari on March 21, 1994.
On September 7, 1994, petitioner filed hisinitial application for state habeas corpus relief.
On October 21, 1994, petitioner filedPage 1033an amended application for state habeas corpusrelief.
The state trial court held an evidentiaryhearing on petitioner's state habeas corpusapplication on November 21, 1994. At thehearing, petitioner's counsel introducedextensive medical records relating to petitioner'schildhood head trauma and also testified.
In anOrder issued January 9, 1995, the state trialcourt issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended petitioner's state habeascorpus application be denied.
On February 21,1995, the Texas Court of Criminal Appealsdenied petitioner's state habeas corpusapplication in an unpublished per curiamopinion finding the state trial court's findingsand conclusions were supported by the record