Flores v. Holder
The Supreme Court declined to review the death sentence of Duane Buck, a Texas man whose defense lawyer had called an expert witness who testified that Buck's race made him statistically more likely to be dangerous in the future.
Three justices explained that Buck's case was different from others where Texas had agreed similar testimony was improper, because it was Buck's own lawyer, not the prosecutor, who first raised the race issue. Two justices dissented, arguing the record was clouded by misleading statements from the State and that the case deserved further review.
“But the fact remains that the present case is different from all the rest.”
Alito explains why Buck's case was treated differently from others involving the same expert witness.
How it got here: A federal district court denied Buck's habeas petition on procedural grounds and later denied his motions to reopen the case; the Fifth Circuit denied him permission to appeal, and he asked the Supreme Court to review that denial.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Duane Buck was convicted of capital murder in Texas after killing his ex-girlfriend and another person. At his sentencing, a defense-retained psychologist, Dr. Walter Quijano, testified that statistical factors—including Buck's race—made him more likely to be dangerous in the future, though he also testified Buck posed a low risk in prison. The jury sentenced Buck to death based on a finding of future dangerousness.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court have taken up the case of a Texas death row inmate whose own lawyer had introduced testimony linking his race to future dangerousness?
Why it matters
The decision left in place a death sentence in a case where race was explicitly tied to a defendant's likelihood of future violence, even though Texas had confessed error and secured new sentencing hearings in five nearly identical cases. It highlights how procedural rules and a case's specific facts can determine whether courts will revisit a death sentence tainted by racial testimony.
What changes now
Because the Court denied certiorari, Buck's death sentence and the lower courts' rulings remain in place, and the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of his constitutional claims. The case does not set new precedent; it simply leaves the Fifth Circuit's denial of a certificate of appealability intact. Buck's ability to seek further relief in the courts is thus effectively foreclosed absent new legal avenues.
What this does not decide
The statement respecting denial of certiorari does not decide whether Buck's death sentence was constitutional or whether race-based testimony violated his rights. It only explains why three justices thought his case differed procedurally from others where Texas had conceded error, without addressing the underlying fairness of his sentencing.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Sotomayor
“Today the Court denies review of a death sentence marred by racial overtones and a record compromised by misleading remarks and omissions made by the State of Texas in the federal habeas proceedings below.”Sotomayor's core objection to denying review of Buck's death sentence.
Justice Sotomayor argued the Court should have granted review because Buck's death sentence was tainted by racial testimony and because Texas had made misleading statements to the courts about how his case differed from others involving the same expert witness. She contended the distinction the majority relied on — that Buck's lawyer, not the prosecutor, first raised race — was not substantial, since the prosecutor still used the testimony to argue for death. She would have granted a certificate of appealability so the district court could reconsider the case on an accurate record.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Justice Alito's statement examined whether the race-related testimony provided grounds for relief, noting that such relief is typically available when the prosecution — not the defense — introduces testimony that race increases a defendant's dangerousness.
- The statement distinguished Buck's case from six similar cases involving the same expert by identifying who first introduced the race testimony: in four cases the prosecution called the expert directly, and in two others the defense called him but the prosecution elicited the race testimony first on cross-examination.
- Because Buck's own defense counsel was the first to elicit the race-related testimony, on direct examination, the statement concluded that responsibility for introducing the testimony rested with the defense, not the State, making Buck's case legally distinct from the others where Texas had conceded error.
- The statement acknowledged that the State had made inaccurate representations about the other cases during the habeas litigation but concluded the trial court was already aware of the actual facts when it ruled, so the inaccuracies did not undermine the denial of relief.
- Based on this reasoning, the justices found no sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts' rulings and concluded that further Supreme Court review was not warranted.