Background
A Texas jury convicted Brittany Marlowe Holberg of capital murder and sentenced her to death for killing 80-year-old A.B. Towery. Holberg admitted killing Towery but claimed self-defense. At trial, jailhouse witness Vicki Kirkpatrick testified that Holberg confessed to details suggesting that she enjoyed the killing and committed it to obtain drug money.
In state postconviction proceedings, Holberg alleged that prosecutors violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose information that could have been used to impeach Kirkpatrick, including her compensated work as a police informant in unrelated cases. The state courts and federal district court denied relief. A divided Fifth Circuit panel later granted habeas relief and vacated Holberg’s conviction and death sentence, but the full court granted rehearing en banc.
The Court’s Holding
The en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying habeas relief because the court was equally divided. The per curiam judgment therefore left the district court’s denial of relief—and, consequently, Holberg’s conviction and death sentence—in place.
Because no position commanded a majority of the en banc court, the judgment did not establish a controlling rationale on whether the state court reasonably rejected Holberg’s Brady claim under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. One group of judges concluded that AEDPA barred relief because fairminded jurists could find the informant evidence immaterial; dissenting judges concluded that suppressing evidence of Kirkpatrick’s compensated relationship with law enforcement undermined confidence in the capital-murder verdict.
Key Takeaways
- An equally divided en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed the federal district court’s denial of Holberg’s habeas petition.
- The earlier panel decision granting Brady relief no longer controls after rehearing en banc.
- The court produced no majority rationale resolving how AEDPA applies to the undisclosed impeachment evidence.
Why It Matters
The judgment preserves Holberg’s capital conviction and death sentence without creating binding en banc precedent on the underlying Brady and AEDPA questions. The division highlights disagreement over when undisclosed evidence of a prosecution witness’s compensated informant work is material and when a state court’s rejection of such a claim is unreasonable under federal habeas review.