satterwhite
texas
argued
december
decided
may
petitioner
charged
capital
crime
murder
committed
robbery
represented
counsel
subjected
examination
psychologist
determine
competency
stand
trial
sanity
time
offense
future
dangerousness
petitioner
served
copies
state
motion
examination
order
petitioner
later
indicted
counsel
appointed
represent
arraigned
district
attorney
without
serving
copy
motion
defense
counsel
requested
second
psychiatric
evaluation
petitioner
matters
without
determining
whether
defense
counsel
notified
state
motion
trial
granted
motion
ordered
examination
psychologist
specified
psychiatrist
later
letter
another
psychiatrist
grigson
appeared
file
stating
pursuant
order
examined
petitioner
concluded
petitioner
severe
antisocial
personality
disorder
extremely
dangerous
commit
future
acts
violence
petitioner
tried
jury
convicted
capital
murder
separate
sentencing
procedure
conducted
accordance
texas
law
jury
appearing
witness
state
grigson
testified
defense
counsel
objection
opinion
petitioner
presented
continuing
threat
society
acts
criminal
violence
jury
answered
affirmatively
special
verdict
questions
whether
state
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
defendant
conduct
causing
death
committed
deliberately
reasonable
expectation
victim
death
result
probability
defendant
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
required
state
law
sentenced
petitioner
death
petitioner
appeal
death
sentence
texas
criminal
appeals
held
admission
grigson
testimony
violated
sixth
amendment
right
recognized
estelle
smith
defendant
formally
charged
capital
crime
consult
counsel
submitting
psychiatric
examination
designed
determine
future
dangerousness
however
concluded
constitutional
violation
subject
harmless
error
analysis
error
harmless
case
held
use
capital
sentencing
proceeding
grigson
testimony
issue
future
dangerousness
violated
sixth
amendment
criminal
appeals
properly
determined
compliance
sixth
amendment
requirement
set
estelle
smith
defense
counsel
given
advance
notice
psychiatric
examination
encompassing
issue
future
dangerousness
petitioner
right
counsel
attached
time
grigson
examined
jail
record
support
state
contention
various
ex
parte
motions
orders
contained
file
provided
defense
counsel
notice
examination
encompassing
issue
petitioner
future
dangerousness
take
place
moreover
even
ex
parte
orders
filings
timely
applicable
grigson
examination
adequately
notify
defense
counsel
grigson
examine
petitioner
assess
future
dangerousness
constructive
notice
defense
counsel
achieved
mere
placement
state
motions
ex
parte
orders
file
satisfy
sixth
amendment
pp
harmless
error
rule
set
forth
chapman
california
held
prosecution
prove
beyond
reasonable
doubt
constitutional
error
contribute
verdict
error
harmless
verdict
may
stand
applies
admission
psychiatric
testimony
violation
sixth
amendment
right
set
estelle
smith
constitutional
violations
including
sixth
amendment
violations
pervade
entire
criminal
proceeding
nature
cast
much
doubt
fairness
trial
process
matter
law
never
considered
harmless
however
effect
sixth
amendment
violation
case
limited
admission
evidence
grigson
testimony
important
avoid
error
capital
sentencing
proceedings
moreover
evaluation
consequences
error
sentencing
phase
capital
case
may
difficult
discretion
given
sentencer
nevertheless
reviewing
make
intelligent
judgment
whether
erroneous
admission
psychiatric
testimony
might
affected
capital
sentencing
jury
pp
criminal
appeals
improperly
held
erroneous
admission
grigson
testimony
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
concluded
admission
testimony
critical
issue
future
dangerousness
probability
must
found
death
sentence
may
imposed
texas
law
harmless
legally
admitted
evidence
sufficient
support
jury
finding
future
dangerousness
however
chapman
harmless
error
test
controlling
question
whether
state
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
error
complained
contribute
verdict
obtained
upon
reviewing
evidence
sentencing
hearing
finds
impossible
say
beyond
reasonable
doubt
grigson
expert
testimony
issue
petitioner
future
dangerousness
influence
sentencing
jury
pp
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
stevens
scalia
joined
marshall
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
brennan
joined
part
ii
blackmun
joined
post
blackmun
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
post
kennedy
took
part
consideration
decision
case
richard
woods
appointment
argued
cause
petitioner
brief
stephen
takas
charles
palmer
assistant
attorney
general
texas
argued
cause
respondent
brief
jim
mattox
attorney
general
scott
mccown
paula
offenhauser
assistant
attorneys
general
mary
keller
executive
assistant
attorney
julius
chambers
joel
berger
anthony
amsterdam
filed
brief
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
justice
delivered
opinion
estelle
smith
recognized
defendants
formally
charged
capital
crimes
sixth
amendment
right
consult
counsel
submitting
psychiatric
examinations
designed
determine
future
dangerousness
question
case
whether
harmless
error
introduce
psychiatric
testimony
obtained
violation
safeguard
capital
sentencing
proceeding
march
petitioner
john
satterwhite
charged
capital
crime
murdering
mary
francis
davis
robbery
next
day
satterwhite
represented
counsel
presiding
district
judge
granted
state
request
psychological
examination
determine
satterwhite
competency
stand
trial
sanity
time
offense
future
dangerousness
record
though
state
motion
order
placed
filed
satterwhite
served
copies
either
psychologist
betty
lou
schroeder
examined
satterwhite
pursuant
order
satterwhite
indicted
april
trial
appointed
counsel
represent
sent
copy
appointment
letter
bexar
county
district
attorney
app
satterwhite
arraigned
april
april
district
attorney
filed
second
motion
requesting
psychiatric
evaluation
satterwhite
competency
stand
trial
sanity
time
crime
future
dangerousness
app
district
attorney
serve
defense
counsel
copy
motion
next
day
without
determining
whether
defense
counsel
notified
state
motion
trial
granted
motion
ordered
sheriff
produce
satterwhite
examination
psychologist
betty
lou
schroeder
psychiatrist
john
holbrook
record
reveal
order
placed
file
may
letter
trial
psychiatrist
james
grigson
appeared
file
grigson
wrote
pursuant
order
examined
satterwhite
may
bexar
county
jail
reported
opinion
satterwhite
severe
antisocial
personality
disorder
extremely
dangerous
commit
future
acts
violence
app
satterwhite
tried
jury
convicted
capital
murder
accordance
texas
law
separate
proceeding
conducted
jury
determine
whether
sentenced
death
life
imprisonment
see
tex
code
crim
proc
art
vernon
supp
state
produced
grigson
witness
support
case
death
penalty
defense
counsel
objection
grigson
testified
opinion
satterwhite
presented
continuing
threat
society
acts
criminal
violence
conclusion
evidence
instructed
jury
decide
whether
state
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
conduct
defendant
caused
death
committed
deliberately
reasonable
expectation
death
victim
result
probability
defendant
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
app
texas
law
provides
jury
returns
affirmative
findings
special
verdict
questions
shall
sentence
defendant
death
tex
code
crim
proc
art
vernon
supp
jury
answered
questions
affirmatively
trial
sentenced
satterwhite
death
satterwhite
appealed
death
sentence
arguing
admission
grigson
testimony
violated
sixth
amendment
right
assistance
counsel
recognized
estelle
smith
supra
texas
criminal
appeals
agreed
concluded
error
harmless
average
jury
found
properly
admitted
evidence
sufficient
sentence
satterwhite
death
acknowledged
holding
sixth
amendment
violation
tainting
entire
criminal
proceeding
never
considered
harmless
holloway
arkansas
reasoned
per
se
rule
reversal
inappropriate
error
relates
admission
particular
evidence
granted
certiorari
decide
whether
harmless
error
analysis
applies
violations
sixth
amendment
right
set
estelle
smith
ii
controversy
estelle
smith
supra
also
centered
expert
testimony
james
grigson
case
grigson
appeared
witness
state
capital
sentencing
proceeding
testified
defendant
severe
sociopath
continue
commit
violent
crimes
future
based
testimony
upon
psychiatric
examination
defendant
conducted
pursuant
order
problem
case
defense
counsel
given
advance
notice
grigson
psychiatric
examination
encompassing
issue
client
future
dangerousness
take
place
recognized
defendant
charged
capital
crime
decision
whether
submit
psychiatric
examination
designed
determine
future
dangerousness
literally
life
death
matter
defendant
required
face
without
guiding
hand
counsel
quoting
smith
estelle
powell
alabama
held
defense
counsel
must
given
advance
notice
examination
texas
criminal
appeals
determined
sixth
amendment
notice
requirement
set
estelle
smith
met
case
agree
since
satterwhite
indictment
arraignment
appointment
counsel
occurred
grigson
examined
bexar
county
jail
clear
sixth
amendment
right
counsel
attached
time
see
estelle
kirby
illinois
state
contest
lower
finding
satterwhite
waive
right
consult
attorney
participating
psychiatric
examination
state
contends
however
various
ex
parte
motions
orders
contained
file
provided
defense
counsel
notice
examination
encompassing
issue
client
future
dangerousness
take
place
note
preliminarily
applicability
timing
filings
disputed
record
contain
order
authorizing
grigson
examine
satterwhite
already
noted
unclear
whether
april
order
appointing
drs
schroeder
holbrook
placed
file
grigson
performed
examination
see
supra
yet
even
ex
parte
orders
filings
timely
applicable
grigson
examination
agree
texas
criminal
appeals
adequately
notify
defense
counsel
grigson
examine
defendant
assess
future
dangerousness
criminal
appeals
find
defense
counsel
actual
knowledge
motion
order
psychiatric
examination
state
cited
authority
proposition
constructive
notice
defense
counsel
achieved
mere
placement
state
motions
ex
parte
orders
file
satisfies
sixth
amendment
hold
accordingly
like
texas
criminal
appeals
conclude
use
grigson
testimony
capital
sentencing
proceeding
issue
future
dangerousness
violated
sixth
amendment
conclusion
end
inquiry
constitutional
violations
amount
reversible
error
generally
held
prosecution
prove
beyond
reasonable
doubt
constitutional
error
contribute
verdict
error
harmless
verdict
may
stand
chapman
california
harmless
error
rule
promotes
public
respect
criminal
process
focusing
underlying
fairness
trial
rather
virtually
inevitable
presence
immaterial
error
rose
clark
quoting
delaware
van
arsdall
constitutional
violations
however
nature
cast
much
doubt
fairness
trial
process
matter
law
never
considered
harmless
sixth
amendment
violations
pervade
entire
proceeding
fall
within
category
see
holloway
arkansas
conflict
interest
representation
throughout
entire
proceeding
chapman
supra
citing
gideon
wainwright
total
deprivation
counsel
throughout
entire
proceeding
white
maryland
absence
counsel
arraignment
proceeding
affected
entire
trial
defenses
asserted
irretrievably
lost
hamilton
alabama
since
scope
violation
deprivation
right
representation
discerned
record
inquiry
effect
outcome
case
purely
speculative
explained
holloway
normal
case
rule
applied
error
occurs
trial
scope
readily
identifiable
accordingly
reviewing
undertake
confidence
relatively
narrow
task
assessing
likelihood
error
materially
affected
deliberations
jury
case
joint
representation
conflicting
interests
evil
bears
repeating
advocate
finds
compelled
refrain
trial
also
possible
pretrial
plea
negotiations
sentencing
process
thus
inquiry
claim
harmless
error
require
unlike
cases
unguided
speculation
citations
omitted
important
avoid
error
capital
sentencing
proceedings
moreover
evaluation
consequences
error
sentencing
phase
capital
case
may
difficult
discretion
given
sentencer
nevertheless
believe
reviewing
make
intelligent
judgment
whether
erroneous
admission
psychiatric
testimony
might
affected
capital
sentencing
jury
accordingly
hold
chapman
harmless
error
rule
applies
admission
psychiatric
testimony
violation
sixth
amendment
right
set
estelle
smith
iii
applying
chapman
harmless
error
test
agree
criminal
appeals
erroneous
admission
grigson
testimony
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
texas
sentence
defendant
death
prosecution
convinces
jury
beyond
reasonable
doubt
probability
defendant
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
tex
code
crim
proc
art
vernon
supp
criminal
appeals
thought
admission
grigson
expert
testimony
critical
issue
harmless
properly
admitted
evidence
minds
average
jury
found
state
case
future
dangerousness
sufficient
even
grigson
testimony
admitted
question
however
whether
legally
admitted
evidence
sufficient
support
death
sentence
assume
rather
whether
state
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
error
complained
contribute
verdict
obtained
chapman
evidence
introduced
sentencing
showed
addition
conviction
case
satterwhite
four
prior
convictions
crimes
ranging
aggravated
assault
armed
robbery
eight
police
officers
testified
satterwhite
reputation
peaceful
citizen
bad
satterwhite
mother
former
husband
testified
satterwhite
shot
argument
state
also
introduced
testimony
bexar
county
psychologist
betty
lou
schroeder
schroeder
testified
found
satterwhite
cunning
individual
user
people
inability
feel
empathy
guilt
testified
opinion
satterwhite
continuing
threat
society
acts
criminal
violence
app
grigson
state
final
witness
testimony
stands
qualifications
medical
doctor
specializing
psychiatry
powerful
content
message
grigson
licensed
physician
take
stand
informed
jury
educational
background
experience
included
teaching
psychiatry
dallas
medical
school
practicing
psychiatry
years
stated
unequivocably
expert
opinion
satterwhite
present
continuing
threat
society
continuing
acts
violence
explained
satterwhite
lack
conscience
severe
sociopath
illustrate
point
testified
scale
ones
mild
sociopaths
tens
individuals
complete
disregard
human
life
satterwhite
ten
plus
grigson
concluded
testimony
direct
examination
perhaps
devastating
opinion
told
jury
satterwhite
beyond
reach
psychiatric
rehabilitation
district
attorney
highlighted
grigson
credentials
conclusions
closing
argument
doctor
james
grigson
dallas
psychiatrist
medical
doctor
tells
range
ten
plus
severe
sociopath
extremely
dangerous
continuing
threat
society
cured
well
disease
illness
personality
john
satterwhite
record
ordered
footnotes
state
points
following
documents
record
state
march
motion
psychological
examination
app
march
order
granting
motion
appointing
betty
lou
schroeder
examine
satterwhite
state
april
motion
psychiatric
examination
conducted
drs
holbrook
schroeder
april
order
granting
motion
satterwhite
contends
schroeder
testimony
also
admitted
violation
estelle
smith
texas
criminal
appeals
explicitly
noted
claim
raised
trial
appeal
decline
consider
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
joins
justice
blackmun
joins
part
ii
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
agree
psychiatric
examination
grigson
testified
capital
sentencing
proceeding
bald
violation
estelle
smith
petitioner
death
sentence
vacated
write
separately
believe
errs
applying
analysis
sixth
amendment
violation
view
unique
nature
capital
sentencing
determination
cause
especially
hesitant
ever
sanction
review
constitutional
errors
taint
capital
sentencing
proceedings
even
certain
constitutional
errors
might
properly
subject
analysis
violation
estelle
smith
error
today
ruling
never
applied
analysis
constitutional
violations
taint
sentencing
phase
capital
trial
deciding
apply
analysis
sixth
amendment
violation
case
believe
fails
adequately
consider
unique
nature
capital
sentencing
proceeding
sentencer
decision
whether
defendant
live
die
analysis
also
flawed
fails
accord
noticeable
weight
qualitative
difference
death
punishments
unlike
determination
guilt
innocence
turns
largely
evaluation
objective
facts
question
whether
death
appropriate
sentence
requires
profoundly
moral
evaluation
defendant
character
crime
see
california
brown
concurring
death
sentence
reflect
reasoned
moral
response
defendant
background
character
crime
enmund
florida
capital
defendant
punishment
must
tailored
personal
responsibility
moral
guilt
moreover
although
much
capital
jurisprudence
since
furman
georgia
focused
guiding
channeling
decision
whether
death
appropriate
sentence
specific
case
sentencer
nonetheless
afforded
substantial
discretion
see
mccleskey
kemp
woodson
north
carolina
even
face
overwhelming
aggravating
evidence
sentencer
discretion
act
leniency
refuse
impose
death
sentence
see
mccleskey
supra
iscretionary
exercises
leniency
sentencer
final
unreviewable
moral
character
capital
sentencing
determination
substantial
discretion
placed
hands
sentencer
predicting
reaction
sentencer
proceeding
untainted
constitutional
error
basis
cold
record
dangerously
speculative
enterprise
recognized
caldwell
mississippi
hatever
intangibles
jury
might
consider
sentencing
determination
gleaned
appellate
record
vein
appellate
ill
equipped
evaluate
effect
constitutional
error
sentencing
determination
sentencing
judgments
even
guided
channeled
inherently
subjective
weight
sentencer
gives
instruction
significant
piece
evidence
later
determined
violate
defendant
constitutional
rights
nowhere
apparent
record
mccleskey
kemp
supra
acknowledged
ndividual
jurors
bring
deliberations
qualities
human
nature
varieties
human
experience
range
unknown
perhaps
unknowable
collective
judgment
appropriate
sentence
marked
inherent
lack
predictability
quoting
peters
kiff
opinion
marshall
threat
erroneous
determination
thus
looms
much
larger
capital
sentencing
context
elsewhere
threat
particular
concern
unique
nature
death
sentence
awesome
severity
sentence
death
makes
qualitatively
different
sanctions
see
lockett
ohio
plurality
opinion
reason
emphasized
greater
need
reliability
capital
cases
required
capital
proceedings
policed
stages
especially
vigilant
concern
procedural
fairness
accuracy
factfinding
strickland
washington
brennan
concurring
part
dissenting
part
see
california
ramos
qualitative
difference
death
punishments
requires
correspondingly
greater
degree
scrutiny
capital
sentencing
determination
heightened
concern
reliability
ime
condemned
procedures
capital
cases
might
completely
acceptable
ordinary
case
barefoot
estelle
marshall
dissenting
analysis
impinges
directly
reliability
capital
sentencing
decision
allowing
substitute
judgment
sentencer
done
absence
constitutional
error
actual
judgment
sentencer
untainted
constitutional
error
therefore
serious
doubts
whether
constitutional
error
infects
sentencing
phase
capital
case
ever
may
considered
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
even
agree
analysis
appropriate
certain
constitutional
errors
sentencing
phase
situation
presented
error
violation
sixth
amendment
estelle
smith
ii
initial
matter
estelle
smith
gave
hint
analysis
ever
apply
admission
psychiatric
testimony
capital
sentencing
proceeding
based
examination
defendant
conducted
violation
sixth
amendment
right
counsel
finding
constitutional
error
simply
vacated
death
sentence
see
failure
engage
analysis
smith
understandable
factors
traditionally
focused
determine
whether
review
appropriate
make
clear
estelle
smith
violation
taints
capital
sentencing
proceeding
lead
automatic
reversal
first
potential
actual
prejudice
resulting
violation
smith
high
inquiry
prejudice
worth
cost
strickland
washington
supra
evidenced
case
psychiatric
testimony
generally
critical
importance
sentencing
determination
covering
issues
rehabilitative
potential
future
dangerousness
individual
culpability
moreover
psychiatric
testimony
issues
clothed
scientific
authority
often
carries
great
weight
lay
juries
cf
ake
oklahoma
recognizing
pivotal
role
psychiatry
come
play
criminal
proceedings
second
difficult
impossible
accurately
measure
degree
prejudice
arising
failure
notify
defense
counsel
impending
psychiatric
examination
subsequent
admission
sentencing
phase
evidence
acquired
examination
cf
hamilton
alabama
rejecting
analysis
degree
prejudice
never
known
holloway
arkansas
inquiry
claim
harmless
error
case
involving
defense
counsel
conflict
interests
require
unlike
cases
unguided
speculation
discussed
decision
whether
defendant
live
die
discretionary
moral
judgment
involving
balancing
often
intangible
factors
divining
effect
psychiatric
testimony
sentencer
determination
whether
death
appropriate
sentence
thus
province
soothsayers
appellate
judges
addition
contrary
claim
see
ante
prejudice
arising
estelle
smith
violation
limited
illegal
admission
psychiatric
testimony
defense
counsel
properly
notified
smith
state
intention
perform
psychiatric
examination
course
subsequent
proceedings
may
altered
significantly
instance
defense
counsel
might
extensively
prepare
client
examination
perhaps
advise
client
refuse
participate
examination
particular
psychiatrist
defense
counsel
also
might
urge
different
psychiatrist
perform
examination
cf
estelle
smith
defendant
denied
assistance
attorneys
making
significant
decision
whether
submit
examination
end
psychiatrist
findings
employed
therefore
believe
attempt
predict
effect
estelle
smith
violation
require
appellate
engage
unguided
speculation
confluence
factors
likelihood
prejudice
difficulty
evaluating
degree
prejudice
together
heightened
concern
reliability
capital
cases
convinces
psychiatric
examination
conducted
violation
estelle
smith
later
admission
capital
sentencing
proceeding
psychiatric
testimony
based
examination
may
never
considered
harmless
error
thought
decision
holloway
arkansas
supra
already
settled
question
whether
estelle
smith
violation
capital
case
ever
harmless
error
holloway
stated
right
assistance
counsel
fundamental
absolute
allow
courts
indulge
nice
calculations
amount
prejudice
arising
accordingly
defendant
deprived
presence
assistance
attorney
either
throughout
prosecution
critical
stage
least
prosecution
capital
offense
reversal
automatic
quoting
glasser
stated
estelle
smith
supra
pretrial
examination
state
psychiatrist
capital
defendant
critical
stage
capital
case
recognized
case
decision
made
regarding
proposed
psychiatric
evaluation
literally
life
death
matter
difficult
even
attorney
requires
knowledge
evidence
available
particular
psychiatrist
biases
predilections
possible
alternative
strategies
sentencing
hearing
quoting
smith
estelle
attempts
distinguish
holloway
arguing
case
deprivation
right
counsel
affected
contaminated
entire
criminal
proceeding
ante
holloway
anticipated
automatic
reversal
deprivation
affected
entire
proceeding
also
deprivation
occurred
critical
stage
least
prosecution
capital
offense
emphasis
added
focusing
whether
error
occurred
capital
case
holloway
exhibited
appreciation
heightened
concern
reliability
context
something
believe
today
decision
fails
recognize
end
principally
relies
belief
reviewing
make
intelligent
judgment
whether
erroneous
admission
psychiatric
testimony
might
affected
capital
sentencing
jury
ante
possess
confidence
appellate
ability
divine
prejudice
arising
significant
error
capital
sentencing
proceeding
view
speculation
engendered
review
violation
estelle
smith
context
capital
sentencing
proceeding
presents
intolerable
danger
death
sentence
administered
erroneously
accordingly
join
aspect
opinion
sanctioning
analysis
violations
estelle
smith
likelihood
actual
prejudice
arising
illegal
admission
psychiatric
testimony
even
greater
context
case
texas
capital
sentencing
statute
provides
absence
evidence
provocation
victim
shall
sentence
defendant
death
jury
finds
murder
committed
deliberately
reasonable
expectation
death
deceased
result
probability
defendant
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
tex
code
crim
proc
art
vernon
supp
psychiatrist
evaluation
future
dangerousness
thus
purports
answer
one
two
questions
posed
statute
also
important
note
violation
petitioner
sixth
amendment
right
counsel
estelle
smith
easy
identify
reason
prosecution
directly
responsible
easy
government
prevent
strickland
washington
error
control
state
easy
prevent
holding
violation
result
automatic
reversal
pose
significant
burden
state
moreover
present
case
unable
cite
single
capital
case
since
decision
furman
georgia
ignored
holloway
reasoning
applied
analysis
sixth
amendment
violation
occurring
critical
stage
proceedings
cites
dicta
buchanan
kentucky
indication
willingness
apply
analysis
admission
psychological
testimony
violation
estelle
smith
petitioner
buchanan
prosecuted
capital
offense
thus
indication
case
analysis
might
apply
illegal
admission
psychological
testimony
little
relevance
present
context
justice
blackmun
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
join
part
ii
justice
marshall
concurring
opinion
agree
analysis
inappropriate
error
sixth
amendment
violation
estelle
smith
results
erroneous
admission
psychiatric
testimony
proceeding
situation
particularly
acute
system
texas
jury
must
answer
question
psychiatrist
purports
answer
fortified
conclusion
continuing
concern
wholly
apart
testimony
ubiquitous
doctor
grigson
texas
capital
cases
reliability
psychiatric
testimony
defendant
future
dangerousness
wrong
two
times
three
see
barefoot
estelle
dissenting
opinion