Terence Tramaine Andrus, Petitioner v. Texas

1. Whether a shackling claim under Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), raised for the first time in a capital habeas proceeding and based on evidence only discovered through post-conviction interviews with jurors, can be properly deemed “procedurally barred” based on the conclusion that it could have been raised on direct appeal—even though the State’s capital procedures do not allow for the development or presentation of extra-record evidence on direct appeal? 2. How a Wiggins claim, based on mitigating evidence adduced only during the post-conviction investigation, should be assessed in light of the State’s case in aggravation at trial—where the trial counsel, accused of providing ineffective assistance, admitted under oath during the post-conviction proceeding that: he did not investigate any aspect of the State’s case in aggravation pre-trial or seek to rebut it during trial and in fact conceded to the jury in closing argument that the jury would likely find that the State had proven that his client would be a “future danger”?