Strategic Use of Genetic Predisposition Evidence in Capital Sentencing:
Wells v. Guerrero and the Scope of Ineffective-Assistance Challenges

Introduction

In Wells v. Guerrero, No. 24-70002 (5th Cir. 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed whether a capital defendant’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance by introducing expert testimony that the defendant possessed a genetic mutation (low-activity MAOA) associated with violent behavior. Amos Wells, convicted of killing his pregnant girlfriend, her mother, her ten-year-old brother, and the unborn child, sought a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) after the district court dismissed his federal habeas petition.

The Fifth Circuit denied the COA, holding that none of Wells’s claims—including those attacking his counsel’s strategic use of genetic evidence, voir-dire decisions, or the exclusion of certain remorse videos—were “debatable amongst jurists of reason.” Although the opinion is unpublished, it crystallises an emerging principle: the deployment of “double-edged” genetic predisposition testimony at the penalty phase is a quintessentially strategic choice that will rarely, if ever, satisfy Strickland’s demanding standard, much less the doubly-deferential hurdle on federal habeas review.

Summary of the Judgment

Applying Strickland deference and the COA threshold articulated in Miller-El, Slack, and Buck, the panel held:

• No Ineffective Assistance (Genetic Evidence): Counsel’s decision to call experts on Wells’s MAOA mutation and childhood trauma was strategic, explicitly informed by the risks, and not objectively unreasonable.
• No Ineffective Assistance (Juror Strike): Counsel’s choice not to strike a juror who initially favoured the death penalty but ultimately committed to follow the law was likewise strategic and non-prejudicial.
• No Eighth Amendment Violation: Exclusion of eight hours of interrogation-room video—proffered to show remorse—was procedurally defaulted under Texas evidentiary rules and, alternatively, harmless because similar evidence was admitted.
• No Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel: The decision to challenge exclusion of one video clip rather than three media interviews fell within the wide latitude accorded to appellate advocates.

Consequently, the court denied Wells’s application for a COA on all four asserted issues.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)
  Established the two-prong test (deficient performance and prejudice) for ineffective assistance. Here, both the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“CCA”) and the Fifth Circuit measured counsel’s conduct against Strickland.
• Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) & Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12 (2013)
  Articulate “double deference” when federal courts review a state court’s application of Strickland under § 2254(d). The panel repeatedly invoked this posture, emphasising that it could disturb the CCA’s rulings only if “every fair-minded jurist” would disagree.
• Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017)
  Provide the COA framework—whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s resolution. The Fifth Circuit treated these precedents as gating devices, never reaching full merits review.
• Dunn v. Reeves, 594 U.S. 731 (2021)
  Reaffirmed the “strong presumption” that counsel’s decisions are reasonable. The opinion relies on Dunn for the idea that even “far-from-exemplary” conduct cannot warrant habeas relief absent near-unanimous judicial condemnation.
• Other Notables: Harper v. Lumpkin (juror strikes), Morgan v. Illinois (voir dire scope), Tennard v. Dretke (mitigating evidence), Wong v. Belmontes (cumulative evidence), and Rhoades v. Davis (harmless-error review) shaped the court’s treatment of the juror, Eighth Amendment, and prejudice issues.

2. Legal Reasoning

a) Genetic Predisposition Testimony as Strategy

The panel highlighted that trial counsel’s memorandum, crafted before trial, acknowledged the “double-edged” nature of MAOA evidence: it could bolster the State’s future-dangerousness theory while simultaneously mitigating moral culpability by framing Wells’s violence as biologically influenced. Such a trade-off sits squarely within professional judgment, and the court refused to label it deficient “post-hoc.”

b) Voir Dire and Juror Strike Decisions

Because the juror ultimately pledged to follow Texas’s capital sentencing framework, counsel lacked a clear basis for a for-cause strike. The decision to preserve a peremptory strike—particularly to avoid weakening a pending Batson objection—was a tactical calculation, not constitutional error.

c) Exclusion of Remorse Videos

The Fifth Circuit endorsed the CCA’s procedural default finding, noting Texas’s requirement that defendants make a specific, rule-compliant offer of proof. Even if the default were excused, the court agreed that any error was harmless: jurors saw parallel evidence depicting Wells’s post-crime demeanor, rendering the eight-hour clip cumulative.

d) Appellate Counsel’s Issue Selection

Under Smith v. Robbins, appellate lawyers may winnow weaker claims. Counsel here chose the suppression of the interrogation video—free of inflammatory commentary from reporters—over the jailhouse media tapes that contained prejudicial statements. The court deemed this triage reasonable, finding no prejudice.

3. Likely Impact on Future Litigation

• Genetic Evidence in Capital Trials: Defense teams nationwide are experimenting with neuro- and genomic mitigation. Wells signals that introducing such evidence, even when risky, will not readily support an ineffective-assistance claim. Counsel must show an objectively irrational decision—not merely an unsuccessful one—before federal courts will intervene.
• COA Gatekeeping Strengthened: The opinion re-affirms the Fifth Circuit’s stringent COA standards. Practitioners should expect continued skepticism, especially where state courts have issued reasoned rulings.
• Procedural Default Vigilance: The court’s reliance on Texas evidentiary rules underscores that capital litigators must make precise proffers at trial to preserve federal issues.
• Voir Dire Strategy Deference: Post-Harper and now Wells, failure to strike ambivalent jurors will seldom constitute IAC if counsel can articulate any colorable tactical motive.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Certificate of Appealability (COA): A permission slip federal habeas petitioners need from a circuit court before they may fully appeal. The bar is low but not trivial: an issue must be “debatable among jurists of reason.”
• Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC): A Sixth-Amendment claim requiring proof of deficient performance and prejudice. On federal habeas, courts apply “double deference”—first to counsel, then to the state court’s decision.
• “Double-Edged” Evidence: Proof that can help and hurt a defendant simultaneously. Genetic predisposition testimony may evoke sympathy yet also confirm future dangerousness.
• Procedural Default: A state-law bar preventing federal review because the defendant failed to follow local courtroom rules (e.g., making a proper evidentiary offer).
• Batson Challenge: An objection claiming that a party used peremptory strikes to exclude jurors based on race, violating the Equal Protection Clause.

Conclusion

Wells v. Guerrero fortifies several doctrine lines in federal habeas practice. First, it clarifies that deploying genetic or neurobiological mitigation is a discretionary, strategic choice that seldom crosses the high threshold of deficient performance—especially once filtered through § 2254 deference. Second, it underscores the rigorous screening role that COA jurisprudence plays in the Fifth Circuit. Third, the decision reminds trial attorneys to preserve evidentiary issues with meticulous offers of proof and informs appellate advocates that strategic issue selection, even if later second-guessed, will not lightly be deemed unreasonable.

Collectively, these holdings signal to defense counsel that creative, scientifically grounded mitigation evidence can be pursued without fearing automatic claims of incompetence, provided counsel makes an informed, articulated assessment of the risks. For prosecutors and trial judges, the case highlights the importance of developing a complete record on why particular strategic choices were made, as such documentation can be outcome-determinative in subsequent habeas litigation.