## Facts

- Thomas A. Barefoot was convicted in Texas of capital murder for killing a police officer.
- Under Texas’s capital sentencing procedure, the jury was required to answer special issues, including whether there was a probability Barefoot would commit future violent crimes and pose a continuing threat.
- At the penalty phase, the State presented two psychiatrists who, without personally examining Barefoot, answered hypothetical questions and testified he was likely to commit future violence.
- The jury answered the special issues in the State’s favor, which required imposition of the death penalty under Texas law.
- Texas appellate courts affirmed; state habeas relief was denied.
- Barefoot sought federal habeas relief; the federal district court denied the writ but issued a certificate of probable cause to appeal.
- The Fifth Circuit denied a stay of execution pending appeal; the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment in an expedited posture.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting psychiatric expert testimony predicting future dangerousness in a capital sentencing proceeding violates due process (and related Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment reliability concerns).
2. Whether a court of appeals may deny a stay of execution pending appeal even after a certificate of probable cause has issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, including by addressing the merits in the course of the stay ruling.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in relevant part and upheld the Texas sentencing procedures by a 6–3 vote.
- The Court held that psychiatric testimony predicting future dangerousness is not constitutionally inadmissible in capital sentencing, even when based on hypotheticals without a personal examination.
- The Court held that issuance of a certificate of probable cause does not entitle a petitioner to an automatic stay of execution.
- The Court approved expedited appellate handling in capital habeas cases, including deciding the merits while resolving a stay application, where the petitioner had an opportunity to address the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Due process does not impose a categorical constitutional ban on expert psychiatric opinions predicting a defendant’s future dangerousness at capital sentencing.
- Disputes about the accuracy and scientific reliability of such predictions generally go to weight and credibility for the jury, tested through cross-examination, competing experts, and ordinary evidentiary rules.
- The Constitution does not require a personal psychiatric examination as a prerequisite to admitting expert opinions formed in response to hypothetical questions.
- A certificate of probable cause under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 requires a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, but it does not itself mandate a stay of execution.
- A court of appeals may deny a stay after evaluating the merits of the habeas appeal on an expedited basis, so long as the process affords a fair opportunity to present the arguments.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Texas’s reliance on expert psychiatric predictions of future dangerousness in capital sentencing and confirmed that federal appellate courts may deny a stay of execution despite a certificate of probable cause, including through expedited merits review in connection with the stay request.


Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983)