## Facts

- Wayne East was convicted of Texas capital murder in 1982 and sentenced to death for killing Mary Eula Sears during a burglary.
- The prosecution’s key witness was East’s accomplice, Dee Dee Martin, who testified that East bound Sears and repeatedly stabbed her when she would not stay quiet.
- The victim’s family privately retained an experienced former prosecutor who assisted the elected prosecutor at trial.
- East alleged the privately paid lawyer substantially directed the case, including controlling major strategy decisions, conducting an independent investigation, interviewing witnesses, and delivering opening/closing arguments and examining key witnesses.
- After state postconviction proceedings and an initial federal habeas denial, East filed a later § 2254 petition asserting, among other claims, (i) due process violations based on the privately funded prosecutor’s role and (ii) Brady violations.
- The district court dismissed the petition without allowing discovery or holding an evidentiary hearing on the due-process and Brady claims and rejected East’s remaining claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing East’s § 2254 due-process and Brady claims without permitting discovery or an evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether substantial participation by a privately retained attorney paid by the victim’s family can violate due process by compromising prosecutorial impartiality and fundamental fairness.
3. Whether the district court properly dismissed East’s remaining constitutional claims without discovery or an evidentiary hearing.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment in part and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the district court erred by dismissing the due-process and Brady claims without allowing discovery and factual development, including an evidentiary hearing as warranted.
- The court held the district court did not err in dismissing East’s other claims without discovery or an evidentiary hearing.

## Legal Principles

- Habeas discovery is not automatic; a petitioner must show “good cause” by alleging specific, nonconclusory facts that, if developed, could entitle the petitioner to relief.
- A district court abuses its discretion when it forecloses discovery and factual development on colorable claims that depend on information likely in the State’s control, including Brady claims.
- Private participation in a prosecution is not per se unconstitutional, but due process may be violated if private involvement creates conflicts or private motives that render the prosecution fundamentally unfair or functionally private rather than state-controlled.
- When a petitioner plausibly alleges that a victim-funded lawyer may have dominated key prosecutorial functions, targeted discovery and appropriate fact-finding are required before summary dismissal.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit required discovery and factual development of East’s habeas claims alleging (1) due process violations stemming from a victim-funded lawyer’s substantial role in the prosecution and (2) Brady violations, while leaving intact the dismissal of East’s remaining claims.


East v. Scott, 55 F.3d 996 (5th Cir. 1995)