Page 47 - TPA Journal May June 2025

sion of his statements requires reversal of his con-
victions. Instead, he argues that the government (double jeopardy, jury selection, objections to vic-
used his statements during the penalty phase to tim impact evidence, prosecutorial misconduct,
attack his mitigation case, “which emphasized and death sentence discussions omitted. Ed.)
acceptance of responsibility and impaired func-
tioning.” Finally, Sanders contends that he is entitled to
More specifically, Sanders claims that the govern- relief under the cumulative-error doctrine even if
ment used his statements “as ‘proof of [his] mem- his various arguments do not merit relief individ-
ory and recollection of [the] day that he killed ually. We disagree. The cumulative-error doctrine
Suellen’” in order to rebut his claims of cognitive “necessitates reversal only in rare instances.” As
and mental impairments. However, we have con- previously discussed, the vast majority of
cluded that the following statements were admis- Sanders’s arguments were unpersuasive, and those
sible: (1) statements from the first interview in the that had some merit did not undermine our confi-
vehicle; (2) statements from the second interview dence in the judgment. We are likewise convinced
at the FBI office; and (3) statements from the first the cumulative effect of any errors that may have
forty-eight minutes of the third interview at the occurred did not “so fatally infect the trial that
correctional facility. The only inadmissible state- they violated the trial’s fundamental fairness.”
ments are those given after the forty-eight-minute Sanders’ claim for relief pursuant to the cumula-
mark during the third interview. The statements tive-error doctrine is without merit.
Sanders made during the first forty-eight minutes
demonstrated that he could remember a great deal We VACATE the conviction and sentence
about the day he murdered Suellen. The same is imposed based on Count Two of the indictment.
true for the statements Sanders made during the We otherwise AFFIRM the judgment of the dis-
two prior interviews. From this properly admitted trict court.
evidence, the government was able to argue that
Sanders could remember more about his crimes U.S. v. Sanders, 5 th Cir., no. 15-3114, Mar. 27,
than he otherwise suggested. 2025.
Sanders also argues that the government capital- 07, 2022.
ized on his refusal to explain why he committed ****************************************
the crimes to demonstrate he “lacked remorse for *************************
his actions.” During the first interview, Sanders
refused to answer when he was asked why he
killed Suellen and L.R. Dr. Thompson testified SEARCH & SEIZURE – p.c. for arrest, qualified
that it was his opinion that Sanders remembered immunity in civil case.
why he killed Suellen and L.R., but Sanders did
not want to answer the question. Based on Dr.
Thompson’s testimony, the government was able Case: 23-50879
to argue that Sanders was unwilling to discuss Texas Game Warden Dustin Delgado arrested
why he killed either victim. A reasonable infer- Joshua McClain for driving while intoxicated after
ence from this testimony is that Sanders was not observing his truck swerve and conducting field
remorseful. sobriety tests. McClain later sued Delgado for
In sum, the most that can be said of Sanders’s false arrest. The district court denied Delgado
inadmissible statements is that they were cumula- qualified immunity. But because McClain did not
tive of other properly admitted evidence. carry his burden to show Delgado violated his
Admission of his statements “did not influence the constitutional rights, we reverse.
jury, or had but very slight effect” on its analysis. Case: 23-50879 Document: 74-1 Page: 2 Date
Sanders is not entitled to a new trial. Filed: 03/20/2025

May-June 2025 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 43