At M r. Sal daño's first death penalty trial, in 1996, a n expert for th e State of
Texas testified that Mr. Sa ldaño wa s more likely to present a future danger of
criminal acts of v iolence because he was Hispanic. Eight years on death row
follo wed, most of it in extraordin arily severe isolation, until multiple confessions
of error by the State finally led to a new pe nalty trial. Pre trial, Mr. Sal daño's
attorne ys then argued that the isolation of de ath row h ad left Mr. Sal daño so
mentally decompensated that Texas' future dangerousn ess special issue could no
longer be constitutionally applied to him. He woul d scare the jury, and the statute
in his context became so vague that the sentencing decision became unpri ncipled,
with a serious risk of a biased and capricious jury decision. Th is constitutional
claim, whi le presented in the Texas courts , was never adjudicated on the merits by
the Texas Court o f Crim inal Appeals and wa s denied a Certific ate of Appe alability
by the U.S. C ourt o f Appe als for th e Fifth C ircuit.

Buck v. Dav is, 137 S. C t. 759 (20 17), re quires a certificate of appealability
when "jurists of reason could disagree with the district court' s resolution of [an
applicant's] constitutional claims or . . . jurists could conclude the issues pre sented
are adequate to deserve encouragement to proc eed furth er," id. at 773. Di d the
Fifth C ircuit contravene this Court' s pre cedent in Buck whe n it denied a certificate
of appealability on w hether the Texas future-da ngerousn ess special issue fails on
vagueness grounds as applied to Mr. Sa ldaño, a s a statute incapable of rea soned
application to him in an unbiased and principled manner?

Whether the Texas future-dangerousness special issue fails on vagueness grounds as applied to Mr. Saldajfio, as a statute incapable of reasoned application to him in an unbiased and principled manner