OAKLAND, CA — April 28, 2026 — The Nieves Law Firm announced that founding attorney Jo-Anna Nieves appeared on Court TV to provide legal analysis of the penalty phase in the Athena Strand case in Texas, walking viewers through the medical examiner’s testimony, the prosecution’s aggravation strategy, the defense mitigation framework, juror unanimity requirements in capital sentencing, and the role of jail calls and post-arrest evidence in shaping juror evaluation of culpability and remorse.
Athena Strand, age seven, was murdered in November 2022 by Tanner Horner, a FedEx driver who had pulled up to her family’s home to deliver a package. Horner has pleaded guilty. A Texas jury is now deciding whether to recommend life without parole or the death penalty.
On the medical examiner’s testimony, Nieves walked viewers through how the testimony fits into the prosecution’s broader sentencing case. “I think that just goes to the jury’s assessment of how terrible and heinous this crime was,” Nieves said. “We’re already starting with the murder of a seven-year-old girl who did nothing to deserve this. And then to add on top of that sexual assault really is just gut-wrenching for any juror to hear and conceive.”
Nieves also flagged a tension between the prosecutor’s opening statement and what the medical examiner actually described on the stand. “One of the things that we’re dealing with is that the prosecutor made a statement in openings that there was DNA from her that was found in places that shouldn’t be on a seven-year-old girl. And right now we’re just talking about cause of death, manner of death, injuries that were observed, and there was no trauma or entry to those places you would ideally associate with sexual assault and trauma.”
She told viewers the next stretch of testimony would matter. “I think the jurors really need to hear from the DNA analyst and expert next to bring it full circle, like what DNA was the prosecutor talking about, where was it found, and is there any evidence of sexual assault that may have actually happened?”
On the prosecution’s sentencing strategy, Nieves explained why the medical detail matters at this stage. “Going through this step by step and outlining all of the injuries is critical at this stage because this is the part where they’re trying to get the jury to impose the death penalty,” Nieves said. “As much aggravation as they can emphasize right now is what the prosecution’s job is to do. Ultimately the prosecution’s goal right here is to paint a pretty ugly picture of what the defendant has already admitted to doing.”
On the defense’s mitigation framework, Nieves walked viewers through the tension between a biological mitigation narrative and the defendant’s post-crime conduct. The defense is expected to introduce evidence of mental impairments and a fetal alcohol syndrome diagnosis. Nieves said the prosecution’s aggravation evidence will not sit easily next to that mitigation theory. “We’ve heard already that he fabricated stories and kind of created this alter ego and took steps that looked like he was making deliberate choices and conscious decisions about how to cover up a crime. And that tends to take away from this biological malfunction of, okay, he’s got a brain injury and he isn’t as morally culpable. I think the jury is going to be like, but why did he make all of these deliberate steps to hide it and conceal it? It speaks to his consciousness of guilt.”
On the legal standard the jury must apply, Nieves emphasized that a Texas death-penalty recommendation requires unanimity. Asked whether Texas was guaranteed a death recommendation, Nieves said: “No, absolutely not. It takes them being in unanimous agreement of whether or not there are the circumstances that would render the death penalty an appropriate penalty in this case. All it takes really is one person to say, I think that the mitigation presented is sufficient to not impose the death penalty. And that can be for many reasons. Sometimes it’s jurors’ life experiences. Sometimes they don’t feel that the evidence of aggravation outweighed the mitigation.”
She added that the facts make the defense’s job harder than in a different case. “It isn’t a foregone conclusion, but here the defense is going to have to present a lot of mitigation to overcome that for the jury.”
On the prosecution’s introduction of jail calls, Nieves explained why the prosecution moved to admit recordings from the defendant in custody. “I think why we’re hearing this right now is because there’s this level of communication that kind of exemplifies reasoning and understanding and a high functioning and maybe some even sophistication in the language that he’s using. I think what the prosecution is doing right now is trying to preemptively counteract the functioning arguments that are going to come in when the defense starts to present their mitigation.”
On the impact on jurors and the family, Nieves acknowledged the human cost of the testimony itself. “Often times in serious cases like this where they’re exposed to this type of gruesome details of how a homicide occurred, there are services that are offered like counseling for jury members. So then take that and multiply it from the people who lost this young girl and the impact that it’s had on their family for a long time.”
She also addressed how the defendant’s late guilty plea will weigh in the balance. “We do have that this defendant entered a guilty plea, albeit at three and a half years after the crime was committed, and at the eleventh hour right before trial commenced, but is showing some indication of remorse. So they’re going to have to weigh that against the underlying nature of the charges.”
The Court TV segment is presented for legal commentary and public-interest analysis. It does not provide legal advice, and nothing in the segment is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The full segment and the firm’s broader media coverage are listed at The Nieves Law Firm media archive.
