Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01245/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01245-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tom Cooper
Appellee
Hayward Curtis Lawson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FIL~ D 

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 1 71992 

-----------ROBERTL.HOECKER 

HAYWARD CURTIS LAWSON, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

TOM COOPER, Warden, Territorial 

Correctional Facility, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

No. 91-1245 

(D.C . No . 89-Z-1430) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App . P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34 . 1.9 . The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument . 

In 1974, Haywood Lawson was convicted by a jury of the murder 

of Larry Mcvay. The evidence against him at trial consisted 

primarily of the eyewitness testimony of the victim's wife, 

Charlotte McVay, and the testimony of Ronald Rutherford regarding 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

... 

Appellate Case: 91-1245 Document: 010110243000 Date Filed: 04/17/1992 Page: 1
Mr. Lawson's possible motive for committing the crime. Mr. Lawson 

now contends in this habeas corpus action that he was denied the 

effective assistance of counsel by his attorney's failure to 

introduce potentially exculpatory evidence or to have it 

independently analyzed. We affirm the district court's denial of 

habeas corpus. 

Charlotte Mcvay testified, in sum, that she was sitting in 

her bedroom, and her husband was in the living room with his 

friend Jeff Van Cura, when she heard a knock at the front door. 

She then heard a shot and walked to the living room, where she saw 

her husband lying on the floor, his friend still on the couch, and 

two men wearing "Russian-style" fur hats and holding guns. One of 

the men, whom she later identified as Lawson, ordered her back to 

the bedroom and asked for the receipts from her husband's 

business. After taking a jar of pennies, ten dollars, and several 

credit cards, the two men left. Mrs . Mcvay and Mr. Van Cura 

called for help. 

Mr. Rutherford testified in exchange for dismissal of 

burglary charges against him that he overheard a conversation 

between Mr. Lawson and another man in which Lawson was told that 

the manager of Rocky Mountain Auto Supply brought the business's 

receipts home each night. Rutherford further testified that he 

went to the library with Lawson to find the name of Rocky 

Mountain's manager, who turned out to be Mcvay. Finally, he added 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1245 Document: 010110243000 Date Filed: 04/17/1992 Page: 2
that several months after the murder, Lawson suggested that 

Rutherford get rid of a Russian-style fur hat since the suspects 

in the McVay case reportedly had similar hats. 

Attorney Michael Bender cross-examined the witnesses at 

trial, emphasizing Mr. Rutherford's psychotic and criminal history 

and Mrs. McVay's inability immediately after the crime to describe 

the perpetrators in any detail. He did not, however, call any 

witness or offer any evidence relating to an FBI analysis of hairs 

taken from one of the two Russian-style hats found a short 

distance from the Mcvay home on the night of the murder. Mr. 

Lawson argues that Mr. Bender's failure to use this evidence to 

bolster a mistaken identity defense constituted ineffective 

assistance. 

The Supreme Court articulated a two-prong test for 

ineffective assistance in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S 668 

(1984). The petitioner must first demonstrate that the attorney's 

conduct at trial fell outside the bounds of "reasonableness under 

prevailing professional norms." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. In 

addition, the attorney's ineffectiveness must have prejudiced the 

defendant's opportunity to obtain a fair trial. Id. at 687. 

Before trial, Mr. Bender received a copy of an FBI analysis 

of the hair sample taken from the fur hat. The "result of 

examination" reads in full: "The brown head hairs previously 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1245 Document: 010110243000 Date Filed: 04/17/1992 Page: 3
recovered from the Q4 hat exhibit differences to the hairs in 

specimens Kl through K3 and could not be associated with Lawson, 

Wiggins or Rutherford." Appellant's Opening Brief on Appeal at 

App. B. Mr. Bender, based on a phone conversation with an FBI 

agent, understood the report to mean that the test was 

inconclusive. He attempted unsuccessfully to introduce the report 

without the testimony of the agent, but was unwilling to call the 

agent to the stand for fear that the live testimony would damage 

· defendant's case. He also declined to have an independent expert 

analyze the hairs. The agent has since testified in collateral 

proceedings that the report conclusively indicated that the hair 

taken from the hat did not belong to any of the three named men. 

Without taking a position as to the level of competence 

displayed by Mr. Bender in his decision not to introduce the 

evidence, we hold that this decision did not unduly prejudice Mr. 

Lawson's defense and therefore did not rise to the level of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 

697 (unnecessary to address both prongs of test where one is 

dispositive). Under Strickland, 

[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable 

probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional 

errors, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different. A reasonable probability is a probability 

sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. 

Id. at 694. In order to convict Lawson, the jury must have 

credited Mrs. McVay's account of the crime as well as her 

identification of Lawson at the lineup fifteen months later. It 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-1245 Document: 010110243000 Date Filed: 04/17/1992 Page: 4
seems likely in addition that they gave some weight to 

Rutherford's testimony, despite Mr. Bender's impeachment of his 

credibility. They may also have relied on the fact that while Mr. 

Van Cura could not identify Lawson, he did identify Jackson 

Wiggins as the second perpetrator; and undisputed testimony 

revealed that Mr. Wiggins and Mr. Lawson were seen together on the 

date of the murder, both before and after its occurrence. In 

light of this evidence, we do not think the evidence of the hair 

found in one of the hats would have been significant had it been 

introduced. The hats in question were found near, but not in, the 

Mcvay home, and they were not taken directly from the suspects. 

Mrs. Mcvay was not asked to identify the hats at trial, and 

indeed, there was little testimony about the hats at all. Even 

with the FBI analysis, the jury might well have concluded that 

someone else wore the hat before or after defendant, that 

defendant wore the hat from which no hairs were recovered, or that 

the hat from which the hair was recovered was not the same one 

worn by the killer. Given these circumstances, we agree with the 

district court that Mr. Lawson was not prejudiced by his 

attorney's conduct. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-1245 Document: 010110243000 Date Filed: 04/17/1992 Page: 5