## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 05- 303- CR
AL L E N J OHN AL DR I CH AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 367TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OP I NI ON ON R E HEAR I NG

----- ----- -- Fol l ow i ng t he i ss uan ceofour o r i gi nalopi ni on, ap pel l antA l l en John A l d ri c h fi l e d a m o ti o n fo r re h e a ri n g re q u e s ti n g th a t w e re i n s ta te th e S ta te ’s
o ri g i n a l p l e a b a rga i n o ffer. W e d e n yA l d ri c h ’s m o ti o n for reh e a ri n g , b u t w e
w i th d raw o u r op i n i o n an d jud g m e n t i ss u e d N o v e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 an d su b sti tu te th e fo l l o w i n g i n th e i r p l a c e to e x p l a i n a n d c l a ri fyw h yre i n s ta te m e n t th e S ta te ’s p l e a b a rg a i n o ffe r i sn o t p ro p e r.2 I. I NTR ODUCTI ON Th e pr i m ar y i ssue w e addr ess i n t hi s appeal i s w het herappel l antA l l en John A l dr i ch w asde ni ed hi s consti t ut i ona l r i ghtt o e f f ec t i ve as si st anc e o f
coun sel . Becau se w e h ol d t hatthe r ecor d bef or e u s dem onst r at es t hath e w as,
w e re v e r s e t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n ta n d re m a n d f o ra n e w t r ia l. II. F ACTUAL B AC KG ROUND A l dr i ch w as char ged w i t h i nt oxi cat i on m ansl augh t er . The evi dence sh o w e d tha t at aro u n d 8 :3 0 p .m . o n A p ri l 8 , 2 0 0 4 , a t t h e i n terse c ti o n o f N o rt h C ol on y a nd Ra ga n i n Th e Col on y, a p i c k up t r uc kd r i ve n byAl dr i c h st r uck K i m ber l y H udson , w ho w as cr ossi ng t he i nt er sect i on cr ossw al k i n a m ot or i zed
w hee l cha i r , ac com pan i ed by herhus ban d. Ki m ber l y w ast ak en t o Pa r kl and H o s p i ta l , w h e re s h el a te r d i e d . Sho rt l ya f t e rOf f i c e rCh a d Sp r i n g e ra n d Se r g e a n tB i l lHa l l a r r i v e d a tt he acci dent scene, A l dr i ch’ s w i f e, D ani el l e, t ol d S er geant H al l t hatshe and A l dr i ch
w e re i n the v e h i c l e tha t h a d s tr u c kth e w o m a n i n the w h e e l c h a i r. A t f i rst, A l d ri c h d e n i e d tha t he h a d b e e n d ri v i n g the p i c k u p , b u t he l a ter ad m i tted to S e rg e a n t H a l l th a t i n fa c t h e , n o t D a n i e l l e , h a d b e e n d ri v i n g . Ser gea ntH al l de t ec t ed t he odorofa l co hol on Al dr i ch’ s br ea t h, s o he asked O f f i cerJam e s S l ack t o cond uctf i el d sobr i et y t est s. O f f i cerSl ack al so not i ce d t he sm el l of al coh ol on A l dr i ch’ s br ea t h, al t hough A l dr i ch den i ed hav i ng1 ... A l dr i ch t es t i f i ed on hi s ow n be hal fan d de ni ed m ak i ng t hi s st at em ent

t o O f f i cerSl ack. 3 c o n s u m e d a n ya lc o h o l. T h e f ie ld s o b r ie t yt e s t sw e r e c o n d u c t e d a p p r o x im a t e ly t hi rt y t o f ort y-f i ve m i nut esaft ert he ac ci den t . Al dr i ch’ s perf or m anc e o n t he h o r iz o n t a l g a z e n y s t a g m u sa n d w a lk -a n d -t u r n t e s t sin d ic a t e d in t o x ic a t io n ; h is p e rfo rm a n c e o n th e o n e -l e g g e d -s ta n d te s t d id n o t. A fte r o b s e rv i n g A l d ri c h ’s perf or m anc e o n t he f i el d so br i et y t es t s, O f f i ce r Sl ac k aga i n as ke d A l dr i ch i fhe had been dr i nki ng. A ccor di ng t o O f f i cerSl ack, t hi s t i m e A l dr i ch adm i t t ed t hat he had con sum ed t hr ee t w el ve- oun ce beer s bet w een 6: 30 and 7 : 00 p. m . t hat
eve ni ng bu tha d l i ed ea r l i erbe ca us e h e w ass ca r ed. 1 O f f i c e rSl a c kr e p o rt e d t h e r e s u l t so ft h e f i e l d s o b r i e t yt e s t st o Se r g e a nt H al l , w ho as ked A l dr i ch i f he w oul d gi ve a bl ood sam pl e. A l dr i ch sa i d y es. O n c e a tt h e h o s p it a l, h o w e v e r , A ld r ic h re t r a c t e d h i s c o n s e n t . S e r g e a n tH a ll t h e n o r d e r e d t h a ta b lo o d s a m p le b e t a k e n b e c a u s e A ld r ic h h a d a lc o h o l o n h is br ea t h, ha d f ai l ed t w o oft he f i el d s obr i et y t es t s, an d ha d i ni t i al l y l i ed abo ut dr i vi ng a nd be ca us e a ny a l coh ol i n hi s bl ood w oul d notbet her e by m or ni ng. A n u r s e d r e w a b l o o d s a mp l e b e t we e n 1 0 : 3 0 a n d 1 1 : 0 0 p . m. , mo r e t h a n t wo hour s aft er t he ac ci den t . The bl ood sa m pl e con t ai ned 0. 07 gr am s of al cohol p e r 1 0 0 m i l l i l i te rso f b l o o d . T h e S ta te e l i c i te d re tro g ra d e e x tra p o l a ti o n e x p e rt t es t i m ony t hat a 0. 07 r es ul t at 11: 00 p. m . m ea ntt hatA l dr i ch’ s bl ood a l coh ol4

l evel at8: 30 p. m . w oul d have b e e n b e tw e en 0 . 1 an d 0 . 12 . A dr ug scr een per f or m ed on A l dr i ch’ s bl ood sam pl e d i d not r eveal the pr esence ofany dr ugs. A c c o r d in g t o A ld r ic h , h e d r a n kt h r e e b e e r sw h ile h e p la y e d f r is b e e g o lf bet w een 2 : 30 p. m . and 6 : 30 p. m . t he day of t he acci dent. Fouri ndi v i dual s,
w ho w er e Al dr i ch’ s ne i ghbor s and f r i end s, t es t i f i ed t hatt heyha d s ee n or sp o k e n w i th A l d ri c h at v a ri o u s tim e s t h rou g h o u t t h e d a yan d ev e n i n g p ri o r t o t he 8: 30 p . m . acci dent and expr essed t hei ro pi ni ons t hatA l dr i ch di d not appear i nt oxi cat ed or t o have l ost t he nor m al use of hi s m ent al orp h y sica l facul t i es. A l dr i ch t ol d S er geant H al l at t he scene t hat he di d not see t he H udson s because he w as bl i nded by t he headl i ghtsofoncom i ng t r af f i c. A j u ryc o n v i c te d A l d ri c h o f i n to x i c a ti o n m a n s l a u g h te r, a n d th e tri a l c o u rt
as se ss ed hi s puni sh m ent , en han ce d bya pr i orfel ony con vi ct i on f ordr i vi ng
w h i l e i n to x i c a te d , a t s i x ty -tw o y e a rs ’ c o n fi n e m e n t. T h i sa p p e a l fo l l o w e d . II I. L EGA LS UFF I CI E NCY OF THEE VIDENCE I n hi s se ven t h poi nt , A l dr i ch cl ai m s t hatt he evi den cei s l ega l l y i ns uf f i ci ent to su p p o rth i s c o n v i c ti o n . I n re v i e w i n g th e leg a l s u ffi c i e n c yo f t h e ev i d e n c e to
su pporta con vi ct i on, w e v i ew al l t he evi den cei n t he l i ghtm os tf avo r abl e t o t he pr os ec ut i on i n or der t o det er m i ne w het heran y r at i ona l t r i eroff ac tco ul d ha ve fo u n d t h e e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n ts o f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. Jacks on
v. V ir ginia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 2 7 8 9 (1 9 7 9 ); Cl a y to nv. S tate ,5

23 5 S . W . 3d 77 2, 7 78 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 2 00 7) . A successf ul l egal suf f i ci ency c h a l l e n g e w il l r e su l t i n the ren d i ti o n o f an ac q u i ttal b ythe rev i e w i n g co u rt . Ti bbsv. Fl

or i da , 4 5 7 U .S . 3 1 , 4 1

– 4 2 , 1 0 2 S . C t. 2 2 1 1 , 2 2 1 8 (1 9 8 2 ). A ccor di ngl y, w e addr ess l egal suf f i ci ency r endi t i on po i nt s bef or e w e addr ess re m a n d p o i n ts . S e eNi ckerso nv. S tate , 69 S. W . 3d 6 6 1 , 6 6 8 ( Tex. A p p .— W a c o 2 0 0 2 , p e t. re f’d ). The s t at ut ory e l em ent s ofi nt oxi ca t i on m ans l aug ht er , as m odi f i ed by t he part i cul aral l egat i ons i n t he i ndi ct m entati ssue, ar e as f ol l ow s: ( 1) A l dr i ch (2 ) o p e r a t e d a m o t o rv e h ic le ( 3) i n a publ i c pl ace ( 4) w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed by no th a v i n g the nor m al use ofhi s m ent al a n d p h y sica l fa c u l ti e s b yre a so n o f th e intro d u c ti o n o f a l c o h o l i n to hi s body ( 5) and as a r esul toft he i nt oxi cat i on, caused t he deat h ofan i ndi vi dua l , na m el y: Ki m ber l y Sue H uds on ( 6) t hr ough ac ci den t or m i st ak e, t o- w i t : by f ai l i ng t o yi el d t he r i ght o f w a y , b yfai l i n g to m a i n tai n a p rop e r l o o k o u t, an d b yfaili n g to a v o i d a c o l l i s i o n b e tw e e n h i sv e h i c l e a n d K i m b e rl yS u e H u d s o n , a p e d e s tri a n . S eeT e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 4 9 .0 8 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ); se e Auldr i dgev. S tate , 2 28 S. W . 3d 258 , 2 60 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2007, pe t . r ef ’ d) ( se t t i ng fo rth e l e m e n ts o f i n to x i c a ti o n m a n s l a u g h te r).6

A l dr i ch t es t i f i ed t hathew asdr i vi ng hi s t r ucki n a publ i c p l ac e, t hathe st r uckKi m ber l y Sue H uds on a s sh e m ane uve r ed her m ot or i z ed w hee l cha i ri n a cr os sw al k, an d t hatheha d con su m ed t hr ee t w el ve- ounc e bee r s ea r l i ert hatda y. Bas ed on Al dr i ch’ s bl ood a l coh ol l eve l aft ert he ac ci den t , t he St at e’ s r et r ogr ade ext r apo l at i on expe rt s t es t i f i ed t hatA l dr i ch’ s bl ood a l coh ol l eve l att he t i m e o f t he acci dent w oul d have bee n bet w een 0 . 1 an d 0 . 12 . N um er ous w i t nesses t es t i f i ed t hatw hen t he ac ci den to cc urr ed, i tw asdus k b utnotda r k; t hatt he st r eetw her e t he acci dent occur r ed w as w el l l i t ; and t hatt he cr os sw a l k w as cl ea r l y m ar ke d a nd v i si bl e. Thus , ap pl yi ng t he l ega l s uf f i ci enc y s t and ar d of
r evi ew , t hati s, vi ew i ng a l l oft he evi den cei n t he l i ghtm os tf avo r abl e t o t he pr osecut i on, w e hol d t hat a r at i onal t r i eroff actcoul d have f oun d t he essent i al
e l e m e n ts o f th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t. Jacks on , 443 U. S. a t319, 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 9 ; Cl ayton , 2 3 5 S .W .3 d at 7 7 8 . W e o v e rr u l e A l d ri c h ’s se v e n th p o i n t. IV . I NE FFE CT I VEA SSI STA NC EOFC OUN SEL I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , A l dr i ch com pl ai ns t hathe w as deni ed hi s const i t ut i onal
r i ght t o ef f ect i ve assi st ance ofco unsel b ecause ret ai ned coun sel ’ s per f or m ance
w as sod e f i c i e ntt ha tn o r e a s on a bl e t r i a l s t r a t e gyc ou l d j us t i f y i ta nd because hi s r et ai ned at t or ney’ s out r ageou s conduct w as so s er i ous t hati tunder m i ned t h e p r o p e rf u n c t io n in g o ft h e a d v e r s a r ia l p r o c e s s , d e p r iv e d h im o fa f a irt r ia l,7

and pr ej udi ced and harm ed hi m . A l dr i ch r ai ses and p r esent s t hi rt een cat egor i es ofal l eged i nef f ect i ve act s by hi s coun sel dur i ng t r i al , i ncl udi ng t hathe “f ai l ed to p rop e rl yi n terv i e w w i tn e ss e s, rev ie w e v ide n c e , a n d i n v e sti g a te” ; “fa i l e d to
re q u e s t th a t th e tri a l c o u rt a p p o i n t n e c e s s a rye x p e rtsd e s p i te A p p e l l a n t’s i ndi gen cy” ; fai l ed t o f i l e p r ope ran d t i m el y m ot i ons ; m i su nde r st ood a nd
m i sappl i ed t he l aw ; exhi bi t ed gener al i ncom pet ence st em m i ng f r om pr obl em s as so ci at e d w i t h e i t h e rm e n t a l o rp h y s i c a l i n f i r m i t y ; m a d e i n a c c u r a t e a nd i nco m pr ehe ns i bl e s t at em ent s; al i en ated the j udgean d t he pr os ec ut ort o t he det r i m entofhi s cl i ent and vi ol at ed t he r ul es ofpr of essi onal r esponsi bi l i t y; f ai l ed t o a deq uat el y c onve y t he pl ea of f er ; pr es ent ed h ar m f ul ev i den cew i t h no st r at egi c pur pose; pr esent ed def ensi ve t heor i es unsuppo rt ed by t he evi dence; fai l e d to m a k e p rop e r o bj e c ti o n s or a sk p rop e r q u e sti o n s of w i tn e ss e s; fai l e d to
o bj e c t to th e i m p ro p e r re a d i n g o f t h e v ic ti m i m p a c t s ta te m e n ts b e fo re pun i shm entw as ass essed; and f ai l e d to o fferany evi dence orar gum entat pun i shm ent at al l . W i t hi n each of t hese t hi rt een cat egor i es, A l dr i ch poi nt s t o num er ous speci f i c i nst ances ofcondu ctand speci f i c om i ssi o n s b yhi s t r i al
c o u n s e l. A . S t a n d a r d o fR e v i e w To es t abl i sh i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e of cou ns el , an app el l antm us ts how by a p r epo nde r anc e o ft he evi den ce t hat hi s cou ns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on f el l be l ow t he8

s t a n d a r d o fp r e v a ilin g p r o f e s s io n a l n o r m sa n d t h a tt h e r e isa re a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i t y t hat , butf orcouns el ’ s def i ci enc y, t he r es ul toft he t r i alw oul d ha ve b e e n d i ffe re n t. Str

i ckl and v. Wash i

ng ton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4(1 9 8 4 ); Thomps on v. S tate , 9 S. W . 3d 808 , 812 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 199 9) . No di st i nct i on e xi st s bet w ee n t he st and ar ds o fe f f ec t i ven es s f or re ta i n e d c o u n s e l a n d a p p o i n te d c o u n s e l . Ex p arte Br i ggs , 187 S . W . 3d 458, 469 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2005 ) ( ci t i ng Cuyler v. Sul l ivan , 446 U. S. 335, 344, 100 S . C t. 1 7 0 8 , 1 7 1 6 (1 9 8 0 )). I n e val uat i ng t he ef f ec t i ven es s ofco uns elunde rt he f i r stpr ong, w e l ook t o t het ot a l i t y oft her e pr e s e nt a t i on a nd t hep a rt i c ul a rc i r c um s t a nc e so fe a ch
c a s e . Thomps on , 9 S. W . 3d at81 3. The i ssue i s w het hercounsel ’ s ass i st ance
w a sre a s o n a b l e u n d e r a l l th e c i rc u m s ta n c e sa n d p re v a i l i n g p ro fe s s i o n a l n o rm s a t th e ti m e o f th e a l l e g e d e rro r. See Str i ckl and, 466 U. S. a t688– 89, 104 S. C t . a t2 0 6 5 . O u rre v ie w o fc o u n s e l’s p e r f o r m a n c e m u s t b e h ig h lyd e f e r e n t ia l. Id . Ther e i s a s t r ong p r es um pt i on t hatco uns el ’ s con duc tf al l s w i t hi n a w i de
r ang e o fr ea so nab l e pr of es si ona l ass i st anc e, and t he def end antm us tove r com e th e p re s u m p ti o n . Id . A nd, undernor m al ci r cum st ances, t he r ecor d on di r ect appeal w i l l notbe suf f i ci entt o show t hatcounsel ’ s r epr esent a ti o n w a s so d e f ic ie n t a n d s o l a c k i n g a sto o v e rc o m e th e p re s u m p ti o n th a t c o u n s e l ’s
re p re s e n t a t io n w a sre a s o n a b l e a n d p ro fe s s i o n a l . Bo n ev. S tate , 77 S . W . 3d9

828, 833 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 2002 ) . Bu ti n t heo c c a s i on a l , r a r e c a s e , t het r i al
r ec or d on di r ec tap pea l al one m ayp r es entt he app el l at e c ourtw i t h s uf f i ci ent i n fo rm a ti o n to c o n c l u d e th a t n o re a s o n a b l e tri a l s tra te g y c o u l d j u s ti fyc o u n s e l ’s
con duc tbe ca us e c ounsel ’ s perf or m anc e f al l s bel ow an obj ec t i ve st and ar d of
r e a s o n a b le n e s s a s a m a t t e r o f la w , re g a r d le s so fw h e t h e rt h ere c o r d a d e q u a t e ly
re fl e c ts tri a l c o u n s e l ’ss u bj e c ti v e re a s o n s fo r a c ti n g a sh e d i d . Ca nn o nv. S tate , 25 2 S . W . 3d 34 2, 34 9– 50 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 08 ) ( r ever si ng con vi ct i on based on i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e o fco unsel r ai se d on di r ec tap pea l i n a bs enc e o f
m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l ); A n drews v. S tate , 159 S. W . 3d 98, 102 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ) (sa m e ); Ro b i

n so nv. S tate , 16 S. W . 3d 8 08, 809– 11 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 0 ) ( h o ld in g f a ilu r e t o f ile m o t io n f o rn e w t r ia l d o e sn o tp r o c e d u r a llyp r o h ib it
a p p e l l a te c l a i m o f i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l ). C onc er ni ng t he se con d Str i ckl and p ron g , i n g i v i n g m e a n i n g to th e S i x th A m endm ent ’ s r equi r em entt hatan accused have access t o ef f ect i ve assi st ance o f c o u n s e l , “w e m u s t ta k e it s p u r p o s e — to e n s u re a fa i r tri a l

— a sth e g u i d e .” Str i ckl and, 4 6 6 U . S . a t6 8 6 , 1 0 4S . C t . a t2 0 6 4 . T h e U n i t e d S t a t e sS u p r e me C o u rth a se x p la in e d t h e m e a n in g o fa f a irt r ia l: [ A ] f ai rt r i ali s onei n w hi ch evi den ces ubj ec tt o a dve r sa r i alt es t i ng i s pr esent ed t o an i m part i al t r i bun al f orr esol ut i on of i ssues def i ned i n advance ofthe proceedi ng. Th e ri ght t o coun sel p l ays a cr uci al role i n the ad v e rsa ri a l sy st e m em b o d i e d i n the S i x th A m e n d m e n t, sinc e ac c e ss to c o u n se l ’s sk i l l an d kn o w l e d g e i s n e c e ss a ryto10

ac cor d de f end ant s t he “a m pl e o pport uni t y t o m ee t t he ca seoft he pr os ec ut i on”t o w hi ch t heyar e e nt i t l ed. . . . T ha ta per so n w ho hap pen s t o bea l aw yeri s pr es entatt r i alal ongsi de t he ac cus ed, how eve r , i s noten ough t o s at i sf y t he cons t i t ut i ona l com m and . T he S i xt h A m endm entr ecogn i zes t he r i ght t o t he assi st ance ofcounsel bec aus e i ten vi si onsco uns el ’ s pl ayi ng a r ol e t hati s cr i t i ca l t o t he a b i l i t yo ft h e a d v e r s a r i a l s y s t e m t o pr od uc e j u s tr e s u l t s . An accused i s ent i t l ed t o be assi st ed by an at t or ney, w het herr et ai ned orappoi nt ed, w ho pl ays t he r ol e necessary t o ensur e t hatt he t r i al i sfa i r. Id. at685, 104 S . Ct . at2063 ( ci t at i onsom i t t ed) . “ The be nch m ar k f orj udgi ng any cl ai m ofi nef f ect i veness m ustbe w het herco unsel ’ s con duct so under m i ned t he pr operf uncti oni ng of t he adver sar i al pr ocess t hatt he t r i al cannot be r el i ed on as havi ng pr odu ced a j ustr esul t . ” Id . at68 6, 10 4 S . C t . at20 64 . Pr ej udi ce t o t he appl i cantf r om c o u n sel ’ s def i ci entper f or m ance i s j udg ed by w het her
coun sel ’ s conduct so under m i ned t he pr operfu n c ti oni ng of t he adver sar i al p r o c e s s t h a t t h e t r ia l c a n n o t b e r e lie d o n a s h a v in g p r o d u c e d a ju s tre s u lt . Ex p a rteA m ezquita , 223 S . W . 3d 363, 366 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2006 ) . “ A s t he Supr em e Courtex pl ai ned , t he p urposeoft he con st i t ut i ona l r equ i r em entof ef f ect i ve coun sel i s t o e n su r e a f ai rt r i al . ” Id. ( gr ant i ng ha bea s r el i efon i n e ffec ti v e as sistan c e g rou n d s b e c a u se trial co u n se l fai l e d to i n v e sti g a te evi den cei nvol vi ng t he com pl ai nan t ’ s ce l l phon e a nd t r i alco uns el ’ s def i ci ent per f or m ance so underm i ned t he pr operf uncti o n i ng of t he adver sar i al pr ocess th a t th e tri a l c o u l d n o t b e re l i e d o n a s h a v i n g p ro d u c e d a j u s t re s u l t); E xp a rte11

Br i ggs , 18 7 S . W . 3d at46 6– 67 ( gr ant i ng hab eas r el i ef on i nef f ect i ve assi st ance o f co u n se l g rou n d s b e c a u se tr i a l co u n se l fai l e d to i n v e sti g a te or o b tai n ex p e rt s fo r e c o n o m i c re a s o n s , n o t a stri a l s tra te g y ); accord Hof m an v. Weber, 639 N . W . 2d 52 3, 52 9 ( S . D . 20 02 ) ( r em andi ng cas e f or new t r i al aft erhol di ng t hat t r ia l c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e t o m o v e t o s u p p r e s s c o n f e s s io n s w a s n o t w it h in t h e re a lm
o f c o m p e te n c e re q u i re d o f m e m b e rso f th e p ro fe s s i o n ); Pe eb les v. S tate , 958 S . W . 2d 53 3, 53 7 ( A r k. 19 98 ) ( r em andi ng case f ornew t r i al aft erhol di ng t hat tri a l c o u n s e l ’sfa i l u re to p re s e n t th e v i c ti m ’s i n c o n s i s te n t s ta te m e n ts to th e j u ry d e p ri v e d th e d e fe n d a n t o f a fa i r tri a l ). A f ai l ure to m a ke a show i ng un derei t herpr ong oft he Str i ckl and t est d e fe a ts a c l a i m o f i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l . A n dre ws , 15 9 S . W . 3d at 101; R yl

a n der v. S tate , 1 0 1 S .W .3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 0

– 1 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). B. Fi r stPr ong oft he St r i ck l and A n a ly s is I n t hi s ca se , A l dr i ch hasal l ege d t hi rt ee n c at ego r i esofi nef f ec t i ve ac t s and
o m i ss i o n s b yh i s c o u n se l a t e a c h sta g e o f t h e p roc e e d i n g s, fr o m p retri a l to pun i shm ent . I n si xt y pages ofhi s ni net y- t w o- page app el l at e b ri e f, A l dr i ch pr es ent s and di sc us se s t heset hi rt ee n c at ego r i esofer r or s, m ak i ng nu m er ous and sp ec i f i c ci t at i ons t o t he r ec or d det ai l i ng t he cha l l eng ed con duc tan d exp l ai ni ng ho w t he cha l l eng ed con duc tnotonl y f el l be l ow t he st and ar d of pr eva i l i ng pr of es si ona l nor m s butw ass o out r age oust hatno c om pet ent12

at t or ney w oul d have eng aged i n i t . C onsequ ent l y, w e begi n w i t h a det ai l ed
r e v ie w o f t h e r e c o r d , fo c u s in g o n t h e p o rt io n s o f t h e r e c o r d c it e d b yA ld r ic h in
conn ect i on w i t h t he t hi rt een cat egor i es ofal l eged i nef f ect i veness.

1. Th e R ecor d C oncer ni ng A l l eged I neff ect i ve Pr et r i alC ond uct : M i sunder st andi ng oft he Law ,Fai l ur e t o A dequ at el y C onvey P le aO ff e r , F a ilu r et oI n v e s t ig a t e , a n d F a ilu r et oT im e lyO b t a in a n d D i sc l o seD e fen seE x p e rt s M anyof cou ns el ’ s al l ege d pr et r i al , as w el l as t r i al , er r or s and om i ss i ons ar e based on cou nsel ’ s l egal l y i ncor r ecti nt erpr et at i on of t he U ni t ed S t at es S u p rem e C o u rtca se o f Kyles v. W h itley , 514 U. S. 419, 115 S. Ct . 1555 ( 19 95 ) . Fr om t he pr et r i al phase oft he case t hr oug h t he t r i al oft he case, d e s p i te re p e a te d c o rre c ti o n b yb o th th e p ro s e c u to r a n d th e tri a l c o u rt, A l d ri c h ’s
cou ns elpe r si st ed i n hi s l egal l y i nc orr ec tas se rt i on t hathedi d notha ve t o do
a n yi n v e s t ig a t io n , a n yw it n e s sin t e rv ie w s , o rm a k e a n ya t t e m p tt o o b t a in di scover y because t he Kylesca seba si ca l l y r equ i r ed t he Stat e t o do al l oft he i nve st i gat i on i n t he ca seand t o t ur n overt o Al dr i ch al l r epo rt s, s t at em ent s, an d evi den cedi sc ove r ed i n i t s i nve st i gat i on. Th e Kylesi ssue, w hi ch p er m eat ed t he ent i r e case, f i r star ose w hen A l dr i ch’ s cou ns elf i l ed a m ot i on t hathet i t l ed, “M ot i on F or D i scover y/ Pr odu ct i on. ” The m ot i on st at es, i n pert i nent part , t hat [ i ] n K [ yl ] es v. W hi t l ey 11 5 S up. C t . 15 55 , al t hou gh t h e f i nal m aj or i t y op i ni on w as5/4, ap par ent l y i t w as 9/0 f ort he pr opos i t i on13

t hata pr os ec utorha s a n on- del ega bl e d ut y, ea r l y on i n t he pr os ec ut i onspr oce ss , t o per so nal l y i nt ervi ew al l pe r so nsw ho ha ve m or e t han m i ni m al i nf or m at i on con cer ni n g the case, and t o ask su ch per so n t he t ypeofque st i onst hatco ul d r ev ea l i nf or m at i on t hatan att or ney w oul d r ecogn i ze coul d be e x c u l p at or y, ( as o p p o s e d , l e t’ss a y , w h a t a p o l i c e m e n m i g h t c o n s i d e r e x c u l p a to ry ), and eve n i ft hep r os e c ut ord ou bt st hec r e di bi l i t y ofs uch i nf or m at i on, t o i m m edi at el y g i v e such i nf or m at i on t o t he def ense f or , am ong o t herr ea so ns , t he def ens e m ay nee d suc h i nf or m at i on w hen deci di ng w het herornott o expl or e t he possi bi l i t y ofa t r i al as o p p o s e d to p l e a b a rg a i n i n g . Th e r el i efA l dr i ch’ s counsel re q u e sted att he concl usi on of t hi s m ot i on w as “t hat t he D i st r i ct A t t or ney be O R D ER ED t o com pl y w i t h t he U . S . S u p r em e C ourtm andate setouti n K yl es, and t hata deadl i ne b e s e tf orsuch
com pl i ance. ” The r epo rt er ’ s r ec or d oft he Sept em be r9 , 2004 pr et r i alhe ar i ng on A l dr i ch’ s m ot i on f ordi sc ove ry/ pr oduc t i on be gi nsw i t h Al dr i ch’ s cou ns els t at i ng, I h a v e t a lk e d t o - - I fo r g e tJ im ’s la s tn a m e , b u tit ’s t h e g u yw h o is g o in g t o b e - -t h e a t t o r n e yw h o isg o in g t o b e p r o s e c u t in g t h is case --atone t i m e bef or e t he f i r sthear i ng on t he case and asked hi m i fhei nt end ed t o f ol l ow t he m and at esoft he Supr em e Courtof t he U n i ted Stat es i n K yl es ver sus W hi t l ey. A nd he sai d he w as b u s ya n d ti e d u p a n d h e ’d ta l kto m e l a te r a b o u t i t.

. . . . I w a n t a c o u rt o rd e r th a t g i v e sh i m a d e a d l i n e , because I can never b erea dyi

nthi scaseun ti

l hedo eswha t he ’ssu pp osed todo .

. . . .14

I w antan or derf r om t hi s co urtt hats ayst hathem us tdo --he m us t t al k t o t hes e w i t nes se s, he m us t as k t hem t he ki nd of que st i onst hatt he Supr em e C ourtsayshe hast o a skt hem , an d he h a sto re v e a l to u s a n y th i n g th a t c o u l d e v e n l e a d to e x c u l p a to ry e v i d e n c e , b e c a u s e h e ’ss a y i n g h e ’sn o t g o i n g to d o i t.

. . . . I sai d, w el l , atl eastcal l t he pol i ce and as kth e m to t al k t o us, bec aus e w e havet al ke d t o t hem an d t heys ay t heyw on’ tt al k t o us u n l e ss y o u sa yi t’ s o k a y . H e sa y s, n o , h e w o u l d n ’td o tha t. TH E CO U RT: I don’ tt hi nk t ha tyou hav e a ny a ut hor i t y t hats ays t hathe[ t he pr os ec ut or ] ha s t o t el l t he pol i ceof f i ce r s t o t al k t o yo u. D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : T h a t’st r u e . He has t he obl i gat i on un der Ky lesver sus W hitl e y to do it hi

m sel f an d to re

p ort ba ck to usif there ’san ythi

ngexcul

pa tory . Fi nal l y, t he pr osecut orr espond ed as f ol l ow s: W hatt he Kyl esca sehol dsi s t hatt her e i s a d i st i nct i on be t w ee n t he St at e’ s nondi sc l os ur e o fk now n Br adym at er i alve r su s goi ng ou t a n d i n v e sti g a ti n g to u n c o v e r B rad ym a teri a l . A n d the S tate a c k n o w l e d g e sth a t i t d o e sh a v e a d u tyto o b ta i n e x c u l p a to ry in f o r m a t io n , m it ig a t in g , o rim p e a c h m e n te v id e n c e t h a tw o u ld ot her w i se be unavai l abl e to t he def ense, b utthe case --t hatcase, and on i t s f ac t s, t ur ned upon t he bad

- f ai t h non di sc l os ur e o fBr ady m a t e r ia l. In th i sc a s e , a sw e w o u l d i n a n yo th e r c a s e , Y o u r H o n o r, w e i nt end t o com pl y w i t h t he r ul es of evi dence and t he case l a w to t ur n ov eran y e xcu l pat ory, m i t i gat i ng, asw el l asi m pea chm ent evi dence. N ow , t hat m ay not be on [ def ense counsel ’ s] t i m e f r am e i n t er m s of or der i ng t he St at e t o go outan d i nt ervi ew w i t nes se s or p o lic e o f f ic e r s , b u titw ill b e d o n e t im e lya n d a p p r o p r ia t e l yi n t h is case.15

D EFENSE C O U N SEL: I ’ m w ai t i ng f orhi m t o s ay w hen t hatm i ght b e , Y o u r H o n o r, because I ’ m goi ng to need atl

east 90days af

ter I have t hi s i nf or m at i on to get

r eady f or t r i al. TH E CO U RT: I don’ tkn ow t hatheha s t o s ay w hen t hey ’ r e g oi ng to d o i t. D EFEN S E C O U N S EL: W el l , the S upr em e C ourtsays t hatt hey s h o u l d h a v e d o n e i t a l re a d y . [E m p h a s i sa d d e d .] A ft er t he hea r i ng, t he t r i alco urts i gne d a Sept em ber21, 2004 or derr equ i r i ng t he St at e t o t i m el y di sc l os e att he ea r l i es tf ea si bl e opport uni t y t he exi st enc e o f evi dence t endi ng t o negate t he gui l t of t he accused or m i t i gat e t h e o ffen se c h a rg e d o r re d u c e th e p u n i s h m e n t o f th e a c c u s e d . A ta subsequen tpr et r i al hear i ng, A l dr i ch’ s def ense counsel agai n ar gued t hatt he St at e w asvi ol at i ng Kyles . D espi t e t he pr osecut or ’ s r epr esent at i on t hat t he S t at e w oul d be pr ovi ng i nt oxi cat i on t hr oug h t he i nt r odu ct i on of al coho l ( as oppos ed t o dr ugs ) i nt o Al dr i ch’ s body , defense cou ns elar gue d t hatt he pr os ec ut ors houl d ha ve obt ai ned t he r es ul t s ofa dr ug s cr ee n pe r f or m ed on A l dr i ch’ s bl ood and shoul d have f or w ar ded i t t o def ense counsel . Fi nal l y, aft er a l engthy att em ptt o expl ai n t o def ense counsel t hat , because th e Stat e w as pr oce edi ng un dert he t heo ry ofi nt oxi ca t i on byal coh ol , t he r es ul t s ofan y dr ug sc r ee n pe r f or m ed on Al dr i ch’ s bl ood s am pl e w oul d notbeex cul pat ory a nd
w oul d notbes ubj ec tt o pr oduc t i on un dert he or ders i gne d byt he t r i alco urt , t he t r i al courtexpl i ci t l y t ol d def ense counsel t hatt he case w as notsetfort r i al yet16

a n d t h a t , if in f a c t h e w a n t e d t h e re s u lt so ft h e d r u g s c r e e n re c o r d s , h e c o u ld
su bpoe na t hem . Couns elr es ponde d, W el l , w hen i t ’ s setf ort r i al , t hen I guess I coul d use a t r i al s u b p o e n a , b u tw h e r e a m I g o in g t o – w e ’r e g o in g t o s u b p o e n a h im ju s t t o c o m e in t o t h e – y o u k n o w h e ’s g o tt o b e s u b p o e n a e d t o t r ia l. TH E CO U RT: You ca n s ubpoe na r ec or ds , t hough . D EFENSE C O U N SEL: Justt el l t hem t o com e up her e o n a ny d ay I choo se and hand them t o hi m ? The subp oenas say[ ] t hey have a r ig h tt o p r o d u c e t h e m in c o u rt . T h e y d o n ’t h a v e t o s h o w m e d id d ly sq u a t. TH E CO U RT: N o, si r . You ca n subpo ena r ec or dsw i t houtt hat . You don’ tha ve t o ha ve a p er so n pr es entt o pr oduc e t hem t o yo u.

. . . . D EFENSE C O U N SEL: And t he su bpoe na us ual l y s aysyou ’ r e t o be at— w i t h t hos e r ec or ds on s uch an d s uch a dat e. Theydon’ tha ve t o gi ve t hem t o m e atal l . Theyar e j ustr equi r ed t o be t her e. TH E C O U R T: N o, si r . I t hi nk you’ r e co m pl et el y m i st aken. Y ou can gett hose r ecor ds and t hen f i l e t hem as a busi ness r ecor d and t hose peo p l e d o n ’ t e v e n h a v e t o b e h e r e i n o r d e r f o r t h e m t o be adm i ssi bl e i nt o evi dence. D e sp i te th i s i n stru c ti o n fr o m the co u rt , w h e n the h e a ri n g co n c l u d e d so m e thirty pag esl ateri n t he r ec or d, t he t r i alco urtag ai n t ol d de f ens e c ouns el , “ Si r , you can gett hat . A l l y ou have t o do i s f i l e a subpo ena dow n atD PS l ab and t hey
w i l l send t hatto yo u. ” D ef ense co unsel res pon ded, “A l l ri ght. I shal l cal l t hem and r eportback t o you , Y ourH ono r . ”17

Fi nal l y, att he t hi r d pr et r i al h ear i ng i n t hi s case, w hen t he t r i al courtcal l ed th e hear i ng, def ense coun sel i m m edi at el y began ar gui ng agai n t hat t he S tate had f ai l ed t o c om pl y w i t h Kyles : A di st r i ctatt or ney si m pl y canno tw ai tni ne m o n th s outofa year and s ay, W el l , I haven ’ tt al ke d— l as tt i m e, you r em em ber , hes ai d, I h aven’ ttal ked t o any w i t ness i n t hi s case si nce i tbegan. A nd so t hatw asa good t hi ng. Butheca nnotj us tl ett he St at e u set he evi den cean d de vel op t heo r i esoft he ca sean d e xpe r i m ent s f orni ne m ont hsort en m ont hsor11 m ont hs , how eve rl ong i t ’ s goi ng t o be u n ti l h e ta lk sto th e m , a n d th e n w h e n h e g e ts a l l th i se x c u l p a to ry i n fo rm a ti o n , t

hi nkst ha t I’ m goi ngto beabl

e to pl a y ca tch upi

n 60 days or som et hi ng. That’

s alwa ys b e enm y probl em bef ore, as I said.

. . . . [A ]n d I to l d h i m , [th e p ro s e c u to r] o n n u m e ro u s-- I w a n t th a t -- I w a n t y o u to o b e yK y l e sv s . W h i tl e y . A g a i n , th e tri a l c o u rt a tte m p te d to e x p l a i n to d e fe n s e c o u n s e l th a t th e re w e re
m ot i onsheco ul d f i l e a nd w ayshecoul d obt ai n nonexc ul pat ory evi den ce . The f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e o cc ur r ed: TH E CO U RT: A nd a l l tha t[de f ens e c ouns el ’ s pr i orm ot i on f or di sc ove ry/ pr oduc t i on] as ksf ori s exc ul pat ory i nf or m ati on. You have no tasked foran yt hi ng el se. Y ou hav en’ tasked f orany t est s, any , you kn ow , how t hi ngsw ere t es t ed, unde rw hatco ndi t i ons t heyw er e t es t ed, t hi ngs of t hat nat ur e. N ow , you sa i d yo urcl i ent p a ss e d the b l o o d tes t? D EFENSE C O U N SEL: Yes, hece rt ai nl y di d. TH E CO U R T : A l l r i ght . Agai n, don’ tyou t hi nk a m ot i on f or di sc ove ry m i ghtbepr ope rf oryou t o ge tw hatyou ne ed?18

D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : W e l l , I thi nka f ter I ge t theexcul

pa tory i nf or m at i on , i t c e rta i n l yi ss o m e th i n g -- TH E CO U RT: But , i f , i n f ac t –l et ’ s su ppos e t hatthe r e’ s no e x c u l p a to ryi n fo rm a ti o n . H o w c a n y o u g e t th a t? [E m p h a s i sa d d e d .] The he ar i ng c onc l ude d, and def ens e cou ns el aga i n st i l l had notpe r f or m ed any in v e s t ig a t io n o rd is c o v e ry ; h e w a sw a it in g o n t h e S t a t e t o c o m p lyw it h h is l e g a l l yi n c o rr e c t i n terp reta ti o n o f Kyles . A tye tan ot herpr et r i alhe ar i ng, de f ens e c ouns els t i l l f ocu se d on Kyles . D e fe n s e c o u n se l clai m e d h e w a n ted to c a l l h i m se l f t o the sta n d to te sti fy because [ w ] el l , t he onl y per son t hat ’ s r eal l y i n a posi t i on t o t est i f y t o t hese f ac t s abo utt he l ac k of t he cou rt enf or ci ng [ t he pr i oror derr equ i r i ng t he Stat e t o t i m el y pr oduc e e xcu l pat ory e vi den ce ] ab outt hathe w asor der ed w ay bac k l as tye art o gi ve exc ul pat ory i nf or m at i on, and t he fac tt hatyou or der ed hi m t o gi ve i ton t he 21 of st J a n u a ry — I h a v e t h e t r a n s c r ip t s — w o u ld b e t h e la w y e r . T h e o n ly o n e w h o k n o w sa b o u t a c o n v e rs a ti o n w i th [th e p ro s e c u to r]. T h e t r ia l c o u rtp e r m it t e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t o o f f e rh iso w n t e s t im o n ya sa b ill, and defense coun sel agai n f ocused on t he S t at e’ s pur port ed l ack ofcom pl i ance
w i t h Kyles . He t es t i f i ed: Th e C ourtw i l l r em em bert hataft eryou t ol d hi m t o do i t , tw o pages l a te r i n th e tra n s c ri p t y o u o rd e re d h i m to t u r n o v e r e x c u l p a to ry i nf or m at i on t hen . A nd, ofco ur se , t he onl y w ay t hatt he D . A . ’ s f i nd outab outex cul pat ory i nf or m at i on i s t o a skt he w i t nes se s ast he S u p r e m e C o u rtb e g a n in B r a d ya n d la t e r in s o m e t h in g a n d la t e rin t h e K y le sc a s e t h a tI ’ v e a lr e a d yg iv e n t h a tc it e t o , b u th e w o u ld have t o t al k t o t hese peopl e.19 A l so i n t hathe ar i ng t he C ourts ai d l et ’ s gett o t he hea rtof t he m at t er , [ t he pr osecut or ] , y ou’ r e n otg oi ng t o go on t he, perse, 08 si gn of i nt oxi cat i on. Y ou’ r e goi ng t o onl y go o n t he 0 7; am I c o rre c t? T o w h i c h [th e p ro s e c u to r] s a i d , A b s o l u te l y , Y o u r H o n o r, onl y t he 07. So t hatw as an i ndi ca t i on t o ust hatw e w er e n ot g o i n g t o h a v e t o wo r rya b o u t d r a wi n g d o wn mo r e mo n e y o u t o fmy r e t i r e m e nt t o ge t a n e xp e rtw i t ne s so n w ha th e h a sn ow d on e . So w e w e r e t o ld t h a ta ty o u rd ir e c tq u e s t io n s , h iss a y in g a b s o lu t e ly th a t w e w e re n ’t g o i n g t o h a v e a n a tte m p t a t a n 0 8 , p e r s e . N o w -- TH E CO U RT: N o, I don’ tr em em beri tt hatw ay.

. . . . I th i n k w h a t [th e p ro s e c u to r] m e a n t w h e n h e s a i d th e yw e re goi ng on t he . 07 i s t hatt heyw ere n otgoi ng t o do any t hi ng r egar di ng anydr ugs oranyt hi ng, j ustt he al coho l partofi t ; i s t hat n o t co rr e c t? T H E P R O S E C U T O R : Y e s , Y o u r H o n o r. O n t he day A l dr i ch’ s case w as ori gi nal l y cal l ed f ortr i al , def ense counsel te s ti fi e d o n th e re c o rd i n a n a rra ti v e fo rm s p a n n i n g e i g h t p a g e s i n th e re p o rte r’s
r ec or d. Port i onsofde f ens e c ouns el ’ s t es t i m ony i ncl udet he f ol l ow i ng: I w ar ned t he C ourt t hat t hey w oul d exhaustourr esour ces, exhaust ourm one y a nd a tt he l as tm i nut e c om e u p a nd do t hi s. . . . Now , he di dn’ tsay I ’ m goi ng on t he al coh ol . He sa i d, Eve rybod y’ s sa yi ng 07 t hr ougho utt hi s t r ans cr i ptt hat I h av e. So I di dn’ tdr aw out m o re m o n e yo u t of m yreti rem e n t t o g e t so m e b o d yto s h o w - - to oppo se t he ext r apo l at i on pa rtofi t . . . . I ca l l ed t he pol i cean d I sa i d, Loo k, C apt ai n C hr i s C han dl er i s t el l i ng us t he pol i cear e g oi ng to g i v e u s n o th i n g , b u t t h e C o u rto rde red the D i stri c t A tt o rne yto t el l t he peo pl e t hati tw asok ay t o t al k t o usan d w e s etup t he app oi nt m ent . Theys ai d, G ee , [ def ens e c ouns el ] , t hat ’ s nott he m es sa ge I got . And I sai d, W el l , M r . Chandl er , w hati s t he m e s s a g e y o u g o t ? H e s a id t h a th e g o titf r o m a la d yD .A . w h o s a id20

t o hi m , Y ou do n’ thave t o t al k t o t hem . . . . S o t hen I cal l ed back [t h e p r o s e c u t o r ] a n d I s a id , W e ll, y o u ’v e p r o v e n t o m e t h a tt h e r e is n o – I ’l l b e h o n e st w i th y o u – th e re’s n o co u rti n D e n to n C o u n ty t hat ’ s goi ng t o enf or ce [ t he S ept em ber21 , 20 04 ] or der . Y ou can j ustr em ai n i n cul pabl e i gno r ance, as l ong as you d o n ’ta sk , t hen t hey’ r e notgoi ng t o m ake you f i nd ou tand t el l m e. So I guess t hat , r at her t han t he r i ght w ay t hat I ’ ve al w ays done i t , f i nd ou tt he excul pat or y st uf ff i r stand l ook att he D .A .’ s fi l e, I guess I ’ m j ust goi ng t o have t o l ook aty ourfi l e fi r stbecause I ’ m notgoi ng t o get anyt hi ng excu l pat or y. [ D ef ense co unsel ] sai d, now , I ’ m so st art l ed abo utt hi s ans w er , butt hi s i s r ea l l y not a quot e, but i t i s doggo ne nea r . [ De f e n s e c o u n s e l ] , y o u ’ v e h u rt m y f e e l i n g s i n t h i sca se by sa y i n g b a d thing s a b o u t m e , so for y o u o n l y , y o u r c l i e n t i s go i n g to suf f er . I ’m goi ng t o cl ose t he open

- f i l e pol i cy t hatt he D i st r i ct A ttorn e yes tab l i sh e d i n this co u n ty, a n d y o u ’r e n o t go i n g to g e t i t.

. . . W e f e e l t h a tt h a ts h o u l d ha ve be e n g i v e n b yt h e – DW I vi de ot a pet ha tw e s ho ul d ha veb e e n gi ve n a c op y, I b e l i e vei t ’ s20 da ys . I b e l i e v e t h e l a w s a y st h e yg o tt o g i v e u sa c o p yo fi t20 d a y sb e f o r e t r ia l. T H E C O U R T : I f t h e y ’r e g o i n g to u se i t. D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : N o . G iv e itt o u s2 0 d a y sb e f o r e t r ia l. T H E C O U R T : If th e y ’reg o i n g t o u s e i t a n d i t c o n ta i n se x c u l p a to ry i n fo rm a ti o n . I f i t d o e sn ’t sh o w a n y th i n g , th e n th e yd o n ’th a v e to gi ve i tt o yo u. A nd, al so , di d yo u f i l e a m ot i on f ordi sc ove ry? D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : W e ll– TH E CO U RT: I s t hata yesorno? D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : T o d i s c o v e r e x c u l p a to ryi n fo rm a ti o n , y e s , w e di d.

. . . .21

T H E C O U R T : D id y o u f ile a m o t io n f o rd is c o v e ryo fa n ys c ie n t if ic t est s, any t ype of vi deotapes, et cet er a, et cet er a? D EFEN S E C O U N S EL: W el l , since i tw asn’ tunt i l Tu esday ofl ast w eek – TH E CO U RT: M y qu es t i on i s, s i r , di d yo u f i l e a m ot i on f or di sc ove ry? D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : Y e s . I th i n kth a ty o u w o u l d c o n s i d e r m y m ot i on f i l ed and r ul ed on [ on Sep t em ber21, 2004 ] a m ot i on f or di scover y, yes.

. . . . TH E C O U R T: W el l , I ’ m l ooki ng att hi s m ot i on f ordi scover y [ t hat w a sru l e d o n o n S e p te m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 ]. D EFENSE C O U N SEL: Yeah. T H E C O U R T : A n d th e o n lyt h in g t h a t I s e e i n h e re i sth a t y o u ’re as ki ng f or exc ul pat ory i nf or m at i on. You’ r e not as ki ng f oran yt hi ng sp ec i f i c, j us tan yt hi ng t hat ’ s exc ul pat ory. D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : R i g h t.

. . . . D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : N o w J u d g e , j u s t s o m yp o s i ti o n i sc l e a r, t her e’ s no appel l at e courtt hat ’ s ever sai d t hat excul patory i s what t he D . A . has. W

hat t hey sa y i

s t hat excul patory i s anyi nf or m at i on possessed by par

am edi cs, b y pol

i cede part m ent , by al

l t he wit nessest

ha t areconsidered

S ta tewit

nessesb ecauset

heir kn o wl ed gei si mp u ted totheD .A . So i n or de rto beex cul pat ory, th a t i n c l u d e s th in g s th a t w o u l d l e a d to e x c u l p a to ry, the yh a v e to as k. Butw hatge t s cha nge d he r e i s yo u ke ep sa yi ng t hatyou r vi si on i s, i s j us tw hatt heyha ve. Theydon’ tha ve t o ask . So no w o n d e r [th e p ro s e c u to r] h e a ri n g th a t, d o e s n ’t a s k . N o w , th e yc a n ’t s a yth a t w e a d m i tte d – S ta te c a n ’t s a yw e m a d e a g o o d fa i th e ffo rt22

to d i g o u t a l l th i se x c u l p a to ryin fo rm a ti o n s o w e c o u l d t u rn i t o v e r. T h a t’se x a c t lyw h a t h a p p e n e d i n K y l e s . I f w e d o n ’t fi n d o u t, w e don’ tha ve t o di sc l os e i t , and t hat ’ s r e- enf or ce d by t he C ourts ayi ng t heyonl y ha ve t o t ur n ov erw hatt heyha ve. That ’ s not w hatt he a p p e l l a te c o u rtss a ya t a l l .

. . . . TH E COURT : Ok a y . Yo u ’ r e t a l k i n g a b o u t w i t n e s s e s ? Ha ve you f i l ed a m ot i on f ora w i t nes s l i st ? I m ea n, f ort r i alhe ar i ng. Have y o u d o n e tha t? D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : H a v e I d o n e i t? TH E C O U R T: Y es. I don’ tsee i ti n t he f i l e. D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : I di dn’t kno w t

he def ense wasr

equi red to do tha t. T H E C O U R T : Y o u t h in kt h a tth e p ro s e c u ti o n h a sto tu rn o v e r a w i t nes s l i stw i t houta pr ope rm ot i on? D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : No. It ’ s t r ut hf ul , I’ m not sur e. I’ m not f ami l i ar wit h al l t he l ocal r ul es. T H E C O U R T : I d o n ’t th i n ki t’sa l o c a l ru l e . [E m p h a s i sa d d e d .] A fte r d e fe n s e c o u n s e l c o n c l u d e d h i sn a rra ti v e te s ti m o n y , th e tri a l c o u rt pe r m i t t ed t he pr os ec ut ort o c r os s- exa m i ne def ens e c ouns el . The pr os ec ut or est abl i shed t hatdef ense counsel had not f i l ed a m ot i on fo rr ul e 40 4b not i ce, h a d n o t fi l e d a n y k i n d o f d i s c o v e ry m o ti o n (o th e r th a n th e o n e fo r e x c u l p a to ry e v i d e n c e rul e d o n o n S e p tem b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 ), h a d n o t t u rne d o v e r t o the S tate23

t he na m e s of a ny e xp e rt s t he de f e ns e m i gh t c a l l , a nd di d no t k no w t he l aw c o n c e rn i n g th e S ta te ’sri g h t to a m e n d a n i n d i c tm e n t. A tt he con cl us i on oft hi s hea r i ng, t he pr os ec ut ors t at ed, J u s t to p u t o n t h e re c o rd t h a t th e S ta te , b a s e d o n w h a t w e h e a rd t oda y f r om D ef ens e Couns el , i s se r i ous l y w or r i ed a bout[ an] i nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e c l ai m . And w e’ r e af r ai d ofgoi ng a nd t ryi ng th i sc a s e b e c a u s e o f w h a t D e fe n s e C o u n s e l h a s n o t d o n e , w h e re he’ s neverf i l ed a 40 4( b) , and I had t o send i tt o hi m . A nd w hen I di d, he accused t he S t at e oft ryi ng t o inti m i dat e hi m . H e has neverf i l ed any m ot i ons, di dn ’tev en know w hen t he w i t ness l i st h a s to b e turn e d o v e r, d i d n ’tev e n kn o w w h e n w e h a d an ab so l u te r i ght t o t ur n over — I m ean t o am end t he i ndi ct m ent . A nd t he S t at e, b a s e d o n h is t e s t im o n y , h a sv e rys e r io u sc o n c e r n so n t r y i n g t h is w hol e c a s e a g a i n , p o s s i b l yg e t t i n g a c o n v i c t i o n , a n d t h e n g e t t i ng i t o v e rtu rn e d b e c a u s e o f i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e , w h e n h e d id n ’t even f i l e a m ot i on t el l i ng us abou tan expert . A nd w e’ r e afr ai d t hat on a ppe al , t hatt hi s w oul d be

— w hat ever w oul d ha ppe n t oda y, w oul d beovert ur ned be ca us e o fi nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e. And w e j u s t w a n te d to p u t th a t o n th e re c o rd . The pr os ec ut orl at ers t at ed, I ha ve onequi ckt hi ng t o puton t he r ec or d. I j us tw antf ort he r ec or d t o s t at e t hatthe S t ate had m adea pl ea of f er , 20, t o t he D ef ense and t hey’ ve neverr espond ed. So I j ust w ant ed t o put t hat on t he r ec or d. D EFENSE C O U N SEL: That ’ s notaccu r at e, Y ourH onor . He t ol d us t hatt he of f erof2 0 year s, t he m axi m um , w oul d have t o be t aken u p b ythe 1 6 o r he w o u l d tak e o u r rep l y to b e tha t w e rej e c ted i t. th I be l i evet hat ’ s w hatyou rl ett ers ai d. T H E P R O S E C U T O R : Your Hon or , hedoesn ’t

even kno wwhat

t he sen ten ce i

s. [Twen ty years

] i s n o t them ax

i m um . The m axi m um her e i s l i f e. A nd th a t s h o w s t hathe di d get

— he di d gett he pl ea o ffe r.24

Li ke w i se , t he t r i alj udgel at erco m m ent ed t o Al dr i ch, A nd w hatI ’ m w or r i ed abou t , an d I know t hi s m i ght of f end [ def ense cou ns el ] , and t he j ury pane l orno onei s pr es ent . T her e a r e s om e peo pl e p r es enti n t he cou rt . Thatal m os tper[ se ] , w hatI s eer i ght now i s i nef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel . A nd I w oul d be w or r i ed t hat i f you w er e t r i ed— and I don’ tw antt o t ry t hi s ca set w i ce , an d you w er e convi ct ed, t ha t i n a l l pr obab i l i t y, i ft hi s case w as a p p e a l e d o n in e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l

— a n d , o f c o u rs e , I don’ tknow w hatt he C ourtofA ppe al s w oul d s ay, butj us tt hi nki ng a b o u tw h a tt h e ym ig h ts a y , t h a tin a ll p r o b a b ilit yy o u rc a s e w o u ld b e o v e rtu rn e d , a n d y o u w o u l d h a v eto b e tri e d a g a i n i n th i sm a tte r. Based o n concer ns fo rA l dr i ch’ s r i ghts , even t hou gh a j ur y panel had been
w ai t i ng al l m or ni ng f ort r i al t o com m ence, t he S t at e m oved f orand w as gr ant ed a cont i nuan ce oft he t r i al sett i ng. D ef ense counsel w as speci f i cal l y t ol d t hat t h e g r a n t in g o f t h e c o n t in u a n c e r e s e t t h e t im e t a b le s f o r h im t o b e a b le t o t im e ly fi l e a n ym o ti o n sh e d e s i re d . A ppr oxi m at el y f i ve m onths l at er , t he t r i al courtseta st at us conf er ence i n t he ca se . Pr i ort o t he st at us con f er enc e, def ens e c ouns els enta l ett ert o t he pr os ec ut oran d t he t r i alco urtcl ai m i ng t he f ol l ow i ng:

O urco urt s hol d t hat no m att er w hat m y cl i ent t el l s m e a bout t he f ac t s i n hi s ca se , I am co m pel l ed t o m ak e a t ho r ough i nve st i gat i on ofal l f ac et s and l aw ofhi s ca sebe f or e I di sc us s t he i dea ofex pend i ng possi bl y M r . A l dr i ch’ s enti r e w eal t h upo n a t r i al o r i f w e sh o u l d c o n side r a p l e a . N o l a w y e r sh o u l d b e co m p e l l e d to ent eri nt o t he t r i alorpl ea di sc us si on w i t h hi s cl i entunt i l heobt ai ns f r om t he pr osecut or al l t he excul pat or y i nf or m at i on as he i s r equi r ed by K yl es t o pr odu ce. T h e pr osecut ori s f or bi dden , as he has b rag g e d ab o u t do i n g in th i s c a se , to refrai n fr o m ev e n tal k i n g to25

any w i t nesses f or over a year af t er t he occur r ence, l ong aft er m em or i esha ve f ade d. E s p e c ia ll yw h e n c lie n t sh a v e litt le m o n e y(M r . A ld r ic h isin b a n k ru p tc y ), h i sm e a g e r re s o u rc e ss h o u l d b e p re s e r v e d to h i re exp ert s, i fne ce ss ary. The bes tw ay, I have f ound, t o pr epa r e f or t r i ali s t o ge tf r om t he D i st r i ctA t t or neyt hatw hi ch Kyl ess ayshe m us tgi ve ea r l y i n t he pr oce ss . Then , kn ow i ng w hatf ac t s t he S tate ’s w i tn e ss e s a n d th e d e fen se ag ree s u p o n , to co n c e n tr a te to dev el op a ddi t i ona lw i t nes se s, ex pertan d f a c t , t o pr oduc e t es t i m ony fav o rab l e to th e d e fen se . O n l ythe n i s th e atto rne yall o w e d to d is c u s s w it h a c lie n t w h e t h e r t o a t t e m p t a p le a o rp r o c e e d t o t r ia l.

. . . . W h e n I e x p l a i n e d t h a t [ t h e p r o s e c u t o r ] wa sa t t e mp t i n g t o f o r c e me to co m m i t w h a t I co n side red m a l p rac ti c e b yfo rc in g m ycli e n t t o c h o o s e t w e n t y( 2 0 ) y e a r so rt r ia l b e f oret hecasewast

h[o]ro ughly i nvest i gated by t

he def ense th e yd i d n o t s e e m s u rp ri s e d . . . . The t hr ea t of [ t he prosecutor

] to wit hdr aw hi s t wenty (

20) year of

f er on 06June 2 0 0 5i

f I do not commit

m al pr act i ce has been conveyed to Mr. A l

dr i ch whomI

am proud to sayr

ej ec ts t hi s l ates t attempt a t bla ckm ail. [E m p h a s i sa d d e d .] A f ew w ee ksl at er , t he t r i alco urthe l d t he st at usco nf er enc e. Despi t e t he i nt erveni ng f our -t o f i ve- m onth t i m e i nt er l ude, def ense counsel st i l l had not f i l ed
a n yd i s c o v e ry m o ti o n s , h a d n o t fi l e d a m o ti o n th a t a s p e c i m e n fro m A l d ri c h ’s bl ood sam pl e be physi cal l y t ur ned ov ert o hi m , and had not r equest ed a w i t ness l i stf r om t he S t at e nort ur ned ov erhi s w i tn ess l i stt o t he S t at e. D ef ense c o u n s e l f e ll b a c k t o h is s t a n d a r d p o s it io n , “ W e ll, th e n t h e s t a t u s is t h a t w e s t ill haven’ tbeen gi ven excul pat or y m at t er s bythe S t at e. ” A tt hi s poi nt , t he t r i al
cour ti ns t r uc t e d de f e ns e c ou ns e l t o s i td ow n a nd t o ha nd w r i t e a r e qu e s tt hat2 ... A tt r i al , D r . A nge l a Spr i ngf i el d t es t i f i ed f ort he St at e t hats he w asnot

su r pr i se d t o l ea r n t hatt he bl ood al coh ol l eve l i n t he sa m pl e h ad dr oppe d f r om

. 07 t o . 04 dur i ng t he f ourt een m onths bet w een w hen t he sam p l e w a s t aken and w hen i tw ast es t ed by t he def ens e bec aus e bl ood sa m pl esl os e t hei ral coh ol con t entw hen t he sa m pl e i s notr ef r i ger at ed and w hen t he vi alco nt ai ni ng t he sa m pl e i s ope ned an d c l os ed f orr et es t i ng. 26 a speci m en ofA l dr i ch’ s bl ood be t ur ned ov ert o hi m . D ef ense cou n sel
com pl i ed; t he hand w r i t t en r equesti s cont ai ned i n t he cl er k’ s r ecor d. The t r i al
cou rti m m edi at el y s i gne d a n or der gr ant i ng t he r equ es t . Def ens e c ouns el , upon bei ng i nf or m ed t hatt he sam pl e w as r eady f orhi m , f ai l ed t o pi ck i tup f orover a w ee k unt i l t he pr os ec ut or ca l l ed def ens e cou ns el and as ke d w hy h e h ad not pi cked up t he sam pl e. A no t he rpret r i al he ari ng w as h el d a pp r ox i m atel y o ne m on t h l ater. D ef ens e c ouns el , by t hi s t i m e, ha d f i l ed t hr eem ot i ons : onem oti on f or pr oduc t i on ofev i den ce f avo r abl e t o t he ac cus ed, one m ot i on f orr epr oduc t i on ofw i t ness st at em ent s or w r i t i ngs used t o r ef r esh t he r ecol l ect i on of w i t nesses, and t hen a r egu l ardi sc ove r y m oti on . Thes e t hr eem ot i onsar e c opi ed f r om a fo rm b o o k , re p l e te w i th b l a n k s a n d b ra c k e ts fo r [c a p ti o n ], [att o rn e ys i g n a tu re b l o c k ], a n d o th e r c a s e -s p e c i fi c i te m s . A tt h is h e a r in g , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l in d ic a t e d t h a th e h a d o b t a in e d h is cl i ent ’ s bl ood s am pl e a nd had i tt es t ed and t hatt he r es ul t s sh ow ed a b l ood
a l c oh oll e ve l o f. 04; t he f ocu s ofde f ens e c ounsel ’ s con ce r n a tt hi s hea r i ng 23 ... A tA l dr i ch’ s or i gi nalt r i als ett i ng, t he St at e obj ec t ed t o havi ng a ny o f

A l dr i ch’ s expert s t est i f yi ng because t he S t at e h ad not “r ecei ved any no t i ce at a l l o f a n ye x p e rt b e i n g c a l l e d .” 27 w a s t he a dm i s s i bi l i t y of hi s t e s t r e s ul t s be c a us e of w ha t de f e ns e counsel per cei ved t o be chai n ofcust ody i ssues. Th e pr osecut orexpl ai ned t hatdef ense cou ns eldi d notneed t o w or ry aboutes t abl i sh i ng t he St at e’ s cha i n ofcu st ody, he had t o e st abl i sh onl y hi s ow n cha i n ofcu st ody— w hathedi d w i t h t he bl ood
sa m pl e f r om w hen he pi ck ed i t up unt i l he r et ur ned i t . D ef ens e c ouns els t at ed, “I fhes ayst hat ’ s w hatt he l aw i s, I ’ m w i l l i ng t o a cc eptt hat . Al l I ’ ve gott o do i s [ pr ove] m y one- hou rcust ody an d t hatw oul d be f i ne. ” Th e t r i al courtgr ant ed
m os t , i fnotal l , oft he r el i efs oughti n de f ens e c ouns el ’ s m ot i ons ; t he pr os ec ut ori ndi ca t ed t hatm os t of t he i t em s and i nf or m at i on s oughtha d a l r ea dy b e e n g r a t u it o u s lyp r o v id e d t o d e f e n s e c o u n s e l. A f i nal pr et r i al con f er enc e w as hel d on t he m or ni ng of Jul y 25, 2005 , t he f i r stday of t r i al . Th e t r i al court had pr evi ousl y or der ed t he def ense t o di scl ose th e n a m e sa n d a d d re s s e so f a l l d e fe n s e e x p e rtsa t l e a s t tw e n tyd a y sb e fo re t r ia l. Th e w e ek bef or e t r i al , nott w ent y days bef or e t r i al , def ense counsel 3 f axed to th e S t at e a docum entt i t l ed, “I n R esponse t o t he S t at e ofTexas R e q u e s tf o rIn f o r m a t io n o n E x p e rtW it n e s s e s .” T h e re s p o n s e lis t e d a “ D a v id4 ... D ef ense co uns els t at ed t hatTayl orw oul d t es t i f y a s an exp ertan d

“i nt er pr ett he Texa s l aw ast o t he pr ef er r ed di r ec t i onsofhe adl i ght s on m ot or vehi cl es t r avel i ng on publ i c r oadw ays i n T exas and how f a r u p th e r oadw ay h e a d l i g h ts w i l l s h i n e w h e n i n th e ‘d o w n ’ a n d n o t ‘b ri g h t’ m o d e .”

5 ... D u r in g t h e o n -t h e -r e c o r d d is c u s s io n o fw h e t h e rD a v i d T a y lo rs h o u ld be per m i t t ed t o t est i f y, d ef ense co unsel asked t he t r i al co urt , “W hatdi d I say t hatTay l o r w as?” Th e t r i al courtr espond ed, “Sor ry?” A nd defense coun sel asked, “W oul d you t el l m e w hat[ ki nd ofex pert ] I sai d Tay l orw as and r ef r esh m y m em ory? ” The t r i alco urtdi d s o. 28 Tay l or ” as an expertw ho w oul d t est i f y r egar di ng r oadw ay headl i ghts . N o 4
a d dress, pho ne nu m be r , or curr i cu l um vi t ae w as p r ov i de d for “D av i d T a y l o r.” N one t hel es s, t he St at e con duc t ed an i nt er net se ar ch and co nt ac t ed t he per so n i tbe l i eve d w ast he de f en se exp ert , an ac ci den tr ec ons t r uct i oni stf r om t he C ar r ol l t on Po l i c e Dep a rt m e nt . Th a tp a rt i c ul a rDav i d Ta yl ors a i d t ha th e h ad
never been cont act ed by anyone about t he case, and def ense cou n se l stat ed
o n th e d a yo f tri a l th a t h e i n te n d e d to c a ll a d i ffe re n t D a v i d T a y l o r. The t r i al 5
courtr ul ed t hatD avi d T ayl orw oul d not be al l ow ed t o t est i f y because def ense cou ns elha d f ai l ed t o pr ovi de pr ope rort i m el y no t i cet o t he S t ate r ega r di ng Tay l or . The r esp o n se a l so l i st ed D on I ngl e as an acci dent r econst r uct i oni st
e x p e rt . T h e tri a l c o u rt s u b s e q u e n tl yru l e d , h o w e v e r, th a t b e c a u s e In g l e ’s acci dent r econst r uct i oni st exper i ence i ncl uded onl y t aki ng one sh o rtcour se t hi rt y year s ago, he w as notqual i f i ed t o t est i f y as an acci dent r econst r uct i oni st expert ; he di d t est i f y as a f actw i t ness.6 ... D ef ense counsel fai l ed t o m ake an of f erofpr oof r egar di ng ei t her

Sul l i van ’ s orTayl or ’ s pr opos ed t es t i m ony. 29 O n the m o rning o f t ri a l , d e fen se co u n se l fi l e d a “ S u p p l e m e n t t o D ef endan t ’ s Li stofExpertW i t nesses. ” The s upp l em entsought t o desi gnate a “Ri cha r d E. Sul l i van ” asan i l l um i nat i on e xpe rtan d a t t ac he d a r epo rtf r om Sul l i van t hat had bee n pr epa r ed t he w ee ke nd bef or e t r i al st art ed on M on da y. The r epo rt doc um ent s t he i l l um i nan ce i n t he cr os sw al k a ti ss ue, s pec i f i ca l l y, t he l i m i t ed i l l um i nan cepr ovi ded i n t he cr os sw al k ne art he ce nt eroft he f our - l ane st r eet . D ef ense co unsel cl ai m ed t hath e h ad j ustdeci ded t o cal l Su l l i van as an e x p e rt b e c a u s e th e S ta te h a d ta rd i l yp r o v i d e d th e d e fe n s e e x c u l p a to ry i nf or m at i on— t he f actt hatSer geant Bi l l H al l w as t he of f i ce r t o w hom A l dr i ch had s t at ed att he sc enet hatheha d be en bl i nde d byt he l i ght s ofonc om i ng t r af f i c. Butt he r ec or d r ef l ec t s t hatt he pr os ec ut orha d gr at ui t ous l y pr ovi ded t he
nam es ofal l t he i nvol ved of f i cer s t o def ense coun sel on Januar y 21 , 20 05 , at
a h e a ri n g th a t h a d o c c u rre d s i x m o n th s b e fo re tri a l c o m m e n c e d . T h e tri a l c o u rt
r ul ed t hatSu l l i van cou l d not t est i f y b ecause t hi s not i ce w as gi ven t oo l at e. 6 The t r i alco urtex pl ai ned , “ You ca n bi de yourt i m e, si r . You’ ve had a yea ran d
a h a l f to p re p a re th i sc a s e , so y o u ’v e h a d a m p l e o p p o rtu n it y . A n d w e w e re re a d yto tryth i sc a s e , w h a t, s i xm o n th sa g o ; a n d y o u ’v e h a d s i xm o n th sm o re t o pr epar e f ori t . ”30

T h e tr i a l co u rtd i d rul e , h o w e v e r, tha t i t w o u l d p e rm i t M a xC o u rt n e yto t es t i f y f ort he def ens e. Def ens e c ouns elha d pr ovi ded Court ney ’ s cur r i cul um vi t ae t o t he S t at e i n conn ect i on w i t h a m ot i on f orcont i nuan ce t hat he had f i l ed
a b o u t a m o n th e a rl i e r . T h e p ro s e c u to r i n d i c a te d , “I k n o w M a xC o u rtn e y . I don’ tha ve any pr obl em atal l w i t h M ax C ourt ney . Butt hes e o t herpe opl e, Your H o n o r, th e p e o p l e l i s te d h e re w i th o u t— I h a v e — h e d i d n ’t g i v e u sp ro p e r n o ti c e .” Fi nal l y, atsom e poi ntdur i ng t he t r i al , def ense counsel subpoen aed TrooperBl ai r . The prosecut or poi nt ed out, “I t hou ght w e had a r ul i ng on t hat t hatan y ofh i s[ Tr oo pe rBl a i r ’ s ] t e s t i m on y w a si r r e l e va ntb e c a us e Def e ns e C oun sel w as goi ng t o have hi m tes t i f y t o hi m h avi ng an acci dent, t hatyou can hav e an ac ci den t i n t he day t i m e, an d s i ncebot h t hi s Tr oope r ’ s ac ci den tw ason a hi ghw ay i n anothercounty, notatt hi s i nt er sect i on, noti n T he C ol ony, notat t he exactsam e t i m e, anyt hi ng t hatw oul d have been r el evantw i t h hi s cr ash has
n o th i n g to d o w i t h t he case i n chi ef . ” The t r i al courtul t i m at el y per m i t t ed D e fen se C o u n se l to c a l l T roo p e r B l a i r; h e tes ti fi e d o n l ytha t i t i s p o ss i b l e w i th di f f er entci r cum st ances f ora car ef ul dr i vert o non et hel e ss n otsee an app r oac hi ng pe des t r i an.7 ... T h e S tate ag ree s th a t de fen se co u n s e l’s i n terp reta ti o n o f Kylesis

“ s o m e w h a te x p a n s iv e ,” b u tita r g u e st h a t“ [n ]o n e o fA ld r ic h ’s c la im sin t h is appeal ab out hi s cou nsel ’ s al l eged m i sunder st andi ng ofthe l aw h ad any ef f ect o n th e o u tc o m e o f th e tri a l th a t th e S ta te c a n d i s c e rn .” 31 a. M i sunder st andi ng of t he Law C onst it ut ed D ef i ci entPerf or m ance Loo ki ng w i t h gr ea tde f er enc e t o de f ens e c ouns el ’ s per sp ec t i ve att he ti m e , d e fen se co u n se l ’s m i sinte rpre tati o n o f Kyles , hi s l ac k o funde r st an di ng 7
o fb a s ic d is c o v e ryp r o c e d u r e s , a n d h ism is u n d e r s t a n d in g o fw h a tle g a lly
c o n s t it u t e se x c u lp a t o rye v id e n c e a r e a m p lyr e f le c t e d in t h e r e c o r d , a n d a ll f a ll b e l o w th e o bj e c ti v es ta n d a rd o f re a s o n a b l e n e s sa sa m a tte r o f l a w . A c c o rd A n dre ws , 159 S . W . 3d at100 ( hol di ng de f ens e c ouns el ’ s f ai l ur e t o obj ec tt o t he pr os ec ut or ’ s m i ss t at em entoft he l aw f el l be l ow obj ec t i ve st and ar d of
re a s o n a b l e n e s sa sa m a tte r o f l a w ); Ex parte Welch , 981 S . W . 2d 183, 185 (T e x. C r i m . A pp. 19 98 ) ( hol di ng defense coun sel ’ s m i sunder st andi ng of l aw c o n s ti tu te d i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l ); accordE x parte Chandler, 182 S . W . 3d 350, 358 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2005 ) ( r ec ogni z i ng t hat“ [ i ] gnor anc e o f
w el l

- def i ned ge ner al l aw s, st at ut es and l ega l pr opos i t i ons i s not exc us abl e a nd
su ch i gnor anc e m ay l ea d t o a f i ndi ng ofco ns t i t ut i ona l l y de f i ci entas si st anc e o f
c o u n s e l ” ). D e f e n s e c o u n s e l w a sre p e a t e d lyt o ld b yt h e t r ia l c o u rtt h a th is i n terp reta ti o n o f Kylesw as l egal l y i ncor r e c t. D ef ense counsel nonethel ess8 ... A t o n e p o i n t, d e fe n s e c o u n s e l s ta te d ,

I w i l l n e e d a b o u t fo u r m o n th s a fte r I g e t a l l o f t h e e x c u l p a to ry i nf or m at i on t o pl ay ca t ch up. They’ ve had a yea r . I ’ m j us tas ki ng fo r f ourm onths and so t he S t at e w i l l know t hatt he soonert hey gett he exc ul pat ory s t uf ft o m e— w hi ch i s ou tt her e, I as su r e t he C ourt . I ft hey say t hey do n’ thave i t , i t ’ s o n l yb e c a use t hey haven’ tbot her ed t o f ol l ow t he m andates . A tanot herpl ace def ense counsel ex pl ai ned, “I can n everb e ready i n t hi s case unti l he does w hathe’ s supposed t o do. ” 32 p e rsi ste d i n h i s m i sta k e n i n terp reta ti o n o f Kylesand r el i e d u p o n hi s m i st aken i nt er pr et at i on— kno w i ng t hatt he t r i al c ou rtdi sa gr ee d w i t h i t
— t o m ak e t he deci si on t o do no t hi ng t o pr epar e A l dr i ch’ s case. D ef ense counsel r ecogn i zed th a t h e w a sd o i n g n o th i n g a n d th a t h e i n te n d e d to d o n o th i n g ; h e re p e a t e d ly cl ai m ed on t he r ecor d t hat he w oul d need si xt y t o ni net y days t o pr epar e after th e S tate co m p l e ted i ts in v e sti g a ti o n an d turn e d o v e r t h e res u l ts o f i ts i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o h i m. Ther e i s no pl aus i bl e b as i s i n s t r at egyort ac t i csf or 8
c o u n se l ’s m i su n d e rstan d i n g o f Kyles , ofdi sco ver y pr ocedu r es, orofw hat
c o n s ti tu te se x c u l p a to rye v i d e n c e . See Thomps on , 9 S .W .3 d a t8 1 4 . W e h o ld t hatt hi s conduct sat i sf i es t he f i r stpr ong oft he Str i ckl and tes t. b. Fai l ur e t o A dequ at el y C onveyPl ea O ff er C onst it ut ed D ef i ci entPerf or m ance A l dr i ch ar gue s t hatt r i alco uns elf ai l ed t o a deq uat el y c onve y t he t w ent yy e ar pl ea ba r ga i n to h i m . T he r ec ord b efore us c on t ai ns de f en se c ou n s e l ’s33

l ett err ej ect i ng t he pl ea bar gai n, and i tsupport s A l dr i ch’ s posi t i on. The l et t er sp ec i f i ca l l y s et s f ort h de f ens e c ouns el ’ s bel i eft hati tw oul d beune t hi ca l an d
w o u ld c o n s t it u t e m a lp r a c t ic e f o rh im t o e v e n d is c u s st h e p r o p o s e d p le a b a r g a in
w i t h Al dr i ch: The be stw ay, I ha ve f ound, t o pr epa r e f ort r i ali s t o ge tf r om t he Di s t r i c t At t o r n e y t h a t w h i c h Ky l e s s a y s h e m u s t g i v e e a r l y i n t he pr oce ss . Then , know i ng w hatf ac t s t he St at e’ s w i t nes se s and t he def ense agr ees upon, t o con c e n tr at e t o devel op add i t i onal w i t nes se s, ex pert and f ac t , t o pr oduc e t es t i m ony f avo r abl e t o t he def ens e. O nl y t hen i s t he att or neyal l ow ed t o di sc us s w i t h a cl i ent w h e th e r to a tte m p t a p l e a o r p ro c e e d to tri a l . T h e l e tter ch a rac teri ze s th e p l e a o ffer a s “ fo rci n g m ycli e n t t o ch o o se tw e n ty ( 20 ) year s ort r i al bef ore t he case was t

h[ o] roughly i

nvest i gated by t

he def ense ”
a n d i s d a te d a m e re tw o m o n th sb e fo re tri a l a c tu a l l ys ta rte d . [E m p h a s i sa d d e d .] F i n a l l y , th e l e tte r rej e c ts th e p l e a o ffe r, sta ti n g , “T h e th re a t o f [th e p ro s e c u to r] t o w i th d ra w h i stw e n ty(2 0 ) y e a r o ffe r o n 0 6 J u n e 2 0 0 5 i f I d o n o t c o m m it
m a l p rac ti c e h a s b e e n co n v e y e d to M r. A l d ri c h w h o m I am p rou d to s a yrej e c ts th i sl a te s t a tte m p t a t b l a c k m a i l .” Ther e i s no do ubtt hatan ac cus ed i s ent i t l ed t o e f f ec t i ve a ssi st anc e o f
c o u n s e l d u ri n g th e p l e a b a rg a i n i n g p ro c e s s . Ex p arte W i l son , 724 S. W . 2d 72, 73 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 87 ) . Fai l ur e ofdef ense counsel t o i nfo rm a cr i m i nal def endan tofpl ea o f f er s m ade by t he S t at e i s an om i ssi on t hatfal l s bel ow an o bj e c ti v e s ta n d a rd o f p ro fe s s i o n a l re a s o n a b l e n e s s . S ee, e. g. , Ex parte Lem ke ,34

13 S. W . 3d 79 1, 79 6– 97 ( Tex . C r i m . A p p . 2 00 0) ( ci t i ng nu m er ous cases hol di ng s am e) . As not ed i n Ex p arte W i l son , I ti s i m port antt hatt he ac cus ed be i nf or m ed ofpr opos al s m adeby t he pr os ec ut or ; t he ac cus ed, nott he l aw yer , has t he r i ght t o de ci de on pr os ec ut i on pr opos al s, ev en w hen a pr opos ali s onet hatt he l a w y e r w o u l d n o t a p p ro v e . If the ac cus ed's cho i

ceon the questi

on o f gui lty p lea i

s to b e a ni

n fo rm e d

o n e, th eac c use d

m ust a c t with f ul l awareness of

the alter

natives , i ncl udi ng a ny t hatar i sef r om p ro p o s a l sm a d e b yth e p ro s e c u to r. 724 S. W . 2 d at 7 4 ( quot i ng Ha nzel kav. S tate , 682 S . W . 2d 385, 387 ( Tex. A p p .— A u sti n 1 9 8 4 , n o p e t. )) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ). A d e fen d a n t’ s ri g h t t o
r easonabl y ef f e c ti v e assi st ance ofcounsel dur i ng t he pl ea bar gai ni ng pr ocess l i kew i se encom passes t he r equi r em entt hatdef ense counsel com m uni cat e an a c c e p te d p l e a b a rg a i n to th e S ta te . S e eRa n d lev. S tate , 847 S. W . 2d 576, 580 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ). H er e, A l dr i ch’ s r i ght t o ef f ect i ve assi st ance ofcounsel dur i ng t he pl ea bar gai ni ng pr ocess enco m p a ss es t he r equi r em entt hatdef ense counsel obj ec t i vel y a nd a deq uat el y conve y a pl ea of f eri n a f as hi on e nab l i ng a de f end ant to m a k e a n i n fo rm e d d e c i s i o n c o n c e rn i n g th e o ffe r. See Ex parte W i l son , 724 S. W . 2d at74. The r ec or d af f i r m at i vel y r ef l ec t s t hat w hen A l dr i ch r ej ec t ed t he pl ea of f er — app r oxi m at el y t w o m ont hsbe f or e t r i al

— def ens e c ouns elby hi s ow n adm i ssi on st i l l had not t hor oug hl y i nvest i gat ed t he case and, i n f act , bel i eved he w as l e g a l l yand et hi cal l y pr ohi bi t ed f r om even di scussi ng w i t h A l dr i ch35

w het herh e sho ul d at t em pta p l ea orpr oceed t o t r i al . G i ven t hi s bel i ef , def ense coun sel char act er i zed t he of fer a s an i m pr operatt em ptby t he S t at e at bl ackm ai l an d to f or ce def ense counsel t o com m i tm al pr act i ce. D ef ense cou ns elby hi s ow n w ords est abl i sh ed t hathedi d notf unc t i on a s ef f ec t i ve c o u n s e l d u r in g t h e p l e a p r o c e s sb e c a u s e h e b e lie v e d t h a th e w a se t h ic a lly pr ohi bi t ed f r om d i scussi ng t he pl ea of f erw i t h hi s cl i ent . W e hol d t hatdef ense coun sel f ai l ed t o obj ect i vel ya n d a d equatel y conveyt he S t at e’ s t w ent y- year p le a o f f e rt o A ld r ic h b e c a u s e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l f a ile d t o c o n v e y t h e p le a o f f e rin a f ashi on enab l i ng A l dr i ch t o m ake an i nf or m ed deci si on con c e rning t he of f er and t hatde f ense c ouns el ’ s con duc ti n t hi s r ega r d f el l be l ow an obj ec t i ve st andar d ofreas onab l eness. C onsequ ent l y, w e h ol d t hatt hi s conduct sat i sf i es t he f i r stpr ong oft he Str i ckl and tes t.
c. The F ai l ure t o I nve st i gat e Cons t it utes D ef i ci ent Perf or m ance I n j udgi ng t he def ens e’ s i nve st i gat i on, asi n a ppl yi ng Str i ckl and ge ner al l y, hi nds i ghti s di sc ount ed by p egg i ng a deq uac y t o “co uns el ’ s per sp ec t i ve att he ti m e ” in v e s ti g a ti v e d e c i s i o n sa re m a d e . Ro mp i l l av. Bea rd, 545 U. S. 374, 381, 125 S. Ct . 2456 , 2462 ( 200 5) . St r at egi c c hoi ce s m adeaf t ert hor ough in v e s t ig a t io n o fla w a n d f a c t sre le v a n tt o p la u s i b l e o p t io n sa r e v irt u a lly
u n c h a l l e n g e a b l e , a n d strate g i c ch o ic e s m a d e afte r l e ss tha n co m p l e te36

i nvest i gat i on ar e r easonabl e pr eci sel y t o t he ext entt hatr easonabl e pr of essi onal j ud gm en t s su pp ort t he l i m i t ati on s on i nv esti ga t i o n . Str i ckl and, 46 6 U . S . at 69 0– 91 , 10 4 S . C t . at20 66 . I n ot herw or ds, counsel has a d u ty t o m ake
r easonabl e i nvest i gat i ons or t o m ake a r easonabl e deci si on t hatm akes part i cul ar i n v e s ti g a ti o n su n n e c e s s a ry . Id . H e re, de fen se co u n se l w a s a c u tel yaw a re th a t h e n e e d e d to i n v e sti g a te A ld r ic h ’s c a s e ; h e in f o r m e d t h e t r ia l c o u rto n m u lt ip le o c c a s io n st h a th e w o u ld need si xt y days, ni net y days, or f ourm onths t o getr eady af t ert he S t at e t ur ned
ove rt he “e xcu l pat ory i nf or m ati on as[ i t ] i s r equ i r ed t o do by Kyles . ” A nd def ens e c ouns elex pl ai ned r epeat edl y t hatby exc ul pat ory hem ea nt“ any i n f o r m a t i o n p o s s e s s e d b y p a r a m e d i c s , b y p o l i c e d e p a rt m e n t , b y al l t he
w it n e s s e st h a ta r e c o n s id e r e d S t a t e w it n e s s e sb e c a u s e t h e irk n o w le d g e is i m put ed t o the D . A . ” D ef ens e c ouns elpur pos ef ul l y de ci ded , how eve r , t o do l i t t l e ( abou ta y e a r a ftert he acci dent, def ense di d go t o t he scene and t ake pi ct ur es ) orno i nve st i gat i on unt i l aft ert he St at e h ad com pl et ed i t s i nve st i gat i on a n d h a d “ tu rn e d o v e r e x c u l p a to ryi n fo rm a ti o n ” p e r d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’s i n terp reta ti o n o f Kyles . Based on thi s ent r ench e d, l egal l y i ncor r ect i n terp reta ti o n o f Kyles , def ense counsel adm i t t ed i n w r i t i ng (i n th e l et t er
r ej ect i ng t he pl ea o f f er ) t hat , on a dat e onl y t w o m onths bef or e A l dr i ch’ s case act ual l y w entt o t r i al , he had no tt hor oug hl y i nvest i gat ed A l dr i ch’ s case.9 ... The r ec or d r ef l ec t s t he f ol l ow i ng:

[T H E P R O S E C U T O R ]: Y o u r H o n o r, for the rec o rd, I ’d l i k e i t t o n o te t haton Janu ar y 21 of20 05 ata hear i ng, D ef ense C oun sel w as st gi ve n t hen a m e so fa l l o ft heo f f i c e r s . P a ge17 st a rt sa tl i ne22 and co nt i nue s on , w i t h usev en sp el l i ng t hei rna m es , t hr ough l i ne 20 o fp a ge18. 37 T h e rec o rd fu rt h e r r e fl e c ts th a t de fen se co u n se l f a il e d an d refu se d to
r e q u e s tp e r m is s io n t o in d e p e n d e n t lyt e s tA ld r ic h ’s b lo o d s a m p le , a r g u in g a g a in th a t th e S ta te h a d th e d u ty to tu rn i t o v e r to h i m p e r Kyles . Fi nal l y, atoneof th e p re tri a l h e a ri n g sa b o u t a m o n th b e fo r e tri a l , th e fru s tra te d tri a l c o u rt in s t r u c t e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t o h a n d w r it e a m o t io n f o ra b lo o d s a m p le h e c o u ld have t est ed. The han dw r i t t en r equestappear s i n t he cl er k’ s r ecor d an d w as i m m e d i a tel ysi g n e d b ythe tr i a l co u rt . T h e rec o rd al so refl e c ts th a t A l d ri c h told d e fen se co u n se l tha t he a d l i g h ts f r om an o ncom i ng c a rh a d bl i nd e d hi m . Al dr i c h c l a i m e d t ha th e h a d t ol d an o f f ic e r a tt h e s c e n e a b o u tt h e b lin d in g h e a d lig h t s . N o n e t h e le s s , r e ly in g a g a in
o n h i s i n terp reta ti o n o f Kyles — despi t e t he f actt hatt he pr osecut orhad di scl osed t he nam es ofal l i nvol ved off i cer s t o def ense counsel

— def ense 9
c o u n s e l f a ile d t o u n d e rt a k e a n yin v e s t ig a t io n t o v e r if yt h isf a c to rt o a s c e rt a in th e i d e n ti tyo f th e p a rti c u l a r o f f ic e r. D e fe n s e c o u n s e l c l a i m e d o n th e re c o rd38

t h a tu n t il a f e w d a y sb e f o r e t r ia l, h e w a su n a b l e t o l e a r n t h e id e n t it yo ft h is
o f f ic e r , S e r g e a n tB ill H a ll. Th e r ecor d bef or e u s est abl i shes t hatdef ense counsel nei t herper f or m ed
a r easonabl e i nvest i gat i on no rm ade a r easonabl e deci si on t hata part i cul ar i nve st i gat i on w asunne ce ss ary. I ns t ea d, ev en aft err ec ei vi ng t he ben ef i tof
m ul t i pl e c ont i nua n c e s , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l u n d e rt o o k l i t t l e o rno i nvest i ga t i on — un t i lj us ta f e w w e e k sb e f or e t heJ ul y 25, 2005 t r i al
se tti n g — b a se d o n the u n rea so n a b l e d e c i sion tha t Kylesreq u i red the S tate to per f or m an i nvest i gat i on f orhi m and t o t ur n overal l “excul pat or y” m at t er s,
w hi ch def ense counsel defi ned br oadl y as anyt hi ng kno w n by any one t hat
m i ght l ead t o i nf or m at i on h e l pf ul t o A l dr i ch. A nd t he r ecor d r ef l ect s def ense cou ns el ’ s r epe at ed as se rt i onst hathene ede d s i xt y da ys , ni net y da ys , orf our
m onths t o getr eady f ort r i al , notj usta f ew w eeks. W e h o ld t h a td e f e n s e c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e t o c o n d u c ta re a s o n a b le i nvest i g a ti o n ort o m ake a r easonabl e deci si on t hatno i nvest i gat i on w as nec es sa ry f el l be l ow an obj ec t i ve st and ar d ofr ea so nab l enes s. Ther e i s no pl ausi bl e basi s i n st r at egy or t act i cs f or def ense coun sel ’ s f ai l ur e t o per f or m an i n v e sti g a ti o n th a t h e a c k n o w l e d g e d w a s ne e d e d a n d i n d i c a ted w o u l d tak e si x ty d a y s , n i n e tyd a y s , o r fo u r m o n th s . S ee Str i ckl and, 466 U. S. a t690– 91, 104 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 6 ; E

xp a rteA m ezq uita , 2 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 3 6 3 , 3 6 8 ; Ex p arte Br i ggs ,39

18 7 S . W . 3d at4 67 . C onsequ ent l y, w e hol d t hatt hi s conduct sat i sf i es t he f i r st pr ong oft he Str

i ckl and tes t. d . F a i l u re toT i m e l yO b tai n a n d D i sc l o se D e fen seE x p e rt s C onst it ut ed D ef i ci entPerf or m ance T h e re c o r d a f f ir m a t iv e lyre f le c t st h a ta lt h o u g h d e f e n s e c o u n s e l re p e a t e d ly
r ec ogni z ed t he nee d f or def ens e exp ert s, hedi d nott i m el y de si gna t e e xpe rt s f or t w o re a s o n s : ( 1 ) b a s e d o n A ld r ic h ’s d ir e f in a n c ia l s i t u a t io n , a n d (2 ) o n h is
m i sinte rpre ta ti o n o f Kyles . A ld r ic h t e s t if ie d v ia a b ill o fe x c e p t io n sa b o u th is
cur r entf i nan ci als i t uat i on a nd ba nkr upt cy. Spec i f i ca l l y, A l dr i ch t es t i f i ed t hathe
a n d h isw if e w e r e in b a n k r u p t c ya b o u tt h e t im e t h e a c c id e n to c c u r r e d . H is ban kr upt cy w asdi sc har ged a f ew m ont hs bef or e t r i al . A l dr i ch t es t i f i ed t hathe
nev erha d eno ugh m one y and cou l d not bor r ow eno ugh m one y t o hi r e l i ght i ng ex pe rt s. I m m edi at el y f ol l ow i ng t hi s t r i al , t he t r i alco urten t er ed a f i ndi ng of i ndi gen cean d a ppoi nt ed app el l at e c ouns elf orA l dr i ch. D e fen se co u n se l tes ti fi e d tha t t h e A l d ri c h e s “ d o n ’th a v e the m o n e yto i n v e sti g a te th i s” an d sa i d tha t he , l i k e w i se , d i d n o t ha v e the m o n e yto i nvest i gat e i t . D ef ense coun sel r epeat edl y t ol d t he t r i al court t hat A l dr i ch w as i n a di r e fi n a nci al si t uat i on, st at i ng, “W e ar e br oke; ” t hatA l dr i ch had been pay i ng hi m $ 10 0 p e rm o n t h ; t h a td e f e n s e c o u n s e l h a d b e e n “ d r a w i n g d o w n” f r om hi s ow n r et i r em ent accoun tt o f und Al dr i ch’ s def ens e; an d t hat“ I ’ ve40

al r ea dy puto u to fm yp o c k e ta c o u p l e o fg r a n d i n t h i sc a s e . I ’ m n e v e rg o i ng t o get t hatba ckbe ca us e h e d oes n’ tha ve anym one y. ” A tonepr et r i alhe ar i ng, def ens e c ouns els ai d hene ede d f ourm ont hsbe f or e a t r i al se t t i ng. W hen t he
cou rtas ke d w hy he nee ded f ourm ont hs , de f ens e c ouns elex pl ai ned , “[ F] i nan ci al l y, I ’ m ca r ryi ng m y cl i ent . . . . f i nan ci al l y I ’ l l nee d a boutt hr eeorf our
m onths’ i ncom e f r om m y cl i entan d f r om m ysel fj ustt o getr eady. . . . I ’ l l need
a t l e a s t 9 0 d a y sa fte r h e [th e p ro s e c u to r] sa y sth e re ’sa l l th e e x c u l p a to rys tu ff.” In fa c t o n th e fi fth d a yo f tri a l , d e fe n s e c o u n s e l e x p l a i n e d o n th e re c o rd h i sre a s o n sfo r n o t h i ri n g e x p e rts : W e h avekn ow n s i ncem y f i r stt r i p outt her e [ t o t he l oca t i on oft he a c c i d e n t] t h a tli g h ts w e re g o i n g to b e a p ro b l e m , b u t w e w e re shepher di ng t he m oney, and i t i s t hr oug hou tt he– al l t he hear i ngs, j udge. . . . M r . A nge l i no sa ys t hat I oughtt o ge tm y e vi den ce , but w e’ r e w ai t i ng t o f i nd outt he excul pat or y st uf fso w e’ l l know w hat t hi ngst o s pen d our –ourl i t t l e m one y on. N obody doubt s t hatt he D e f e n d a n t i s b r o k e i n t h i s t r i a l a n d s o I s a i d , [ g ] i v e m e t he excu l pa t or y s uf fan d t hen –and I ev en sa i d a nd t hen w e’ l l kn ow how t o she phe r d ourm one y and se e w hatex pert s w e c oul d a f f or d. A l t hou gh t h e acci dent occur r ed i n A pr i l 20 04 and t he t r i al courthad
or der ed t he def ens e t o f i l e i t s l i stofex pertw i t nes se s t w ent y da ysbe f or e t he J u l y2 5 , 2 0 0 5 tr i a l se tti n g , th e rec o rd re fl e c ts t h a t A l d ri c h d i d n o t de sign a te
a n yex p e rt s un ti l a few d a y s b e fo re tri a l ( e x c e p t M a xC o u rt n e yw h o m the S tate agr eed t hey knew ofvi a a m ot i on f orc o n ti nuan ce) and di d not desi gnate a l i ghti ng exp ert
— R i char d S ul l i van— unti l t he m or ni ng of t r i al . U l t i m at el y, t he t r i al41

c o u rte x c l u d e d th e e x p e rt te s ti m o n y(so m e te s ti fi e d a sfa c t w i tn e s s e s ) o f a ll exp ert s l i st ed by d ef ens e c ouns el , ex ce ptM ax C ourt ney . A tt he pr et r i alhe ar i ngs , de f ens e c ouns elr epe at edl y i ndi ca t ed hi s i nt ent t o t i m el y r et ai n expert s. Bu t def ense counsel ’ s f ai l ur e t o t i m el y r et ai n expert s, as expl ai ned i n hi s ow n w or ds dur i ng t r i al

— i n addi t i on t o a l ack off i nanci al
res o u rce s— w a s b a se d o n d e fen se co u n se l ’s d e c i sion to n o t hir e a n yex p e rt s unti l aft er t he S t at e had t ur ned over “excul pat or y” i nf or m at i on asd e fen se c o u n s e l b e l i e v e d th e S ta te w a sre q u ir e d to d o u n d e r Kyles . Wh e n i tb e c a me cl ear t hat A l dr i ch w as bankr upt and coul d not pay f or orbor r ow m oney to pay f orexpert s and w hen i tb ecam e cl earthatthe t r i al co urtdi d not shar e def ense c o u n s e l ’sl e g a l l yi n c o rre c t v i e w o f th e S ta te ’so b l i g a ti o n su n d e r Kyles , a rea so n a b l yco m p e ten t atto rne yw o u l d h a v e se v e ral o p ti o n s, in c l u d i n g to
w i th d raw fro m th e c a se , e x p l a i n i n g to th e c o u rtth a t A l d ri c h w a s n o w i n d i g e n t; t o pr ove t hati ndi gency; and t o r equestappoi nt m entofcounsel ort o r em ai n as c o u n s e l w i th th e p a y m e n t o f a re d u c e d fe e b u t re q u e s t i n v e s ti g a to rya n d e x p e rt
w i tn e s sfe e sfro m th e tri a l c o u rt fo r a n o w -i n d i g e n t c l i e n t. See Ex p arte Br i ggs , 1 8 7 S .W .3 d at 4 6 8

– 6 9 . H e re , d e fen se co u n se l ’s fai l u re to ti m e l yd e sign a te exp ert s w as no ta s t r at egi c d ec i si on, i tw asan ec onom i c d ec i si on a nd a deci si on based on a l egal l y i ncor r ecti nt er pr et at i on of a U ni t ed S t at es Sup r em e C o u rt d e c i s i o n . S e ei d. a t 4 6 7 (re c o g n i z i n g re c o rd re fl e c te d d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’s42

f a ilu r e t o c o n s u l tw i t h e x p e rt sw a sn o ta s t r a t e g icd e c is io n b u ta n e c o n o m ic
o n e ). W e h o l d tha t de fen se co u n se l ’s fai l u re to ti m e l y d e sign a te ex p e rt s or to
m ake a r easoned deci si on t hatno expert s w er e necessary— d e f ense counsel
e v i d e n tl yb e l i e v e d ex p e rt s w e re ne c e ss a ry be c a u se h e d i d atte m p t t o d e sign a te exp ert s, buthi s des i gna t i on w as unt i m el y— f el l bel ow an obj ec t i ve st and ar d of
re a s o n a b l e n e s s . See i d. C ons equ ent l y, w e hol d t hatt hi s con duc ts at i sf i est he f i r stpr ong oft he Str i ckl and tes t. 2. C ond uctD ur i ng t he G ui l t - I nno cence Ph ase ofTr i al A l dr i ch com pl ai nst hathi s t r i alco uns elco nt i nu ed t o pr ovi de i nef f ec t i ve assi st ance t hr oug hou tt he gui l t- i nno cence phase oft r i al . H e ar gues t hatt r i al
cou ns elpr es ent ed t heo r i esnots upport ed by t he evi den ce , h ad p hys i ca l or
m ent ali nf i r m i t i est hatpr event ed ef f ec t i ve r epr es ent at i on, al i ena t ed t he p ros e c u to r an d the tr i a l co u rt , m i su n d e rsto o d an d m i sa p p l i e d th e l a w , fai l e d to p rop e rl yq u e sti o n w i tn e s s e s o r t o m a k e o bj e c ti o n s, an d m a d e i n a c c u rate st at em ent s t hr oug hou tt r i al . Furt her m or e, A l dr i ch cl ai m s t hatdef ense counsel
w asi nef f ec t i ve bec aus e h e p r es ent ed har m f ul ev i den ceto t he j ury t hr ough A l dr i ch’ s ow n t es t i m ony.43 a. Pr es ent at i on ofD efens i ve Theor i es N otSupport ed by t he Evi dence C onst it ut ed D ef i ci entPerf or m ance D ef ens e c ouns el ’ s def ens i ve t heo ry oft he ca sew ast hatM r s. H uds on com m i t t ed sui ci de, al one orassi st ed by M r . H udson ; t hatM r . H udson m ur der ed M rs. H u d so n ; o r th a t M rs. H u d so n w a s a t fa u l t fo r fail i n g to y i e l d the ri g h t- o fw a y( def ense counsel ar gued t hatbecause M r s. H udson w as i n a m ot or i zed
w heel chai r , noton f oot, she w as consi der ed a vehi cl e i nst ead ofa pedest r i an and shoul d have yi el ded t he r i ght- of

- w ay) . H e expl ai ned i n open i ng st at em ent s, N ow , I know att hi s t i m e you m us tbet hi nki ng, w ow , t hi s so unds l i kea su i ci de oran as si st ed su i ci de orm ayb e e ven a hom i ci de on t he p a rt o f M r . Hu d s o n . Th a t ’ s u p t o y o u t o d e t e r m i n e f r om t he e v i d e n c e th a t y o u h e a r.

. . . . B u ty o u w ill k n o w , a n d I w ill s u g g e s t t o y o u a t t h e e n d , t h a tp e o p le hav e b ee n t r i ed f orm ur derw i t h a l otl es s m ot i vest han M r . H uds on [ t he decede n t ’ s husband, w ho w as w al ki ng sl i ghtl y behi nd her m ot or i z ed w hee l ch ai rw hen s he w ashi t ] ha d, an d pe opl e h ave com m i t t ed su i ci de f ora l otl es s m ot i vest han t hi s w om an had . T h a t’sg o i n g to b e th e fa c ts . C ouns el ’ s bi z ar r e def ens i ve t heo r i esoft he ca sepe r m ea t ed t he ent i r e t r i aloft he
case. D ef ens e c o u n s e lr e pea t edl y a t t em pt ed, uns ucc es sf ul l y, t o e l i ci tt es t i m ony f r o m w it n e s s e st o s u p p o rtt h e s e t h e o r ie s . F o re x a m p le , S e r g e a n tB ill H a ll44

t es t i f i ed t hathew asa pat r ol s er gea ntw i t h The C ol on y w hen t hi s ac ci den t
occ ur r ed. Def ens e c ouns elas ke d Ser gea ntH al l t he f ol l ow i ng: Q . The t hi ng t hatshe w as r i di ng i n had f ourw heel s? A . Y es, si r , I bel i eve i tw oul d have. Q . She w as notaf oot. She w as r i di ng and i tw as propel l ed by an e l e c tr i c m o to r, w a s i t no t? A . Y e s , sir. Q . A nd i s t hat– do you know t hatt hat ’ s t he def i ni t i on ofa m ot or vehi cl e? A . A m ot orvehi cl e–

. . . . Q . W el l , l etm e ask you t hi s. D i d you bel i eve i n you ri ni t i al i nvest i gat i on t hatt he– M r . H udson and M rs. H udson had m ade a le ftt u r n a n d s t a rt e d w a lk in g a c r o s st h e c r o s s w a lk , t h a tt h e yw o u ld h a v e s e e n th e o n c o m i n g – th i s o n c o m i n g tra ffic, th e o n e th a t b e fo re and du r i ng and aft erm y cl i entw as–t hatul t i m at el y hi ther , t hat t hey del i ber at el y m a d e a l ef t - hand t ur n t o w al k acr oss t he pl ace w her e t heykn ew t hatt hes e c ar s w er e g oi ng t o c om e? Di d yo u r eal i ze t hatt he ni ght you w er e outt her e? A . D o I b e l i e v e the yd e l i b e rate l yste p p e d i n fr o n t of y o u r cl i e n t? Q . That ’ s f ort he j ury t o de ci de. I ’ m j us task i ng you, di d i t –i n yo ur i nve st i gat i on a s t he se ni orof f i ce routt her e, pe opl e w i t h l ong deb i l i t at i ng i nj ur i es , s om et i m est heyco m m i ts ui ci de, don’ tt hey ? A . I n Tex as , t he peo pl e i n t he cr os sw al k h avet he r i ght

- of

- w ay. Q . W el l , t hat ’ s t he w r ong l aw , buti ft hat’sw hatyou bel i eve, y o u ’rei n c o rre c t.45 . . . . Q . A l l ri gh t . Now , di d yo u, t ak i ng i n t he sc ene , t he l i ght i ng, t he a b i l i ty to se e a p e rso n tha t w a s c o m i n g as the H u d s o n s w e re, t o se e onc om i ng t r af f i c, t he r ea l i z at i on t hatt heyw al ke d r i ghti n f r ont o f t h i s o n c o m i n g ca r, d i d y o u m a k e su re a n d sa y , H e y , b e su re to que st i on M r . H uds on a boutw hy h e d i d s uch a t hi ng? Di d yo u m ent i on, s ugge st , gos h, t hi s guy had t he opport uni t y, l ook s l i kehe j ustw al ked heroutt her e i n f r ont ofthe car s. D i d anythi ng l i ke t hat hap pen ? [P R O S E C U T O R ]: Y o u r h o n o r, th a t’sa n i m p ro p e r q u e s ti o n . T h e re ’s no e vi den ceatal l t hatM r . H uds on di d a nyt hi ng by w al ki ng som ebo d yo u t i n t o t he cr ossw al k. I ’ m goi ng t o obj ectt o an i m p ro p e r q u e s ti o n a n d a s s u m i n g fa c ts n o t i n e v i d e n c e . Th ese quest i ons ar e m er el y t w o ofa l ar ge num berofquest i ons def ense counsel att em pt ed t o a skw i t nes se s con ce r ni ng t he st r ang e d ef ens i ve t heo r i eshe pos i t ed. The t r i al cou rt r out i nel y su st ai ned t he St at e’ s as su m i ng- f ac t s- not - i nevi dence ob j ect i ons t o t hese t ype of quest i ons. D ur i ng f i nal ar gum ent s, def ense counsel co n ti nued t o ur ge t hese def ens es . He ar gue d, “ Butw e s ubm i tt hatt he r ea so n t hatM s. H uds on i s not her e i s herf aul tan d nob ody el se ’ s. ” H e c ont i nue d, M r s. H udson and M r . H udson cam e dow n t he st r eet t hat ni ght; t hat t h is lo n g -s u f f e r in g w o m a n w h o h a d n o t h in g b u ta m o r e m is e r a b le exi st ence– she m i ght have been happyi n a w ay, butshe w as gett i ng w or se . She had be en bound i n a w hee l ch ai rf or , I t hi nk t hey sa i d t hr ee yea r s; t hats he cou l dn’ tev en w al k a ny m or e. And al l ofus, i n ourcom m on kno w l e d g e, know t hatsom e peopl e say w hy st i ck around. I ’ ve had a g ood l i f e. I ’ ve had a goo d m ar r i age. I t ’ s j us tgoi ng t o bea dr ag, and I ’ m goi ng t o c aus e b ur den an d heartbr eak t o t hose I l ove.46

[PR O S E C U T O R ]: O bj e c ti o n , Y o u r H o n o r, arg u i n g o u tsi d e the fac ts oft he case. [T H E C O U R T ]: I ’l l s u s ta i n th e o bj e c ti o n . D ur i ng de f ens e c ouns el ’ s cl os i ng a r gum ent , t he t r i alco urts us t ai ned ei ght obj e c t i on sb y t heSt a t e t ha td e f e ns e c ou ns e l , b y br i ng i ng u p t he s e d e f e ns e s,
w asar gui ng ou t si de t he r ec or d. T h e p ro s e c u to r s u m m e d i t u p i n h i sre b u tta l : N ow , l et ’ s al so t al k about w ha tD ef ense C oun sel sai d because, r em em ber , w hat everhe sai d i s notevi d e nce. I tdoesn’ tm at t er w hathet hi nks . I tdoe sn ’ tm att eratal l . L et ’ s go t o t he f ac t s, t he f act s of t hi s. Thi s i s a si m pl e ca se , eve n t hough you’ ve hea r d a bun ch ofst uf ft hatt ypi cal l y has not hi ng t o do w i t h t hi s. Thi s i s a very, ve ry s i m pl e c as e. H i s cl i ent goti nt oxi ca t ed, r an ove ra l ady i n a cr ossw al k i n a w heel chai r , ki l l ed her , neverhi thi s br akes bef or e h e hi ther , ne verhi thi s br ak esaft erhehi the r , di d nots t op. Th at ’ s t he f act s oft hi s case. N ow w hat everyou w ant
— i s t hat p re p o s t e ro u sth a t h e ’s try in g to s a ys h e w a s n ’ta p e d e s tr ia n ? Is t hatw hatt hey’ r e hangi ng t hei rw hol e ca se o n? D oes t hatm ake you si ck ? O rt hats he com m i t t ed su i ci de. You l ookatt hatm an. I s t hatsom eone w ho hel ped hi s w i f e com m i t sui ci de orm ur der , as he s a i d i n o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t ? I st h a tn o tc r a z y ? I st h a tnot si ckeni ng? The r ec or d su pport s none of t he t hr ee m ent i one d def ens es : M r s. H uds on com m i t t ed su i ci de, ei t he ra l oneoras si st ed by M r . H uds on; t hatM r . H uds on
m ur der ed M r s. H uds on; ort hatM r s. H uds on w as at f aul t f orf ai l i ng t o yi el d t he ri g h t-o f-w a y — b e c a u s e s h e w a s i n a m o to ri z e d w h e e l c h a i r. D e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’s per si st enc e i n r ai si ng t hes e def ens esf r om openi ng st at em entt hr ough cl os i ng47

ar gum entove rt he St at e’ s r epe at edl y s us t ai ned out si de-t he- evi den ceobj ec t i ons f el l bel ow an obj ect i ve st andar d ofr easonabl eness. C onsequ ent l y, w e hol d t hat t hi s conduct sat i sf i es t he f i r stpr ong oft he Str i ckl and tes t. b. R ec o rd D oes N otEst abl i sh t hatD ef ense C oun sel ’ s Physi caland M ent alI nf i r m it i es Th em sel ves C onst it ut ed D ef i ci entPerf or m ance D u r in g a p r e t r ia l h e a r in g , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a s k e d t h e t r ia l c o u rt ifh e c o u ld
s itd o w n a n d t o ld t h e c o u rt , “ I h a v e a n e m e r g e n c ys u p p lyo fo x y g e n a n d w ill t ry not t o do t hati n f r ont oft he j ur y. ” Seven day s bef or e th e second t r i al
s e t t i ng , d e f e ns e c ou ns e l f i l e d a m ot i on f orc on t i nuan c e a l l e gi ng t ha t“ t hi s72 yea rol d l aw yerha s had f ai l i ng he ar i ng a bi l i t y f orove ra yea r , an d f orno appar ent r eason both hear i ng ai ds ceased t o oper at e t w o w eeks ago. ” The t r i al
courtgr ant ed a cont i nuan ce. A ppr oxi m at el y a m o nt h l at er , def ense counsel beg an hi s voi rdi r e w i t h t he st at em ent , “ N ow you ’ r e g oi ng t o heart he ot heren d oft he spect r um . I ’ m notf ul l ofvi m , vi gorand vi t al i t y l i ke [ t he pr osecut or ] i s. I ’ l l be73 m y ne xtbi rt hda y. I ’ ve onl y go tonel ung. So t he r ea so n I ’ m s t and i ng back her e, i n t he back, i fm y voi ce dr ops because I am outofai r , i fyou’ l l j ust rai se y o u r ha n d .” O n e d a yo f th e tri a l , a fter f req u e n tl yas k i n g the co u rt , c o u n s e l, a n d w itn e s s e sto re p e a t t h e m s e lv e s , d e fe n s e c o u n s e l to ld th e c o u rt ,” If t he C ourt ’ s i nt er es t ed, I l eftm y he ar i ng a i dsi n m y a sh t r ay oft he ca rt hatI r ode dow n her e i n. I f or got t o br i ng t hem u pst ai r s. ” A tst i l l an ot herp oi nt , def ense10 ... Th e f ol l ow i ng ar e som e e x a m p l e s: t he t r i al courtt ol d def ense

cou ns elt hata w i t nes s cou l d nothearhi m an d t hathene ede d t o s pea k i nt o t he m ic r o p h o n e ; t h e t r ia l c o u rta s k e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l, “ A r e y o u s t ill h a v in g t r o u b le hea r i ng? ”; t he j ury t ol d t he bai l i f ft hatt heyco ul d nothe arde f ens e c ouns el ; t he t r i alco urtl at ers ai d, “ You’ l l ne ed t o s pea k u p, t he j ur or s ca n’ the aryou ”; t he t r i alco urtas ke d de f ens e c ouns el at l ea stt hr eet i m est o s pea k u p be ca us e t he courtcoul d not hearhi m ; t he courtr eporter s ai d t hatshe coul d not hear d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ; d e fe n s e c o u n s e l a t v a ri o u sp o i n ts d u ri n g t ri a l s a i d , “I d i d n ’t hea ryou, ” “I am havi ng a har d t i m e hea r i ng, ” “I am j us tha r d ofhe ar i ng, ” “I ’ ve gothe ar i ng a i dsan d t hey ’ r e p l ayi ng t r i ck s on m e, ” “YourH onor , I j us tca nnot h e a r ,” “ I d id n ’t h e a r w h a t s h e s a id ,” “ A m I h e a r in g t h in g s ? ” “ I’ m d e a f , c o u ld y o u s p e a ku p ? ” “ I ca n ’th e a r y o u ,”“ It’s m yh e a ri n g , i ts n o t y o u , I p ro m i s e ,” and “I am har d ofhear i ng. ” Th e backgr oun d noi se caused by t he ai rcondi t i oner app ar e n t l ye x a c e r b a t e d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ’ sd i f f i c u l t i e si n h e a r i n g a n d b e i ng hea r d. 48 cou ns elac kno w l edg ed t hata w i t ne ss m i ghtbeha vi ng a ha r d t i m e h ea r i ng d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’sq u e s ti o n sb e c a u s e “ I m i g h t ru n o u t o f b re a th .” T h e re c o rd i sp e p p e re d w i th i n s ta n c e si n w h i c h th e ju r y , t h e c o u rt
r epo rt er , t he t r i alco urt , an d t he w i t nes se s cou l d not hea r def ens e c ouns elan d i ns t anc esi n w hi ch def ens e c ouns elco ul d nothe art he per so n s pea ki ng. 10 D ur i ng cl osi ng ar gum ent , appar ent l y i n r ecogn i t i on ofhi s det er i or at i ng ph ysi cal
s t a t e , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t o ld t h e ju ry , “ [Y ]o u k n o w , t h isisp r o b a b lyt h e la s tb ig case I ’ l l evert ry. ” T h e r ecor d al so r ef l ect s t hatdef ense counsel r epeat edl y becam e confused, even once aski ng t he t r i al co urtto r em i nd hi m as t o w hata part i cul ar
w i t ness w as supp osed t o t est i f y t o i n hi s bi l l ofexcept i ons. D ef ense counsel49

coul d not r em em berw hy he had asked t he t r i al courtf orper m i ssi on t o m ake a b i l l o f e x c e p ti o n sa n d w h e n t h e w i tn e s sw a sb ro u g h t b a c k , c o u n s e l s a i d , “I’m t ryi ng t o r em em berw hatI w as do i ng. ” D ur i ng t he char ge confer ence, def ense cou ns elci t ed a 1958 ci vi l ca set o t he t r i al cou rt and exp l ai ned t hathem ay not hav e She par di z ed i tbe ca us e “ m y pa rt nerj us tha d a baby. She w entout . I ’ ve donet he very be stI can si ncet he 17 ofD ec em ber , an d I w or k Sat ur day s and th S u n d a y sa n d i t’sd i fficu l t fo r m e to k e e p u p , a sy o u w e l l m i g h t i m a g i n e .” A l t hou gh t he r ecor d suppo rt s t he concl usi ons t hatd ef ense co unsel w as har d of hear i ng, t hat def ense coun sel ’ s speech w as di f f i cul tt o hear , and t hat def ens e couns elbeca m e conf us ed atpoi nt s dur i ng t he t r i al , t hes e f ac t s i n a nd
o f th e m s e l v e sd o n o t c o n s ti tu te d e fi c i e n t p e rfo rm a n c e . Compare Cannon , 252 S. W . 3d at349– 50 ( hol di ng de f ens e c ouns el ’ s beh avi or a s a w hol e— doi ng not hi ng be ca us e h e w asunpr epa r ed t o go f or w ar d— co ns t i t ut ed i nef f ec t i ve a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l ), withMo o re v. S tate , 227 S . W . 3d 421 , 422 , 427 ( Tex. A p p .— T e x a r k a n a 2 0 0 7 , p e t . r e f ’d ) ( h o ld in g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l’s b e h a v io rin
a lle g e d lyf a llin g a s le e p d u r in g p r o s e c u t o r ’s c r o s s -e x a m in a t io n o fd e f e n d a n td id not const i t ut e i nef f ect i ve a ss i st ance ofcounsel ) . The r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat def ense coun sel t ypi cal l y asked t he w i t nesses or t he t r i al court t o rep eat t hem se l ves i f he w asuna bl e t o he ar ; t hatt he w i t nes se s, t r i alco urt , j ury, an d
courtrep o rt erasked def ense counsel t o speak up w hen t hey cou l d not hear11 ... Forex am pl e, t he dayt r i alco m m enc ed, de f ens e c ouns elf i l ed a m ot i on

at t acki ng t he pr osecut or ’ s cr edi bi l i t y and r equest i ng r el i efbecause “t he def ense cou l d notha ve ant i ci pat ed t hatt he St at e w oul d i gnor e y our O r de r s. ” A tone p o i n t d u ri n g th e tri a l , th e fru strate d p ros e c u to r s a i d , “Y o u r H o n o r, I ’m g o i n g to 50 hi m ; and t hatt he t r i al courtr eor i ent ed def ense c o u n se l w hen he exp r essed
c o n fu s i o n . U n d e r th e s e c i rc u m s ta n c e s , w e c a n n o t h o l d th a t d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’s physi c a l i nf i r m i t i es orepi sodes ofm ent al conf usi on i n and of t hem sel ves con st i t ut e d ef i ci entpe r f or m anc e. Thi s cha l l eng ed con duc tdoe s notm ee tt he fi rst pro n g o f Str

i ckl and . c . R e c o rd D o e sN o t E s ta b l i s h th a t D e fe n s eC o u n s e l ’s A l i e n a ti o n o ft h e P ro s e c u to r a n d th eT ri a lC o u rt C onst it ut ed D ef i ci entPerf or m ance The r ec or d r ef l ec t s t hat def ens e c ouns elal i ena t ed t he pr os ec ut oran d t he t r i alco urtt hr ougho utt r i al , us ual l y byar gui ng t hatt he pr os ec ut orw asnot
com pl yi ng w i t h, an d t hatt he t r i alco urtw asnoten f or ci ng, t he m andat esof Kyles . Def ens e cou ns elr epe at edl y m ades i deb arco m m ent s, oft ent i m esab out t he pr os ec ut or , an d f r equ ent l y a r gue d w i t h t he t r i alco urt . Butw e h avef ound no aut hor i t y f ort he pr opos i t i on t hatdef ens e c ouns el ’ s ac er bi c a nd a uda ci ous t r i al st yl e r ender ed hi s per f or m ance def i ci ent . A l t hou gh A l dr i ch i s cor r ectt hat t he r ec or d a f f i r m at i vel y de m ons t r at esde f ens e couns el ’ s r epe at ed al i ena t i on of t he pr os ec ut oran d t he t r i alcourt , w e can nothol d t hatt hi s con duc tm ee t s t he fi rst pro n g o f Str

i ckl and . 11o bj e c t , ag a i n, t o De f e n s e Co u n s e l b a s i c a l l yl y i n g t o t h e Co u rta g a i n . ” At

a n o t h e rp o in td u r in g t r ia l, d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a s k e d C a p t a in C h r isC h a n d le r , “ D id I t el l you f oral l t he goo d i tdi d m e, t hata D i st r i ctC ourtJudg e i n t hi s case had i ss ued an or derf ort he D . A . ’ s t o r el ea set o m e exc ul pat ory i nf or m at i on a nd n o t h in g h a d b e e n f o rt h c o m in g w h e n w e t a lk e d ? ” A ta n o t h e rp o in tin t h e t r ia l, def ens e c ouns elbe gan an obj ec t i on byt el l i ng t he t r i alco urtj udge , “ You know th a t– I kn o w th a t y o u th i n k th a t M r. A n g e l i n o i sa w o n d e rfu l fe l l o w , b u t . . . .” The t r i alco urtresp onde d i n pa rt , “ Fi r stofal l , M r . A nge l i no di d notas k t he que st i on [ i tw ast he ot herpr os ec utor ] . . . . And, num bert w o, you do n ot know w hatI t hi nk abou t M r . A ngel i no. ” A tst i l l anot herpoi nt , def ense counsel began a cr oss- exam i nat i on qu est i on of a Stat e’ s w i t ness, “O f f i cer , you sai d t hat unde rt he l ea di ng que st i ons of t he Pr os ec ut ort hat ”— t o w hi ch t he pr os ec ut or l o d g e d a s i d e b a r- c o m m e n t ob j e c ti o n . A t sti l l a n o th e r po i n t, i n res p o n se to b o th s id e s ’ c o m m e n t s , t h e t r ia l c o u rts t a t e d , “ O k a y . I’ ll t e ll y o u w h a t . I’ ll t e ll ever ybod y t hi s, and I ’ l l t el l you one at a t i m e. I ’ m not goi ng t o l ett hi s t r i al get outofha nd. I don’ tw antan y s ni pi ng ba ckan d f ort h a nym or e. I don’ tw ant a n yb a d -m o u th i n g .”I n c l o s i n g a rg u m e n ts , d e fe n s e c o u n s e l a rg u e d th a t “ [t]h e re ar e m any , m anydi f f er entt ype s ofcr i m esw hi ch M r . D i A nge l o, [ si c] w ho d e s c r ib e d h im s e lfa st h e o n e a ll a n d b e a ll o f t h e p r o s e c u t io n f o r D W I c a s e sin D ent on C oun t y. . . . ” 51

d. C onti nued M i sunder st andi ng of t he Law C onst it ut ed D ef i ci entPerf or m ance I n hi s openi ng st at e m ent , def ense counsel agai n def aul t ed t o hi s Kyles posi t i on; he t ol d t he j ur y t hat [t ]he S tate h a s a n o b l i g a ti o n to l o o kat th e ca s e a s a w h o l e , to di sc ove rw ha t ’ s good f ort hem an d w hat ’ s good f orus , t o l etus k n o w w h a t’sg o o d fo r u sb e c a u s e a t th e e n d o f th e c a s e y o u ’re goi ng t o r ea l i z e t hatt heyha d s eve r al b i l l i on do l l ar s’ w ort h of e q u ip m e n ta n d f a c ilit ie st h a ta llo w e d t h e m t o f u llyin v e s t ig a t e t h is c a s e . A n d y o u ’ll a ls o f in d o u tt h a tt h e D e f e n d a n tw a sin ban kr upt cy, s o w e’ r e n otpl ayi ng on a n ev en pl ayi ng f i el d. And bec aus e o ft hat , t heyha ve t o f i nd ou tt hi ngs t hatw i l l he l p usan d t el l us abouti t . That’ s t he l aw .52

F i n a l l y , o n the thir d d a yo f t ri a l , th e tr i a l co u rti n d i c a ted th a t h e d i d n o t w a n t t o h e a r an y th i n g else ab o u t Kyles . Butde f ens e c ouns el con t i nue d t o br i ng i tup, st at i ng, “I don’ thave t o have m y di scover y l i ke you w oul d do i torl i ke you w i sh
ort he Pr os ec ut or . I ca n r el y on t he Supr em e C ourt dec i si ons , w hi ch I di d do, p re ttyc a re fu l l y , J u d g e . . . . A n d th a t’s a l l th a t’sre q u i re d b yth e c a s e th a t I’ m
n o t s u p p o s e d to m e n ti o n i n fro n t o f y o u [i .e . Kyles ] . ” Thus, def ense counsel p e rsi ste d i n h i s m i sinte rpre tati o n o f Kyles , even af t ert he t r i al courthad
r epe at edl y e xpl ai ned hi s m i su nde r stand i ng and h ad as ke d hi m nott o m ent i on Kylesag ai n. O t her i ns t anc es dem ons t r at ed cou ns el ’ s m i su nde r st and i ng oft he r ul esof
e v i d e n c e . A t on e p o i n t du rin g t ri a l , d e fen se co u n se l u rge d the tr i a l co u rtto
a d m itle t t e r st o re b u ts o m e t e s t im o n yb ya S t a t e ’s w it n e s sb a s e d o n t h e ru le ofopt i o n a l c o m p l e t e n e s s . W h e n t h e t r i a l c o u rt a s k e d w h e t h e r t h e r u l e of opti onal com pl et eness r ef er r ed onl y t o w ri t t en docu m ent s, def ense counsel
r espond ed, “N o, i tdoes not . ” S eeTex. R. Evi d. 107. Atan ot herpoi ntdur i ng tri a l , d e fe n s e c o u n s e l a tte m p te d to i m p e a c h o n e w i tn e s s w i th a re p o rt g e n e ra te d b ya d i ffe re n t w i tn e s s . S eeT e x . R . E v i d . 6 1 3 . A t sti l l an o th e r po i n t, tr i a l counsel asked per m i ssi on t o t ake O f f i cerM ort on on voi rdi r e under “Daube rt - Kel l y”butt hen pr oce ede d t o a skt he w i t nes s f ac t ualque st i onsha vi ng53

n o th i n g t o d o w i th h i sq u a l i fi c a ti o n so r h i se x p e rt te s ti m o n y . S eeTex. R. Evi d. 702. W e h o l d th a t d e fen se co u n se l ’s co n ti n u e d m i su n d e rstan d i n g o f Kylesan d h i sm i s i n te rp re ta ti o n o f th e ru l e so f e v id e n c e fe l l b e l o w a n o bj e c ti v e s ta n d a rd ofr easonabl e n e ss . Even g i vi ng a heavym easur e ofdef er ence t o def ense coun sel ’ s conduct, no pl ausi bl e st r at egy exi st s f orcounsel ’ s cont i nued
m i s u n d e rs ta n d i n g o f th e la w a n d o f th eru l e so f e v i d e n c e . S e e, e .g., E xp a rte Welch , 98 1 S . W . 2d at18 5. C onsequ ent l y, w e h ol d t hatt hi s conduct sat i sf i es t he f i r stpr ong oft he Str i ckl and te s t.
e. Fai l ur e t o Pr op e rly Q uest i on W it nesses Co nst it ut ed D ef i ci entPerf or m ance The r ec or d r ef l ec t s t hatde f ens e c ouns elha d gr ea t di f f i cul t y qu es t i oni ng
w i t nes se s. He r epe at edl y m adesi deb arcom m ent s dur i ng hi s que st i oni ng. The t r i al court r epeat edl y w ar ned def ense coun sel nott o m ake si debarcom m ent s. F i n a l l y , o n th e fo u rth d a yo f tri a l , th e t ri a lc o u rt s u s ta i n e d a n o th e r o f th e S ta te ’s
o bj e c ti o n sto d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’ss i d e b a r re m a rk sa n d th e n w a rn e d c o u n s e l, “[ O ] ne m or e t i m e, no s i deb arco m m ent s. ” A ft ers us t ai ni ng s t i l l m or e o bj ec t i ons by t he S tate t o def ense counsel ’ s si debarcom m ent s, t he t r i al courtw ar ned d e fen se co u n se l , “I’ l l tel l y o u w h a t, the n e x t t i m e y o u m a k e a s i d e b a r co m m e n t, I am goi ng t o hol d you i n con t em pt of C ourt , ove r and out ; do y ou un der st and54

th a t? ” A fte r s u s ta i n i n g y e t a n o th e r o bj e c ti o n b yt h e S ta te t o d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’s si deb arco m m ent s, t he t r i alco urtex pl ai ned , I b e lie v e t h a tI’ v e in d ic a t e d t o y o u s e v e r a l t im e so v e rt h e p a s ts ix day s now t hatyou w er e on t he ver ge ofco nt em pt , butyou conti nue t o m ake si debarcom m ent s, and I f i nd t hatvery of f ensi ve. A n d I t h in kt h is m o r n in g y o u w e n tw e ll b e y o n d w h a ty o u s h o u ld hav e. I b el i ev e t he St at e h ad t o a tl ea stt w i ceobj ec tt o yo ur s id e b a rc o m m e n t s . A n d w h a t I’ m g o in g t o d o isI’ m g o in g t o h o ld you i n contem ptofcourt , and I ’ m goi ng t o sent ence you t o t hr ee day s i n t he D ent on Count y j ai l an d f i ne you $50 0. Butt he s e n te n c e w i l l n o t ta k e p l a c e u n ti l a fte r th i stri a l i so v e r. A t on e p o i n t i n the rec o rd, ea rl i e r du ri n g th e tr i a l , d e fen se c o u n se l arg u e d w i th th e t ri a l c o u rt o v e r w h a t e x a c tl yc o n s ti tu te d a s i d e b a r c o m m e n t, a n d th e re c o rd
cou l d beco ns t r ued asde m ons t r at i ng t hat def ens e c ouns eldi d notunde r st and
w h a t c o n s ti tu te d a s i d e b a r c o m m e n t. A d d i ti onal l y, dur i ng hi s ef f ort s t o quest i on w i t nesses, def ense counsel
re p e a te d l yi n te rj e c te d h i so w n te s ti m o n yi n to h i sq u e s ti o n i n g . T h e tri a l c o u rt sust ai ned ov ert hi rt y obj ect i ons by t he pr osecut or s t hatdef ense counsel w as t es t i f yi ng. D ef ens e c ouns elal so r epe at edl y a sk ed— ove rei ght ee n t i m es — t hatt he j u ryb e re m o v e d s o th a t h e c o u l d q u e s ti o n v a ri o u sw i tn e s s e so u ts i d e th e j u ry ’s p res e n c e . T h e p a ti e n t tri a l c o u rtty p i c a l l yg ran ted d e fen se co u n se l ’s req u e st. Forex am pl e, dur i ng t he t es t i m ony ofa f ac tw i t nes s, t he f ol l ow i ng oc cur r ed:55

[ D EFENSE C O U N SEL] : I obj ecta nd a skt hatt he j ury ber em ove d. I fI ’ m hear i ng r i ght, di d you have a conver sat i on w i t h m e bef or e. [T H E C O U R T ]: O k a y . V e rne y , tak e the j u ry o u t. [ TH E BA I LI FF] : A l l r i sef ort he j ury. (Ju ry o u t) [ TH E CO U RT] : Le tt he r ec or d r ef l ec tt hatt he j ury i s notnow p res e n t. St at e, pr es entan d r ea dy? [P R O S E C U T O R ]: Y e s , Y o u r H o n o r. [ TH E CO U RT] : D ef ens e, pr es entan d r ea dy? [ D EFENSE C O U N SEL] : I w oul d l i ket o— [ TH E CO U RT] : I s t he D ef ens e p r es entan d r ea dy? [ D EFENSE CO U N SEL] : Exc us e m e. Yes, and I w oul d l i ke t o do som et hi ng, i fI m ay, si nc e the app el l at e courtt eaches us w hen s o m e th i n g — s i g h t h a p p e n s , th a t’sn o t re fl e c te d i n th e re c o rd , w e coul d r ead i ti nt o t he r ecor d. I w oul d l i ke t he r ecor d t o r ef l ectt hat t he D i st r i ctA t t or neypoi nt ed herf i nge rdow n i n t he l oop a tt he end o f t h e d ri v e an d sa y s, D o y o u rem e m b e r w h e n y o u w e re talki n g to m e b e fo re, yo u sa i d , a n d p o i n ted h e r fi n g e r d o w n the re. I o bj e c t t o t h a t . Ift h e D .A . s a y st h a ts h e w a s n ’td o in g t h a tt h e n I c e rt a in ly w antt o gi ve h er an o pport uni t y t o de ny i t , buti n t he abs enc e o f den i al , I obj ec tt o w hat ’ s occ ur r i ng. [P R O S E C U T O R ]: I d o n ’t h e a r a l e g a l o bj e c ti o n , y o u r H o n o r. [ TH E CO U RT] : I don’ the ara l ega l obj ec t i on. [ D EFENSE C O U N SEL] : I obj ec t sh e’ s l ea di ng and su gge st i ve t o t he w i t nes s con t r ary t o w hats he j us ts ai d. That ’ s m y obj ec t i on.56

[T H E C O U R T ]: O k a y . W e d i d n ’t n e e d to ta k e th e j u ryo u t fo r a l ea di ng obj ec t i on. [ D EFEN S E C O U N S EL] : Bu tI di d need t he j ur y t o be absentbecause i t ’ s r equ i r ed— so I ca n r ea d i n t he r ec or d w hat I sa w ha ppe ni ng. The Courts ayst hat ’ s su ppos ed t o be out si de t he pr es enc e o ft he j ury. [ TH E C O U R T] : A l l r i ght. D on’ tl ead t he w i t ness. [P R O S E C U T O R ]: Y o u r H o n o r, I ’m i m p e a c h i n g th e w i tn e s s . I ’m a l l o w e d to i m p e a c h m yo w n w i tn e s sa sto t h e s ta te m e n t s h e ’s m ade bef or e. [ TH E CO U RT] : O ka y. [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: B u tt h e D is t r ic tA t t o r n e yh a sm a d e h e r s e lf a w i t nes s i n t he ca senow . That ’ s m y op i ni on. [ TH E CO U RT] : W el l , bet hatasi tm ay, i t ’ s notm y op i ni on. Br i ng th e j u ryb a c ki n . A tonepoi nt , de f ens e c ouns eli m prop erl y a t t em pt ed t o i m pea ch a
w i t nes s— M r . H uds on— w i t h w hatd ef ens e c ouns elbe l i eve d t o bea pr i or i nco ns i st ents t at em ent . Att he con cl us i on o ft he t es t i m ony t hatda y, t he f ol l ow i ng c ol l oquyoc cur r ed: [ TH E C O U R T] : W hatot herm at t er s do you hav e? [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: J u d g e , I h a v e h e r e a s t a t e m e n tf r o m D o n a ld H u d s o n t h a tI b e lie v e c o n t a in sp r io rin c o n s is t e n ts t a t e m e n t st o h is t es t i m ony. [ TH E CO U RT] : O ka y.57

[D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: A n d tha t’ s w h a t I w a s a sk i n g h i m ab o u t, have you ev ersai d so and so. She [ t he pr osecut or ] w oul d obj ect and t he C ourts us t ai ned t he obj ec t i on. [ TH E C O U RT] : T hat ’ s cor r ec t . I don’ tt hi nk you w er e i m pea chi ng hi m pr ope r l y. Ther e’ s a w ay t o do i t and a w ay not t o do i t . You w er en’ tdoi ng i tco r r ec t l y. In a d d it io n t o g e n e r a llyc h a lle n g in g d e f e n s e c o u n s e l’s c o m p e t e n c yin q u e sti o n i n g w i tn e ss e s, A l d ri c h also clai m s th a t de fen se co u n se l f a il e d to pr ope r l y a t t ac k t he r el eva ncean d adm i ss i bi l i t y ofr et r ogr adeext r apo l at i on a nd f ai l ed t o cr os s- exa m i ne t he St at e’ s w i t nes se s abo ut r et r ogr ade e xt r apo l at i on. W e a gr eew i t h t he S t ate, h ow eve r , t hatt he r ec or d doe s notes t abl i sh t he abs enc e o fan y pl aus i bl e s t r at egyort ac t i c e xi st s f ort hi s part i cul arcl ai m of al l eged defi ci entper f or m ance. A s poi nt ed out by th e S tate , def ense counsel
cou l d ha ve r ea so ned t hata que st i on t o t he St at e’ s r et r ogr adeext r apo l at i on
w i tn e s sb a s e d o n th e d e fe n s e ’sc o n te n ti o n th a t A l d ri c h c o n s u m e d th re e b e e rs b e tw e e n 2 :3 0 a n d 6 :0 0 p .m . c o u ld h a v e p ro d u c e d a d a m a g i n g a n s w e r, i .e ., t hata bl ood t estshow i ng . 07 at11 :00 p. m . coul d not be achi eved i fA l dr i ch h a d c o n s u me d o n l yt h r e e b e e r sb e t we e n 2 : 3 0 a n d 6 : 0 0 p . m. A nd defense coun sel successf ul l y el i ci t ed t est i m ony f r om M ax C ourt ney t hat t he degr adat i on of t he al coho l i n A l dr i ch’ s bl ood f r om a . 07 t o a . 04 , w hi ch t he S t at e p osi t ed occur r ed dur i ng t he t i m e b et w een w hen t he bl ood w as dr aw n a n d th e ti m e w h e n i t w a ste s te d b yA l d ri c h , w o u l d n o t b e ty p i c a l . T h e re c o rd58

as a w hol e, how ever , est abl i sh es t hatdef ense counsel exper i enced gr eat di f f i cul t y i n que st i oni ng t he w i t nes s w i t houtm ak i ng s i deb arco m m ent s or i nt erj ect i ng hi s ow n t est i m ony thr oug h t he quest i ons he a sk e d . D ef ense cou ns el ’ s con duc ti n c ont i nui ng t o m ak e si deb ar com m ent s t o t he poi ntt hathe
w ashe l d i n cont em ptand hi s con duc ti n cont i nui ng t o i nt erj ec thi s t es t i m ony i nt o t he ca set hr ough hi s que st i oni ng f el l be l ow an obj ec t i ve stand ard of
re a s o n a b l e n e s s . N o re a s o n a b l e o r p la u s ib le tri a l s tra te g ye x i s ts fo r c o u n s e l ’s conti nued , w i de- r angi ng si debarcom m e n ts orf orhi s r epeat ed i m pr oper in t e rje c t io n o fh is o w n t e s t im o n yin t o h isq u e s t io n s . C o n s e q u e n t ly , w e h o ld t hatt hi s conduct sat i sf i es t he f i r stpr ong oft he Str i ckl and tes t. f . I nac curat e F ac t ualSt at em ent s C ons t it ut ed D ef i ci ent Perf or m ance A l d ri c h n e x t po i n ts o u t t h a t de fen se co u n se l m a d e ina c c u rate sta tem e n ts and ar gum ent s; A l dr i ch con ce dest hatt he st at em ent s w er e n oti n a nd of t hem se l vesi nef f ec t i ve as si st anc e b utar gue s t hatw hen vi ew ed i n l i ghtof
cou ns el ’ s ot herde f i ci enc i es , t hes e e r r or s sh ow de f ens e c ouns el ’ s f al t er i ng
m em or y and w hol esal e i nef f ect i veness. T h e re c o r d re f le c t sn u m e r o u sin a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t sb yd e f e n s e c o u n s e l. C oun sel m i st akenl y r eci t ed t hatA l dr i ch’ s bl ood tes tres ul tw as a . 17 rat hert han
a . 07 . A nother t i m e, def ense coun sel st at ed i n a hypo t het i cal t hat t h e r et est59

ofAl dr i c h’ sb l oo d s a m pl e r e ve a l e d a . 40 b l oo d a l c oh oll e ve l r a t he rt ha n a . 04. D ef ens e c ouns elf r equ ent l y f or gott he pr os ec ut or ’ s na m e o rca l l ed t he pr os ecut orby t he w r ong n am e. Def ens e c ouns elr ef er r ed t o Al dr i ch by t he
w r ong n am e s eve r alt i m es , r ef er r i ng t o Al dr i ch asM r . I ngl e o rM r . H uds on; def ense coun sel r ef er r ed t o w i t ness Terr i W est er as Terr i W ebst erand r ef er r ed to S e rgean tBi l l H al l as Bi l l W hi t e and B i l l C l ar k. D ur i ng cl osi ng ar gum ent, def ens e c ouns elr ef er r ed t o O f f i ce rV aug hn, a f em al e o f f i ce r , asM r . V aug hn
a n d arg u e d tha t V a u g h n w a s th e o ff ic e r w h o ad m i n i ste red the fi e l d so b ri e ty t es t s w hen i t w as i n f ac t O f f i ce r Sl ac k. Thes e e xam pl esar e n otex hau st i ve but
m er el y a sam pl i ng of t he i n a c c u rat e f act ual st at em ent s m ade by defense
c o u n se l o n the rec o rd a n d tha t are s e t f o rt h i n A l d ri c h ’s b ri e f. T h e p ros e c u to r, i n reb u ttal , a g a i n b rou g h t d e fen se co u n se l ’s co n d u c t i n to cl earf ocus: You know , I al m os tw ant ed t o s t artw i t h so m et hi ng Danny D e V it o s a id in “ M yC o u s in V in n e y ,” w h e n h e w a st a lk in g a b o u th is o p e n in g s t a t e m e n t , b u tI c a n ’ts a yt h a t . B e c a u s e , o b v io u s ly , it s e e m slik e D e f e n s e C o u n s e l’s m e m o ryis n o ta sg o o d a sits h o u ld be. Letm e t ry t o t el l you w hatt he f act s r eal l y w er e. F i rs t o f a l l , i t w a s n ’t O ffice r V a u g h n w h o d i d t h e f ie ld so br i et y t es t . I tw asO f f i ce rSl ac k, ri ghtt her e. O f f i ce rV aug hn, w ho’ s a f em al e, s o i tw as n’ tM r . V aug hn. A nd by t he w ay, I ’ m not M r . D i A nge l o. I ’ m M r . A nge l i no. W e h ol d t hat def ens e cou ns el ’ s m i ss t at em ent s of f ac t s and na m esdur i ng A l dr i ch’ s t r i al f el l bel ow an obj ect i ve st andar d ofr easonabl eness. Such60

m i sst at em ent s cann otb e p arto fan y t r i al st r at egy. C onsequ ent l y, w e hol d t hat t hi s conduct sat i sf i es t he f i r stpr ong oft he Str i ckl and te s t. g . A d d u c in g D a m a g in g T e s t im o n yf r o m M r . A ld r ic h D id N otC onst it ut e D ef i ci entPerf or m ance A l dr i ch f i nal l y c ont end s t hatde f ens e c ouns elw asi nef f ec t i ve by per m i t t i ng Al dr i ch t o t es t i f y du r i ng the gu i l t - i nnoc enc e p has e a nd byel i ci t i ng dam agi ng a nd pr ej udi ci alt es t i m ony f r om A l dr i ch. The r ec or d r ef l ec t s— i n t he b ill o fe x c e p t i o n sm a d e b yA ld r ic h

— t h a tA ld r ic h d id n o tin t e n d t o t e s t if yu n t il app r oxi m at el y on e w ee k b ef or e t r i al w he n de f ens e c ouns elcl ai m ed t hathe l ear ned f ort he f i r stti m e the i denti t y oft he pol i ce of f i cert o w hom A l dr i ch had sp oke n a tt he sc eneand tol d t hathew asbl i nde d byt he l i ght s ofonc om i ng tra ffic. Q . I n c onf er enc e w i t h yo url aw yer s and you rs pous e up unt i l you f ound outab out
— w ast he dec i si on m adet hatyou w er e n otgoi ng t o t es t i f y s o t hatyou w oul dn’ tha ve t o gi ve up t he f ac tofyou r r e c o rd i n th e — g e ttin g — a n d g e ttin g i n to a h e s a i d /s h e s a id si t uat i on, unl ess w e coul d f i nd t hatex cul pat or y— unl ess w e knew w ho i tw as , t hati tw asnotw ort h sacr i f i ci ng t o t he j ury t o not k n o w a b o u t y o u r re c o rd i n re tu r n f o r a t l e a s t te l l i n g y o u r s to ry a b o u t i t; i s th a t co rr e c t? A . Y es. Q . W h e n a tla s ty o u le a r n e d f r o m M r . A n g e l i n o a n d h is i nf or m at i onal , I bel i eve i tw as a f ax j usta f ew days bef or e t hi s t r i al beg an— I t hough ta f ew da ys . I t m i ght hav e bee n a w ee k. About w ho i tw as, and he w as atone t i m e e v en subpo enaed; you even61

m ent i oned i n t he r ecor d, b utn otw hath e knew . Ther e w as a t eam m ak i ng a di f f er entde ci si on. Now you w er e g oi ng t o t es t i f y? A . Y e s . Thus , t he r ec or d r ef l ec t s t he r ea so ni ng unde r l yi ng A l dr i ch’ s dec i si on t o t es t i f y; d e f e n s e c o u n s e l d e t e r m in e d t h a t A ld r ic h ’s t e s t im o n y — t h a t a t t h e s c e n e h e t o ld a p ol i ceof f i ce rt hathedi d nots eet he H uds onsbe ca us e o ft he gl ar e o f
o n c o m in g h e a d lig h t s — w o u ld b e c o r r o b o r a t e d b yS e r g e a n tH a ll. D u r in g A ld r ic h ’s t e s t im o n y , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l e lic it e d t e s t im o n y f r o m h im t hathe had t hr ee pr i orD W I convi ct i ons; he w as c har ged w i t h a f ourt h w hi ch
r es ul t ed i n t he r evo ca t i on ofhi s par ol e f ort he t hi r d one . Def ens e c ouns eldi d, as poi nt ed out by A l dr i ch, ask A l dr i ch som e st r ange and seem i ngl y pr ej udi ci al que st i ons , l i keon t he day o fthe a cc i den t , “ D i d yo u e vert ak e— sm okean y pot? ” A nd no f act ual i nf or m at i on w as gar ner ed by A l dr i ch’ s t est i m ony that
w asnotal r ea dy b ef or e t he j ury, ex ce pthi s st at em entt hatheco ul d nots eet he H udson s. W h ile in a c a s e o f th i s n a tu re , b a s e d o n th e c o l d re c o rd b e fo re u s , it st r et ches cr edul i t y t o ser i ousl y bel i eve t hata “ t eam deci si on” t hatA l dr i ch sh o u l d tes ti fy c o u l d b e p a rto f a rea so n a b l e tr i a l strate g y , w e are req u i red to g i v e g rea t de fere n c e to d e fen se c o u n se l ’s d e c i sion s. A s th e S tate p o i n ts o u t, t he t r i alco urtad m oni sh ed A l dr i ch bef or e h e t es t i f i ed t hatt he f i nal dec i si on on62

w het hert o t est i f y bel ong ed t o hi m al one. A nd t he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hatA l dr i ch und er st ood t hati fh e tes t i f i ed, h i s pri orcri m i nal recor d w oul d be r eveal ed; t hus, h e in it ia llyh a d d e c id e d n o tt o t e s t if y . A p p a r e n t lyA ld r ic h ’s “ t e a m ” w e ig h e d a ll oft he neg at i vesofA l dr i ch’ s t es t i f yi ng a nd, ass et fort h i n t he r ec or d, det er m i ned t hatt he adm i ss i on ofA l dr i ch’ s t es t i m ony t hatheco ul d nots eet he H uds onsal ong w i t h Ser geant H al l ’ s cor r obor at i ng t es t i m ony on t hi s poi nt outw ei ghed t he negati ves. Thu s, undert he def er ent i alst andar d ofr evi ew t hat
w e a r e r e q u ir e d t o a p p ly , w e c a n n o ts a yt h a td e f e n s e c o u n s e l’s c o n d u c tin per m i t t i ng A l dr i ch t o t est i f y and i n addu ci ng dam agi ng t est i m ony fr om hi m w as
w i th o u t a n yp l a u s i b l e b a s i s . See E x parte Bur

ns , 6 01 S. W . 2d 370 , 372 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp. 1980 ) ( hol di ng e r r ori n t r i als t r at egyw i l l be con si der ed i nef f ec t i ve a s s i s ta n c e o f c o u n s e l o n l yi f c o u n s e l ’sa c ti o n sa re w i th o u t a n y p l a u s i b l e b a s i s ). C o n s e q u e n t ly , w e h o ld t h a t t h isp a rt ic u la rc o n d u c tc h a lle n g e d b yA ld r ic h f a ils t o sat i sf y t he f i r stpr ong oft he Str i ckl and a n a l y s i s . 3. C ond uctD ur i ng t he Pu ni shm entPhase ofTr i al A l so i n hi s f i r sti ss ue, A l dr i ch cl ai m s t hatde f ens e c ouns elw asi nef f ec t i ve att he pun i shm entphase oft r i al b yfai l i ng t o obj ecton C onfr ontat i on C l ause g ro u n d sto th e i m p ro p e r re a d i n g o f th e v i c ti m i m p a c t s ta te m e n ts b e fo re puni sh m entw asas se ss ed and by f ai l i ng t o of f er anyar gum entatpuni sh m ent atal l . W e need not, how ever , r each t hi s po rt i on ofA l dr i ch’ s f i r sti ssue because12 ... A hol di ng t hatdef ens e c ouns elw asi nef f ec t i ve dur i ng t he puni sh m ent

phase oft r i al w oul d ent i t l e A l dr i ch onl y t o a new pun i shm ent hear i ng, t he sam e re l i e f h e c l a i m s h e i se n ti tl e d to i n h i ss e c o n d p o i n t. S ee Tex . C ode C r i m . Pr oc. A n n . a rt. 4 4 .2 9 (b ) (V e rn o n S u p p 2 0 0 8 ); Herna n dez v. S tate , 988 S. W . 2d 770, 772 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 9 9 ) ( hol di ng t he t w o- pr onge d Str i ckl and s ta n d a rd appl i es t o al l eged counsel ’ s i nef f ect i veness atpuni shm entphase ofnon- capi t al t r i al ) . Because al lm em ber s of t he en banc courtag r ee t hatA l dr i ch i s ent i t l ed t o a new puni shm enthear i ng based on hi s se c o n d p oi ntand because, as s et f ort h he r ei n, w e s us t ai n Al dr i ch’ s sec on d poi nt , w e n ee d notad dr es s t he p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e i n e ffe c ti v e n e s s c l a i m p o rti o n o f h i sfi rs t p o i n t. S eeTe x. R. App. P. 47. 1. 63 as di scussed below , w e w i l l sust ai n hi s second i ssue cl ai m i ng t hatt he t r i al
courter red b yp er m i t t i ng vi ct i m i m pactst at em ent s t o be r ead bef or e t he t r i al
c o u rth a d as se ss e d p u n i sh m e n t. 12 C . S econd Pr ong oft he S t r i ckl and A nal ysi s B e c a u s e w e h a v e h e ld t h a td e f e n s e c o u n s e l’s p r e t r ia l c o n d u c tin
m i su n d e rstan d i n g the l a w , fai l i n g to a d e q u a tel yco n v e ythe p l e a o ffer, fai l i n g to cond ucta r easonabl e i nvest i gat i on, and f ai l i ng t o t i m el y obtai n and di scl ose d e fe n s e e x p e rtsc o n s ti tu te d d e fi c i e n t p e rfo rm a n c e a n d th a t d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’s t r i al condu cti n p res e nt i ng defensi ve t heor i es notsupport ed by t he evi dence,
con t i nui ng t o m i su nde r st and t he l aw , f ai l i ng t o pr ope r l y qu es t i on w i t nes se s, an d hi s m aki ng i naccur at e f act ual st at em ent s const i t ut ed def i ci entper f or m ance dur i ng t he t r i al on gui l t - i nnoc enc e, w e now add r es s t he se con d pron g o ft he
r equ i r ed Str

i ckl and t e s t . T h a tis , w e e x a m in e w h e t h e rt h e r e isa re a s o n a b le64

pr oba bi l i t y t hat , butf orco uns el ’ s def i ci enc y, t he r es ul toft he t r i alw oul d ha ve b e e n d i ffe re n t. Str

i ckl and, 466 U . S. at6 87, 1 04 S. Ct . at2064 . The que st i on or“ ben chm ar k”ofouran al ys i s i s w het he rA l dr i ch hass how n bya pr e po nd e r a nc e of t he e vi de nc e t ha t hi s de f e ns e c ou ns e l ’ s de f i c i ency so com pr om i s e d t hep r op e rf un c t i on i ng o ft hea dv e r s a r i a l p r oc e s st ha tt het r i al
c o u rt c a n n o t b e s a i d t o h a v e p ro d u c e d a re l i a b l e re s u l t. Id. a t 6 8 6 , 1 0 4S . C t.
a t 2 0 6 4 ; E

xp a rteA m ezquita , 223 S . W . 3d at368. I n a nal yz i ng Str i ckl and’s p r eju d ic e p r o n g , w e e x a m in e c o u n s e l’s e r r o r sn o ta sis o la t e d in c id e n t s , b u tin th e c o n te x t o f th e o v e ra l l re c o rd . Ex parte Menchaca , 854 S. W . 2d 128, 132 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1993 ) . That i s, w e con si der “w het her t hos e s pec i f i c d ef i ci ent act s orom i ssi ons, i n t hei rt ot al i t y, pr ej udi ced t he def ense. ” Ex p arte Nai lor, 149 S. W . 3d 125, 130 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2004 ) . Thus , w e b r i ef l y e xam i ne t he
o v e r a ll re c o r d ju x t a p o s e d w it h t h e t o t a lit yo fd e f e n s e c o u n s e l’s s p e c if ic def i ci entact s orom i ssi ons. T h e S ta te c a l l e d s e v e n te e n w i tn e s s e s , a n d th e d e fe n s e c a l l e d e i g h t. W e hav e car ef ul l y and r epe at edl y r evi ew ed t he r ec or d t o pl ac e Al dr i ch’ s al l ega t i ons o f a n d o u r d e te rm i n a ti o n s o f i n e ffe c ti v e n e s si n th e c o n te x t o f th e e n ti re re c o rd and t he t ot al i t y ofdef ense counsel ’ s r epr esent at i on. The bu l ko f def ense cou ns el ’ s cr os s- exa m i nat i on oft he Stat e’ s w i t nes se s f ocu se d on el i ci t i ng t es t i m ony con ce r ni ng de f ens e c ouns el ’ s def ens i ve t heo r i est ha tthe ac ci den t65

w asa su i ci de, as si st ed su i ci de, orM r s. H uds on’ s f aul tf orf ai l i ng t o yi el d t he
r i ght

- of

- w ay. For exa m pl e, def ens e cou ns el as ke d Ser gea nt H al l , “[ I ] n y our i nve st i ga t i on a s t he se ni orof f i ce routt her e, pe opl e w i t h l ong d ebi l i t at i ng in ju r i e s , s o m e t im e st h e yc o m m its u ic id e , d o n ’tt h e y ? ” A n d S e r g e a n tH a ll
a n s we r e d , “ I n T e x a s , t h e p e o p l e i n t h e c r o s s wa l k h a v e t h e r i g h t - o f

- wa y . ” As anotherexam pl e, def ense co u nsel r epeat edl y asked w het herof f i cer s had q u e s tio n e d M r. H u d s o n a b o u t p u s h in g h isw ife in fro n t o f a n o n c o m in g c a r. In
m os ti ns t anc es , t he t r i alco urts us t ai ned t he St at e’ s as su m i ng- f ac t s- not - i nevi dence ob j ect i ons. D ef ens e c ouns el di d m ak e s om e e f f ec t i ve poi nt s i n hi s cr os s- exa m i nat i on o f K e n n e th E v a n s, the d rug su p e rvi so r a t th e D e p a rt m e n t of P u b l i c S a fety l oca t ed i n Gar l and , an d e xcl ude d a s t udy of f er ed b y t he St at e t o s how
eva por at i on ofal coh ol f r om bl ood o vert i m e o n t he gr ound t hatbl ood i n t he st udy w as st or ed d i f f er ent l y t han A l dr i ch’ s bl ood w as st or ed. A nd, l i kew i se, def ens e couns elcal l ed M ax C ourt neyt o t es t i f y a s an exp erton b l ood s t or age a n d es tab l i sh e d tha t i t w o u l d n o t be typ i c a l fo r A l d ri c h ’s b l o o d alco h o l l e v e l to deg r adef r om a . 07 t o a . 04, s ugge st i ng t hatpe r hap s t he i ni t i al. 07 bl ood al coh ol l eve l w as i nco r r ec t . D ef ens e cou ns el es t abl i sh ed t hat t he l i ght s att he
sc enew er e o r nam ent al

- t ypegl obel i ght s pos i t i one d on f i ft ee n- f ootpol esan d t hatt he l i ght i ng “ cou l d i m pr ove . ” D ef ens e c ouns elel i ci t ed t es t i m ony t hatt he66

H uds onsdi d notha ve on a ny r ef l ec t i ve cl ot hi ng and n ei t herw asca r ryi ng a fl a s h l i g h t. A n d , fi n a l l y , d e fe n s e c o u n s e l c a l l e d fo u r fa c t w i tn e s s e sw h o w e re
w it h , o rs p o k e w it h , A ld r ic h a tv a r io u st im e st h r o u g h o u tt h e d a ya n d e a r ly eveni ng pr i orto t he 8 : 30 p. m . acci dent; al l t est i f i ed t hathe di d not appear i nt oxi cat ed ort o have l ostt he nor m al use ofhi s m ent al orphysi cal f acul t i es. D es pi t e c ouns el ’ s hav i ng be en abl e t o r ai ses om e l egi t i m at e d ef en si ve poi nt s, t he r ecor d nevert hel ess s how s t hatcounsel ’ s def i ci entper fo rm a n ce
r esul t ed i n a t r i al w i th out a r el i abl e r esul t . The ov er al l r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat def ense counsel ’ s def i ci entper f or m ance, as s etf ort h abov e, w as notan i so l at ed i nci den t . The t ot al i t y ofde f ens e c ouns el ’ s er r or s pervad ed and pr ej udi ce d t he ent i r e d ef ens e, f r om pr et r i alco nducti n m i su nde r st and i ng t he la w , fa ilin g t o a d e q u a t e ly c o n v e y t h e p le a o f f e r , f a ilin g t o c o n d u c ta re a s o n a b le i nvest i gat i on, and f ai l i ng t o t i m el y obtai n and di scl ose def ense expert s t o t r i al cond ucti n pr esent i ng defensi ve t heor i es notsupport ed by t he evi dence,
con t i nui ng t o m i su nde r st and t he l aw , f ai l i ng t o pr ope r l y qu es t i on w i t nes se s, an d
r epe at edl y m ak i ng i nac cur at e f ac t uals t at em ent s. Bot h t he pr os ec ut oran d t he tri a l c o u rt— w h o re c o g n i z e d e a rl yo n t h a t d e fe n s e c o u n s e l w a s“ a l m o s t p e r [se ]”
r ender i ng i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of coun sel

— at t em pt ed t o m i ni m i ze t he i m pact ofde f ens e c ouns el ’ s f ai l i ngsby vol unt ar i l y t ur ni ng ov erm at er i al s t o hi m t hathe di d notas k f or , by i ns t r uct i ng hi m on how t o obt ai n A l dr i ch’ s bl ood s am pl e, by67

d i c tat i ng t he nam es of t he i nvol ved pol i ce of f i cer s t o hi m on t he r ecor d at a hea r i ng s i x m ont hsbef or e t r i al , and by as si st i ng hi m i n ot herw ayst hr ougho ut t he pr oce edi ngs . Al dr i ch, how eve r , w as en t i t l ed t o ber epr es ent ed by
com pet ent , ef f ec t i ve cou ns el , nott o bef orced to r el y up on t he goodw i l l an d goo d gr aces of t he f ai r - m i nded pr osecut or and t he pat i entt r i al court . The f act t hatthe pr os ec ut oran d t he t r i alco urt
— asev i den ce d t hr ougho utt he
r ecor d— f el tcom pel l ed t o assi stdef ense counsel based on t he per cei ved al m ost per se i nef f ect i veness of def ense coun sel est abl i shes t hatdef ense counsel “w as
n o t f u n c ti o n i n g as the ‘ c o u n se l ’ g u a ran tee d t h e d e fen d a n t bythe S i x th A m endm ent . ” Str

i ckl and, 466 U. S. a t687, 104 S. Ct . a t2064 . H er e, t he r ec or d bef or e us undi sp ut edl y est abl i sh es“t he benc hm ar k f or j udg i ng anycl ai m ofi nef f ect i veness, ” t hati s, th a t “ coun sel ’ s conduct so und er m i ned t he pr operf unc ti oni ng of t he adver sar i al pr ocess t hatt he t r i al
canno tbe r el i ed on as havi ng pr o d u c e d a jus tr esul t . ” Id. a t 6 8 6 , 1 0 4S . C t.
a t 2 0 6 4 ; Ex p arte Br i ggs , 187 S . W . 3d at466– 67 ( gr ant i ng ha bea s r el i efon i n e ffec ti v e as sistan c e o f co u n se l g rou n d s b e c a u se d e fen se co u n s e l fa i l e d to i n v e s ti g a te o r o b ta i n e x p e rt s f o r e c o n o m i c re a s o n s , n o t a stri a l s tra te g y ); Menchaca , 854 S . W . 2d at132– 33 ( hol di ng t hatw hen de f end ant ’ s gui l tor i nn o c e n c e t ur ned on t he cr edi bi l i t y oft he w i t nesses, counsel r ender ed in e f f e c t iv e a s s is t a n c e b yf a ilin g t o f ile a m o t io n in lim in e re g a r d in g in a d m is s ib le68

pr i orconvi ct i ons and byf ai l i ng t o obj ectw hen evi dence of t he conv i ct i ons w as p re s e n te d ); se ealso F ul ler v. S tate , 224 S. W . 3d 823 , 837 ( Tex. A p p .— T e x a rka n a 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t. ) (ho l d i n g c o u n se l ’s fai l u re to o bj e c t t o i n a d m i s s i b l e te s ti m o n yw a s , i n e s s e n c e , n o s tra te g ya n d w a si n e ffe c ti v e ); W a l ker v. S tate , 195 S . W . 3d 250, 264 ( Tex. A pp. — San Ant oni o 2006, no pet . ) ( hol di ng nu m er ousdef i ci entact s orom i ss i onsby cou ns el , i n t hei rt ot al i t y, prej ud i ce d the de f en se); Ha ll v. S tate , 161 S . W . 3d 142, 153– 54 ( Tex. A pp. — Texa r ka na 200 5, pet . r ef ’ d) ( hol di ng cou ns el w as i nef f ec t i ve by f ai l i ng to o bj e c t to a d m i s s i o n o f e x tra n e o u sm a tte rs ); S to n ev. S tate , 17 S . W . 3d 348, 353 –54 ( Tex. A pp. — C or pusChr i st i2000 , p et . r ef ’ d) ( hol di ng t hatde f end ant
w as depr i ved of a f ai r t r i al w i t h a r el i abl e r esul tw hen cou nsel el i ci t ed evi dence
o f a n i n a d m i s s i b l e p ri o r m u rd e r c o n v i c ti o n , th u sd i m i n i s h i n g d e fe n d a n t’s
cr edi bi l i t y and gi vi ng subst ance t o t est i m ony o fS tate ’s w i t nesses t hat d e fe n d a n t h a d th re a te n e d to k i l l th e m ). W e hol d t hat A l dr i ch has est abl i shed by a pr epon der ance oft he evi dence t hatt he t ot al i t y ofcounsel ’ s const i t ut i onal l y def i ci entper f or m ance pr ej udi ced hi s def ens e, t hatde f ense c ounse l ’ s er r or s w er e s o s er i oust hathew asnot fu n c ti o n i n g as the ‘ c o u n se l ’ g u a ran tee d the d e fen d a n t bythe S i x th A m endm ent , t hatd e fen se cou nsel ’ s conduct so under m i ned t he pr oper f uncti oni ng of t he adver sar i al pr ocess t hatt he t r i al c a nno tbe r el i ed on as69

havi ng pr odu ced a j ustres ul t , an d t hatb utfordef ense counsel ’ s per f or m ance, th e res u l t w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i fferen t. W e su sta i n A l d ri c h ’s fi rst po i n t. V . V ICTIMI M PACTS TATEMENTS I n hi s se con d poi nt , A l dr i ch cl ai m s t hathei s ent i t l ed t o a new puni sh m ent h e a ri n g b e c a u se the tr i a l co u rterred b yad m i tti n g v i c ti m i m p a c t state m e n ts bef or e h e a ss es se d pun i sh m entors ent enc ed A l dr i ch. A l dr i ch el ec t ed t o ha ve t he t r i alco urtas se sshi s puni sh m en t . Af t erbot h s i desr es t ed and cl os ed on puni sh m entan d a f t ert he St at e’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent , t he St at e a sk ed t o ha ve som e uni denti f i ed peop l e r ead unsw or n st at em ent s t o t he t r i al court . D ef ense c o u n s e l q u e s t io n e d t h e t im in g o f t h e r e a d in g o ft h e s t a t e m e n t s , s t a t in g , “ I c o u ld be w r ong, butI t hough tt hatt he se nt enc e w ass uppos ed t o b e i nvok ed, an d th e n th e s ta t e m e n ts .”T h e p ro s e c u to r re s p o n d e d th a t th e s ta te m e n ts w e re s u p p o s e d to b e re a d b e fo re s e n t e n c e w a sp ro n o u n c e d . T h e tri a l c o u rt p e rm i tte d a n u n k n o w n n u m b e ro fu n i d e n ti fi e d p e o p l e to re a d u n s w o rn st at em ent s of ft he r ec or d. A ppa r ent l y, as evi den ce d by t he f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e, atl ea sts om e o ft he st at em ent s w er e cr i t i cal of , ordi scussed t he em ot i onal i m pactof , def ense c o u n s e l ’sb i z a rred e fe n s i v e th e o ri e so f th e c a s e . A fte r th e s t a t e m e n t sw e re
r ea d i n ope n c ourtan d of ft he r ec or d, t he f ol l ow i ng e xch ang e o cc ur r ed:70

[ D EFENSE CO U N SEL] : Judg e, bec aus e you hav e hea r d t hi s and m ay consider it i

n assessi

ng puni shm ent , m i stakenly bel

i evi ng that the sui ci de bel i ef or i gi nated with us , I ’d l i k e the o p p o rt u n i ty to a d d r e s sy o u a n d t h e f a m ilys o t h e yw ill k n o w t h a t t h o s e id e a sd id not or i gi nat e w i t h t hi s def ense. [ PRO SEC U TO R] : I obj ec t . He’ s r ested. He’ s doneev eryt hi ng a l re a d y . I t’so v e r. [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: B u t— TH E C O U R T: I t ’ s over , si r . A nybo dy el se?

. . . . [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: M a yi t plea se the co u rt ? TH E C O U R T: Y es. [ D EFENSE C O U N SEL] : W hatI ha ve t o s ay— those personal attacks would not have beenrel evanto r

adm i ssi ble, co ul dn’ tha ve [ gott en] t hem i nt o evi dence because oft he C ourt ’ s r ul i ngs. Thi ngs l i ke t hat w ere n ot a dm i ss i bl e. I ’ d l i kea cha ncet o e xpl ai n t hatbe f or e y ou and i fyou s ay so , t hen , t hat ’ s no. [T H E C O U R T ]: I s a i d n o . I t’sd o n e . [E m p h a s i sa d d e d .] A rt i cl e 42 . 03 , sect i on 1 ( b) pr ovi des as f ol l ow s: ( b) Th e courtshal l per m i ta vi ct i m , c l o se rel at i ve ofa deceased v ic t im , o rg u a r d ia n o fa v ic t im , a sd e f in e d b yA rt ic le 5 6 .0 1 o ft h is cod e, t o a ppe ari n pe r so n t o pr es entt o t he cou rtan d t o t he def end anta st at em entoft he per so n’ s vi ew s abo utt he of f ens e, t he d e f e n d a n t , a n d t h e e f f e c t o f t h e o f f e n s e o n t h e v ic t im . T h e v ic t im , r el at i ve, org uar di an m ay notdi r ec tque st i onst o t he def end ant w hi l e m ak i ng t he st at em ent . The cou rt r epo rt er m ay nott r ans cr i be t he st at em ent . The st at em entm ustbe m ade:71 (1 ) after

puni shm en t h a s been asses sed and t he courthas det er m i ned w het herorn ott o gr antco m m uni t y s upe rvi si on i n t he case; (2 ) after

t he cou rtha s ann ounc ed t he t er m s and co ndi t i ons oft he se nt enc e; an d (3 ) after

s ent enc e i s pr onoun ce d. T e x . C o d e C r im . P r o c . A n n . a rt . 4 2 .0 3 , § 1 (b ) ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e m p h a s is added ) . The l egi sl at ur e pr ovi ded f ort hese st at em ent s t o be m ade onl y aft er se n ten c i n g to a l l e v i a te a n yri skth a t th e sta tem e n ts w o u l d affe c t t h e p a rt i a l i ty
o f th e c o u rt d u ri n g th e p u n i s h m e n t p h a s e o f tri a l . Jo hn so nv. S tate , 286 S .W .3 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ); Garci a v. State, 16 S . W . 3d 401, 4 0 8 (T e x . A p p .— E l P a s o 2 0 0 0 , p e t. re f’d ) (c i ti n g K e i th D . N i c h o l s o n , Wo uld Yo uL ikeMo reSa ltW ithT h a tWo un d?Po s t-S en ten c eV ic tim A llo c u tio nin Texas, 26 St. M ar y’ s L . J. 1 1 0 3 , 1 1 1 4

– 1 5 (1 9 9 5 )); see State v. A gui lera, 165 S. W . 3d 695, 706 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2005 ) ( Kel l er , P. J. , di sse nti ng) ( not i ng sa m e) . W e h ol d t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by a l l ow i ng suc h stat em ent s t o be
m a d e b e fo re s e n te n c e w a sp ro n o u n c e d i n v i o l a ti o n o f a rti c l e 4 2 .0 3 , § 1 (b ). T ex . C od e C r i m . P r oc . A nn . art . 4 2 . 0 3 , § 1 (b ); see Gif f ord v. State, 980 S. W . 2d 791, 792– 93 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 199 8 , p et . r ef ’ d) ( hol di ng t hatt he t r i al courtshoul d not h a v e a l l ow ed t he com pl ai nant’ s f at her13 ... T h e T e x a s C ri m e V i c ti m C l e a ri n g h o u s e form i s s e n t t o v i c ti m s to

c o l l e c t c e rta i n i n fo rm a ti o n re g a rd i n g th e i m p a c t o f c ri m e s o n v i c ti m s . S ee Tex. C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 5 6 .0 3 (b ); Fryer v. State, 68 S. W . 3d 628, 632 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); see al so Truehittv. State, 916 S . W . 2d 721, 722– 23 ( Tex. A pp. — Beau m ont 19 96 , no pet . ) ( hol di ng t hat t r i al court pr operl yad m i t t ed w ri tte n v i c ti m i m p a c t s ta te m e n ts a t p u n i s h m e n t h e a ri n g u n d e r a rti c l e 5 6 .0 3 ). The v i ct i m ’ s per so nalvi ew s abo utt he of f ens e a nd the d efe nda ntar e n ot a d m i s s i b l e b e fo re p u n is h m e n t i sa s s e s s e d . Co mp a reTex. C ode C r i m . Pr oc. A n n . a rt. 4 2 .0 3 , § 1 (b ), with i d. a rt. 5 6 .0 3 (b ). 72 t o m ake a st at e m e n t to th e courtr egar di ng t he f at her ’ s vi ew s oft he of f ense a n d th ep ro p e r p u n i s h m e n t b e fo re p u n i s h m e n t w a sa s s e s s e d ). The St at e ar gu es t hatnone t hel es s t he t r i alco urtpr ope r l y a l l ow ed t he vi ct i m i m pac ts t at em ent s t o ber ea d pr i ort o t he ass ess m entofpuni sh m ent und erart i cl e 56 . 03 ( e) oft he c o de ofcr i m i nal pr ocedu r e. A rt i cl e 56 . 03 ( e) aut hor i z est he t r i alco urtto c ons i der , be f or e s ent enc i ng, t he i nf or m at i on pr ovi ded i n wr

ittenim p a c ts t a t e m e n t s , m a d e o n a f o r m a u t h o r iz e d b ya rt ic le 56. 03, t hat t he cou rtha s al r ea dy r ec ei ved . T e x . C o d e C ri m . P roc . A n n . a rt . 13 56 . 03 ( e) ( V er no n 2 0 0 6 ). N o evi dence exi st s t hatt he t r i al courti n t hi s case
r e c e i ve d w r i t t e n vi c t i m i m pa c ts t a t e m e nt st ha tc om pl i e d w i t h a rt i c l e 56. 03. Th er ef or e, art i cl e 56 . 03 ( e) i s notappl i cabl e. H a v i ng con cl uded t hatt he t r i al courti m pr oper l y per m i t t ed uni denti f i ed per so nst o r ea d t hei row n s t at em ent s t o t he cou rtof ft he r ec ord pr i ort o t he t r i al co urt ’ s assessm entofpuni shm entorpr ono uncem entofsent ence, w e m ust73

c o n d u c t a h a rm a n a l y s i s . B e c a u s e th e e rro r in v o l v e sa s ta tu to ryv i o l a ti o n , w e tre a t th e e rro r a sn o n c o n s ti tu ti o n a l f o rth e p u rp o s e o f c o n d u c ti n g a h a rm anal ysi s and m u st d i sr egar d i tunl ess i taf f ect ed A l dr i ch’ s subst ant i al r i ghts . Gray v. State, 1 5 9 S .W .3 d 9 5 , 9 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); seeTex. R. A pp. P . 4 4 .2 (b ). O r di nar i l y i n c onduc t i ng t hi s har m anal ys i s, w e c ons i derw het hert he er r or h a d a s u b s ta n ti a l a n d i n j u ri o u s e f f e c to r i n fl u e n c e i n d e te rm i n i n g th e j u ry ’s
v e rd i c t. K

i ng v. State, 953 S . W . 2d 266, 271 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1997 ) . The
c o u rto fc r im in a l a p p e a ls h a sh e ld , h o w e v e r , t h a tt h i st e s t“ isn o th e lp f u l in eval uat i ng er r ori n non -j ur y pr oceedi ngs. ” John son v. State, 72 S. W . 3d 346, 3 4 8 ( T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ). I n ste a d , i n d e term i n i n g w h e th e r s u b sta n ti a l ri g h ts
w er e af f ect ed by t r i al courter r ori n a nonj ur y pr oceedi ng, w e consi derw het her t he def endan thad “a r i ght t o t hatw hi ch t he er r ordeni ed. ” Id. Beca us e v ar i ousuni den t i f i ed w i t nes se s st ood a nd r ea d t hei row n st at em ent s t o t he t r i alco urtpr i ort o t he t r i alco urt ’ s as se ss m entofpuni sh m ent
orpr onoun ce m entofs ent enc e— i . e. , duri ng t he puni sh m entpha seof tri a l

— A l d ri c h h a d th e rig h t to c o n fro n t a n d c ro s s -e x a m i n e th e m . Russ ea u v. S tate , 1 7 1 S .W .3 d 8 7 1 , 8 8 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ), cert. denied, 548 U. S. 9 2 6 (2 0 0 6 ); Ca rro l

l v. S tate , 916 S. W . 2d 494, 49 7 ( Tex . C r i m . App . 1996 ) ( r ecogn i zi ng t hatconf r ontat i on i s t he check and b al ance t hatensur es f ai r ness14 ... A l dr i ch as se rt s t hatbe ca us e w e h avehe l d t hather ec ei ved i nef f ec t i ve

a ss i sta n c e o f co u n se l u n d e r t h e fi rst Str i ckl and p r on g i n c onne ct i on w i t h t he t w ent y- yea rpl ea of f er , w e s houl d orde rthe pl ea of f err ei ns t at ed. W hen a def endan tr ecei ves i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of coun sel i n conn ect i on w i t h a pl ea off er , i n or dert o s at i sf y t he se con d Str i ckl and p r on g, t hed e f e nd a ntm ust est abl i sh t hatbutf ort he i nef f ect i ve cond ucthe w oul d have accepted t he pl ea 74 i n ouradver sa ry sys t em ofj us t i ce , and cr os s- exa m i nat i on i s t he es se nt i alm ea ns b yw h i c h o p p o n e n ts t e s t e v i d e n c e p ro ffe re d a g a i n s t th e m ); c f. T e x . C o d e C r i m. Pr oc. A nn. art . 56 . 03 ( e) ( pr ovi di ng t hat , bef or e a t r i al courtconsi der s a w r i t t en vi ct i m i m pac ts t at em enti n a ss es si ng pu ni sh m ent , t he cou rtm us tgi ve t he
a c c u s e d th e o p p o rtu n i ty to re a d a n d c o m m e n t o n th e s ta te m e n t a n d , w i th c o u rt appr oval , t o i nt r odu ce t e sti m ony o rot heri nf or m at i on al l egi ng a f act ual in a c c u r a c yin t h e s t a t e m e n t ). T h e t r ia l c o u rtd e n ie d A ld r ic h t h a trig h t . W e h o ld th a t th e tri a l c o u rt’s e rro r i n a d m i ttin g th e o ff-th e -re c o rd s ta te m e n ts b e fo re as se ss m entofpuni sh m ent and se nt enc i ng i n vi ol at i on ofart i cl e 42. 03, s ec t i on 1( b) and t he t r i a l c ourt ’ s r ef usal t o per m i tA l dr i ch t o r espond t o orcr osse x a m i n e t h e s e w it n e s s e sa f f e c t e d A ld r ic h ’s s u b s t a n t ia l rig h t s . W e s u s t a in A l d ri c h ’s se c o n d p o i n t. V I. C ONC L USI ON H a v in g o v e r r u le d A ld r ic h ’s s e v e n t h p o in ta n d h a v in g s u s t a in e d h is di sp os i t i ve f i r stan d s ec ond p oi nt s, w e r eve r set he t r i alco urt ’ s j udgm entan d
r e m a n d t h is c a s e f o ra n e w t r ia l. Becau se w e have sust ai ned A l dr i ch’ s f i r st 14o ffe r. S e e D i ckerso n v. S tate , 8 7 S .W .3 d 6 3 2 , 6 3 8 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n t o n io 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.); Ex parte Lem ke , 1 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 8 ; S ta tev. Wi l l i a ms , 83 S .W .3 d 3 7 1 , 3 7 4

– 7 5 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u sC h ri s ti 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.); see al so T urner v. S tate , 4 9 S .W .3 d 4 6 1 , 4 7 1 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rth 2 0 0 1 , p e t. di sm ’ d) ( r ei ns t at i ng of f erw hen co uns elf ai l ed t o c om m uni ca t e o f f er ’ s dea dl i ne t o def enda n t a n d d ef endan tatt em pt ed t o acceptof f eraft erdeadl i ne had p a s s e d ); Paz v. S tate , 28 S. W . 3d 674, 676 ( Te x. App . — Cor pu sChr i s t i2000 , no pe t . ) ( r ei ns t at i ng of f erw hen couns elf ai l ed t o i nf or m def end antofof f eran d d e fe n d a n t s a i d h e w o u l d h a v e a c c e p te d o ffe r); A tki n s v. S tate , 26 S. W . 3d 580, 583 ( Tex. A pp. — Beau m ont2000 , pe t . r ef’ d) ( sa m e) . Al dr i ch hasnotm ade t hats how i ng he r e. Accor di ngl y, w e dec l i ne t o or dert he pl ea of f err ei ns t at ed. 75 a n d s e c o n d p o i n ts , w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s sh i sth i rd th ro u g h s i x th p o i n ts . S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 1.

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E E N B ANC C A YC E, C. J. f i l ed a d i ss ent i ng a nd c onc ur r i ng op i ni on. PUBL I SH DEL I VERE D: Aug us t25, 2009

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 05 - 30 3- CR
AL L E N J OHN AL DR I CH AP P E L L ANT V . THE STATE OF TE XA S STATE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 3 67TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### DI S S E NTI NG A ND C ONC UR R I NG O P I NI ON ON R E HEAR I NG

----- ----- -- I res pect f ul l y di ssentto t he m aj or i t y’ s ho l di ng t hatA l dr i ch has est abl i shed by a pr epo nde r anc e o ft he evi den cet hat , butf orco uns el ’ s perf or m anc e, t he
r esul tw oul d have been di f f er ent . W hi l e I ag r ee w i t h t he m aj or i t y’ s hol di ng t hat
cou ns el ’ s perf or m anc e w as def i ci ent , I do notbe l i evet he pr epo nde r anc e o ft he
ev i den ces how s t hathi s con duc ts o und er m i ned t he f unc t i oni ng oft he adver sar i al pr ocess t hatt he t r i al pr odu ced an unj ustres ul t . I w oul d, t her ef or e, ove r r ul e Al dr i ch’ s f i r stpoi nt . Bec aus e I con curw i t h t he m aj or i t y’ s di sp os i t i on2

oft he se con d poi nt , I w oul d r eve r set he t r i alco urt ’ s j udgm entan d r em and t he case t o t he t r i al co urtfora new p uni shm entt r i al . I w oul d af f i r m t he r em ai nder
o f t h e tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

J OHN CAYCE CHI E FJ UST I CE DEL I VERE D: Aug us t25, 2009