### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs April 13, 201 0
STEV EN MU RP HY v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N os . 01- 02750, 01- 02751 C arol y n W ade B l acket t , Judge

N o. W 2009- 00992- C C A

- R 3- P C - F i l ed A pri l 21, 2010

T he peti t i on er, S t even M urphy , w as conv i ct ed o f fi rs tdeg ree pr em edit at ed m urder and fir st d e g re e f e lo n ym u rd e r, w h ich th e trial c o u rt m e r g e d , a n d tw o c o u n ts o f th e f t o f p ro p e rty val ued atm or e than $1000, w hi ch the courtal s o m er ged. H e w as s ent ence d t o an ef fec t i ve li f e s e n tenc e. T h is co u rtaf firm ed h is co n v ict ion s an d sen tenc es, an d the s u p rem e c o u rt deni ed hi s appl i cat i on forper m i s s i on t o appea l

. St at e v. St even M urphy , N o. W 2004- 02899- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2006 W L 432388 ( T enn. C r i m
. A pp. Feb. 22, 2006) , per m
. t o appea l deni ed ( T enn. Sept

. 5, 2006)

. H e fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forpos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef, as s er t i ng t hatt r i al
couns el w as i neff

ect i ve. Fol l ow i ng an evi dent i ary hear i ng, t he pos t

- convi ct i on cour tdeni ed th e p e tit io n ; an d , u p o n re v iew , w e a f f irm th a t d e n ial.

T enn. R
. A pp. P
. 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; Judgm ent of

t he C ri m i nal C ourt A f f i rm ed

A L AN E. G L ENN , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch J OH N E VER ETT W I L L I AMS and N ORMA M C G EE O G LE , J J

. , j oi ned.

J o h n H

. P a r k e r , I I , M e m p h i s , T e n n e s s e e , f o rt h e a p p e l l a n t , S t e v e n M u rp h y.
R ober tE

. C ooper , J r
. , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; B enj ami n A

. B al l , A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; W i l l i am L

. G i bbons , D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al ; and B r ooks Y el ver t on, A s s i s t ant D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al , fort he appe l l ee, St at e of Tennes s ee.
OP I NI ON

FACTS

I n t he di r ectappea l , t hi s cour ts etout t he fac t s upon w hi ch the pet i t i oner ’ s convi ct i ons w er e bas ed:-2- T hi s cas e ar i s es outof t he s t abbi ng death of t he vi ct i m , R honda Pope, i n herM emphi s apart m ent

. O n Fr i day , A pr i l 7, 2000, the vi ct i m ’ s br ot her di s cover ed the vi ct i m l y i ng dead on her bedr oom fl oor
. A l t hough t he bedr oom had been ra ns acke d and seve r al i t ems w er e mi s s i ng, t he door s t o t he apa r t m ent
w er e l ocked a nd t her e w er e no s i gns of for ced e nt r y
. T he [pe t i t i oner ] , w ho had been r ent i ng a r oom fr om t he vi ct i m , w as notatt he apa r t m entw hen the pol i ce b e g a n t h e i ri n v e s t i g a t i o n
. H o w e v e r , a ta p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 1 : 3 0 a
. m
. t h e n e x td a y, he vol unt ar i l ycame t o t he pol i ce de par t m ent , w her e he e v entual l ypr ovi ded t hr ee s epar at e or al acc ount s of t he i nci dent , w as arr es t ed, and gave a n i ni t i al
w r i t t en s t at ement s ugges t i ng t hata drug deal ert o w hom he ow ed moneyw as t he p erpet rat or of t he cri m es.
A s t he i nves t i gat i on cont i nued o v e rth e wee k e n d , p o l i c e o f f i c e r s l earned that the [ p eti ti o n er] h ad b ee n see n ca rry ing a telev isi o n set fro m the v ict im ’s apart m entt o t he vi ct i m ’ s cari n t he ea r l ym or ni ng hour s of Thurs day , A pr i l 6; t hatl at ert hatm or ni ng he had tr i ed t o s el l t he vi ct i m ’ s car w i t houta t i t l e; and t hathe had paw ned s ever al of t he vi ct i m ’ s m i s s i ng i t ems. T heyal s o l earned t hatt he [pe t i t i oner ] had fa i l ed t o s how up for hi s s hi ft as a re s t aur antcook on T h u rsd a yn ig h t an d h a d su b se q u e n tlytele p h o n e d h is e m p lo y e r to in f o rm h im t hat s om ethi ng had come up and he w oul d no l ongerbe abl e t o w or k att he
r es t aur ant

. T he [pe t i t i oner ] w as for m al l y char ged w i t h t he vi ct i m ’ s m ur derat 2: 39 p. m
. on A pr i l 10. A ppr oxi m at el yfour h o u rs lat er , he gave a s econd
s t a t e me n ti n wh i c h h e a d mi t t e d t h a th e h a d k i l l e d t h e v i c t i m.
P rio r to trial, th e [ p e tit io n e r] f iled a m o tio n to su p p re ss h is s tate m e n ts t o pol i ce on the bas i s t hatt heyw er e the pr oductof an unl aw ful deten ti on w ith o u t a p ro m p t p ro b a b le c a u se h e a rin g a n d h e lac k e d th e m e n tal ca p a c ityto
m ake a know i ng and v ali d w aive r of hi s r i ghtt o r emai n s i l entort o have
counse l p resentdur i ng ques t i oni ng. A tan A pr i l 13, 2003, hear i ng on t he [pet i t i oner ’ s ] m ot i on t o s uppr es s , Ser geantJ ames L. Fi t zpatr i ck of the M emphi s Pol i ce D epart m entt es t i fi ed as fol l ow s
. H e had been a pol i ce of fi cer for t w enty - ni ne y ear s , w as as s i gned t o t he homi ci de bur eau, and part i ci pat ed i n t he i nves t i gat i on of t he vi ct i m ’ s m ur der

. Fr om hi s i ni t i al i nves t i gat i on on Ap r i l 7 , h e l e a r n e d t h a tt h e v i c t i m’ s b e d r o o m h a d b e e n r a n s a c k e d ; t h a tt wo t el evi s i ons , a computer , and comput erequi pm entw er e mi s s i ng fr om t he apart m ent ; t hatt he vi ct i m ’ s vehi cl e w as not par ked i n i t s cus t om arys pace but
w as found l at er t hat aft ernoon at a di ffe r ent , nearbyapart m entcompl ex; and t hatt he l as t t i m e t he vi ct i m had been s een a l i ve w as W ednes dayeveni ng w hen
s he pi cked the [pe t i t i oner ] up fr om hi s w or kpl ace
.-3- Ser geantFi t zpatr i ck’ s fi r s tcont actw i t h the [pe t i t i oner ] occurr ed at ap p rox im ately1 1 :30 a.m
. o n S atu rd ay , A p ri l 8, w h en the [ p eti ti o n er] vol unt ar i l ycame i nt o t he homi ci de off i ce w i t h hi s gi r l fr i en d, C hr i s t i na M cK ni ght

. Ser geant E arnes t i ne D avi s on, t he cas e coor di nat or , as ked thathe and Ser geantR y al l i nt er vi ew t he [pe t it ion er ] w hi l e s he and a not her in v e stig a to r in te r v iew e d M s. M c K n ig h t. T h e re f o re , h e a n d S e rg e a n t R y a ll
w ent i nt o one of the i nt er vi ew r oom s w i t h t he [pe t i t i oner ] , w her e Ser geant R y a ll b e g an b yrea d ing the [ p eti ti o n er] h is r igh ts. A lth o u g h the [ p eti ti o n er] to ld th e m h e u n d e rsto o d h is rig h ts, h e re f u se d to sig n th e w a iv e r u n til h is gi r l fr i end r ead the r i ght s t o hi m as w el l

. Si nce he had al rea d y inf o rm ed the offi cer s t hathe coul d notr ead ve r yw el l , t heyagr eed t o hi s r eques tand br ought M s. M cK n ighti nt o t he i nt er vi ew r oom
. A ft erM s
. M cK ni ghthad r ead the [pet i t i oner ] hi s r i ght s , s he and Ser geantR y al l s i gned as w i t nesses and the [pet i t i oner ] s i gned the w ai verat12: 11 p. m
. on A pr i l 8, 2000.

T he [pe t i t i oner ] w as not i n cus t ody w hen t he i nt er vi ew began butw as pl ace d underarr es tat2: 00 or2: 30 p. m
. as i ncons i s t enci es i n hi s s t or ybegan t o devel op. T he [pe ti ti o n er ] fi r s tt ol d t he off i cer s t hatt he vi ct i m had pi cked him u p o n W ednes dayeveni ng athi s pl ace of empl oy m ent , t hathe and the
v ict im h a d s e p a ra ted to run erran d s, an d that h e h ad d isco v ere d the v ict im ’s bodyw hen he r etur ned t o t he apa r t m enta s hort ti m e l at er
. W hi l e bei ng es cor t ed t o t he bathr oom , how eve r, the [pe t i t i oner ] m ade a “s pont aneous ut t er ance ” thata “dope boy ” named “C l y de, ” t o w hom t he [pe t i t i oner ] had
ow ed m oneyand w ho had bee n i n fr ontof t he vi ct i m ’ s apart m entw hen the [ p e t i t i o n e r ] l e f

tb yt h e b a c k d o o r , wa s r e s p o n s i b l e f o rt h e v i c t i m’ s mu r d e r
. As t he i nt er vi ew cont i nued, th e [ p e t i t i o n e r ] e v e n tu a l l ypr ovi ded thr ee s epar at e or al
a c c o u n ts o f

th e in c id e n t.
Ser geant Fi t zpatr i ck t es t i fi ed t hat he and Ser geant D avi s on , w h o h ad repl aced S ergeant R y al l i n t he int ervi ew room , beg an taki ng t he [p et i t i on er’ s] fi r s tw r i t t en s t at ementat3: 45 p. m
. B efore they began, t heyi nfor m ed the [p eti ti o n er] that h e w a s u n d er a rrest an d co u ld b e c h arg ed w ith the v ict im ’s
m ur der

. Th e ya l s o r e a d h i m hi s r i g h t s , c o n t a i n e d i n t h e c o mpu t e r - g e n e r a t ed f o r m a tt h e b e g i n n i n g o f

t h e s t a t e me n t , a n d t h e [ p e t i t i o n e r ] i n i t i a l e d t h e f o r m, i ndi cat i ng t hathe under s t ood t hos e ri ght s and w i s hed t o m ake a s t at ement at t hatt i m e. T he [pe t i t i oner ’ s ] s t at ement w as t yped bya s ecr et aryand r ead a l oud t o t he [pe t i t i oner ] , w ho s i gned i tat 7: 45 p. m
. T he [pet i t i oner ] w as r es pons i ve t o t hei rques t i ons and di d notappea rto be undert he i nfl uence of any i n t o x i c a n to rt o b e s u f

f e r i n g f r o m a n y m e n t a l o re m o t i o n a l d i s a b i l i t y.-4- S e r g e a n tF i t z p a t r i c k f

u r t h e r t e s t i f

i e d a s f o l l o w s
. T h e n e x td a y, S u n d a y, A pr i l 9, t he [pet i t i oner ] w as t aken fr om j ai l t o an apart m entcompl ex nea rt he
v ict im ' s ap artm en t so tha t he c o u ld p o int ou t w h ere the a ll eg ed d rug d ea ler, “C l y de, ” l i ved. W hi l e t hat w as t aki ng pl ace , Ser geantFi t zpatr i ck and Ser geant D a v iso n a rra n g e d f

o r K risty B o d d ie, th e v ictim ’s n e ig h b o r, to c o m e to th e jail t o s ee i f s he coul d i dent i fyt he [pe t i t i oner ] as t he m an s he had s een c arr y i ng a tele v isio n se t to th e v ictim ’s c a r in th e e a rlym o rn in g h o u rs o f T h u rsd a y , A p ril 6

. T h eysu b seq u en tl yco n d u cted a li n eu p an d B o d d ie i dent i fi ed th e [ p eti ti o n er]. L at ert hataft ernoon, t he man t he [pe t i t i oner ] had i dent i fi ed as t he drug deal er “C l y de, ” butw hos e r eal name w as C ar l os Shaw , came i nt o the homi ci de off i ce a n d d e sc rib e d h o w th e [ p e tit io n e r] h a d tried to se ll h im th e v ictim ’s v e h icle
w ith o u t a title. S e rg e a n t F itzp a trick sa id th a t S h a w im m e d iate lya n d p o sitiv e ly i dent i fi ed the [pe t i t i oner ] fr om a phot ogr aphi c s pr eads heetas t he man w ho had t r i ed t o s el l hi m t he vehi cl e.
Ser geantFi t zpatr i ck ac knowl e d g e d th e yhad enough e vi dence t o char ge t h e [ p e t i t i o n e r ] wi t h t h e v i c t i m’ s mu r d e ro n S u n d a ya f t e r n o o n , Ap r i l 9

. He expl ai ned, how ever , t hatt he pol i ce de par t m enthad an a gr eementw i t h t he di s t r i ct at t or ney ’ s offi ce t hat t hey w oul d notchar ge any one w i t h fi r s tors econd degr ee mur derunt i l theyhad di s cus s ed the ca s e w i th an att or neyfr om t hat off ice. A ccor di ngl y , he and Ser geantD avi s on di s cus s ed the ca s e w i t h t he
as s i s t antdi st r i ctat t or neygener al betw een 8: 30 and 9: 00 a. m
. M onday
m or ni ng, and the as s i s t antdi s t r i ctat t or neygener al s i gned the for m author i zi ng t hem t o char ge the [pe t i t i oner ]

. H e sai d t he [pet i t i oner ] w as for m al l ychar ged wi t h t h e f

i r s td e g r e e mu r d e ro f

t h e v i c t i m a ta p p r o x i ma t e l y2 : 4 0 p
. m.
Ser geantFi t zpatr i ck t es t i fi ed t hat t he [pe t i t i oner ] had, i n t he meant i m e, been br ought back t o t hei r offi ces s hor t l y befor e noon on M ondayand thathe and D etec ti ve J ohns on had bee n i nt er vi ew i ng hi m s i nce a ppr oxi m at el y1: 00 p. m
. H e s ai d t hatl at ert hataft ernoon t he [pe t i t i oner ] r evea l ed t o Sergeant D avi s on, w ho had r epl ace d D et ect i ve J ohns on i n t he i nt er vi ew r oom , t hathe had conc eal ed the murde rw eapon i n a s ock and thr ow n i tbehi nd t he w as her
ordr y eri n the vi ct i m ' s apart m ent

. Ser geantFi t zpatr i ck s t at ed thatt heyt ook a br eak i n t he i nt erv i ew pr oces s w hi l e Ser geantD avi s on di s pat ched i nves t i gat or s t o t he vi ct i m ’ s apart m ent t o r etr i eve t he kni fe. H e t es t i fi ed they b eg an takin g the [ p eti ti o n er’s] sec o n d w ri tt en stat em en t at6 :25 p
. m
. B ef o re t heybegan, t heyi nfor m ed the [pe t i t i oner ] t hathe w as under arrest and had been c har ged w i t h t he fi r s t degr ee m ur der of t he vi ct i m i n t he perpetr at i on of
a th e f t. T h e ya lso in f

o rm e d h im o f

h is rig h ts, a n d th e [ p e tit io n e r] o n c e a g a in i ndi c a t e d h e u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g h t s a n d wi s h e d t o ma k e a s t a t e ment

. T he-5-

[pet i t i oner ] w as agai n r es pons i ve t o t hei rques t i ons and di d no t ap peart o be undert he i nfl uence of drugs oral cohol ors uffe r i ng fr om anym ent al or emot i onal pr obl ems. W hen t he s t at ement w as compl et ed, Ser geantT hom ps on r ead i tal oud t o t he [pe t i t i oner ] and the [pe t i t i oner ] and Ser geantT hom ps on bot h s i gned i t

. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, Ser geant Fi t zpatr i ck acknow l edged that he knew att he t i m e the [pe t i t i oner ] fi r s tcame i nt o t he homi ci de off i ce thathe h a d b e e n i n v o l v e d i n a h o mi c i d e i n I l l i n o i s a p p r o x i ma t e l yt e n y e a r s e a r l i e r
. He i ns i s t ed, how ever , t hatt he [pe t i t i oner ] w as notunderarr es tw hen the i nt er vi ew began.

Ser geant E arn est i ne D avi s on t es t i fi ed s he had be en empl oy ed byt he M e m p h is P o lice D e p a rtm e n t f o r tw e n ty -o n e y e a rs a n d h a d b e e n w o rk in g in h o mi c i d e f

o r f i v e y e a r s
. S h e c o n f

i r me d t h a tt h e [ p e t i t i o n e r ] v o l u n t a r i l yc a me i nto t he h om i ci de o ffi ce w i t h h i s gi rl fri end on A pri l 8 an d w as not und er arres t
w hen the i nt er vi ew pr oces s began. S h e said s he bec ame i nvol ved i n t he [pet i t i oner ’ s ] i nt er vi ew l at ert hataft ernoon and part i ci p ated i n bot h of t he
w ritten sta tem e n ts. S h e tes tifie d th a t th e [ p e tit io n e r] w a s a d v ise d o f h is rig h ts pr i ort o eac h s t at ement and thateac h s t at ement w as rea d aloud t o t he [pet i t i oner ] befor e he s i gned i t

. I n eac h cas e, t he [pe t i t i oner ] i ndi cat ed thathe under s t ood hi s r i ght s and w i s hed t o m ake a s t at ement

. H e di d not appea r t o be undert he i nfl uence of drugs oral cohol ort o be s uffe r i ng fr om anym ent al or em oti on al problem s.
Ser geant D avi s on al s o confi r m ed t hat t he pol i ce de par t m ent ’ s nor m al pr ot ocol , peragr eementw i t h t he di s t r i ctat t or ney ’ s offi ce, w as for t he di s t r i ct at t or ney ’ s offi ce t o r evi ew and appr ove of a nyfi r s tors econd de gr ee mur der ch arg es b rou g h t ag a in st a su sp ec t. S h e testi fied that the d istri ct att o rne y ’s offi ce a ut hor i zed the cha r ges agai ns tt he [p eti ti oner ] atappr oxi m at el y9: 00
a. m
. on M on day , A pri l 10 , 20 00 , and t hat t he affidavi t of com plai nt and arr est
wa r r a n twe r e t h e n t a k e n b e f o r e a ma g i s t r a t e a n d e x e c u t e d a t 2 : 3 9 p
. m. On
cr os s - exami nat i on, Ser geantD aviso n acknow l edged thats he had be en i nfor m ed byi ndi vi duals w ho knew t he [pe t i t i oner ] t hathe w as a drug addi ct butt hats he di d not as k hi m w hether he w as under t he i nfl uence of anydrugs oral cohol att he t i m e of the i nt er vi ew s
. She fur t heracknow l edged thatt he
arr es t t i cket us ed t o book t he [pe t i t i oner ] i nt o j ai l on Satur dayeveni ng s t at ed
o n lythat there w as “ p rob ab le ca u se f o r arrest, ” w h ich m ea n t th e [ p eti ti o n er] h a d b e e n h e ld S a tu rd a y n ig h t, a ll d a yS u n d a y , an d M o n d a ym o rn in g a n d e a rly aft ernoon w i t houtbei ng for m al l ychar ged.

A tt he conc l us i on of t he A pr i l 13, 2003, hear i ng, t he t r i al cour tdeni ed-6-

t he [pe t i t i oner ’ s ] m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he s t at ement s on t he bas i s of t he al l eged Four t h A m endment vi ol at i on, fi ndi ng, among ot hert hi ngs , t hatt her e w as no evi dence t hatt he pol i ce offi cer s purpos eful l y det ai ned t he [pet i t i oner ] i n or der t o extr acthi s confe s s i on. T her eaf t er , t he hear i ng on t he [pe t i t i oner ’ s ] m ot i on c o n tin u e d o n Ju ly2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , w ith th e p r e s e n tatio n o f e v id e n c e re latin g to h is cl ai m of m ent al i ncapa ci t y
. T he [pe t i t i oner ] pr es ent ed thr ee e xper tw i t nes s es i n s uppor tof t hatcl ai m : a cl i ni cal ps y chol ogi s t , a neur ops y ch ol ogi s t , and a ps y chi atr i s t

. D r
. J os eph C har l es A ngel i l l o, t he cl i ni cal ps y chol ogi s t , t es t i fi ed t h a th e wa s a p p o i n t e d t o e x a mi n e t h e [ p e t i t i o n e r ] i n t h e s p r i n g o f 2 0 0 2

. He
s ai d, dur i ng t hei r firstm eet i ng, t he [pe t i t i oner ] r epor t ed thathe had be en hos pi t al i zed a num ber of y ear s ago for a “si gni fi cant head i nj ur y , ” thathe had
s uffe r ed fr om a depr es s ed mood and been tr eat ed for p sy ch o sis , and thathe had abus ed s t r eet drugs and al cohol

. D ur i ng t hat vi s i t , he al s o l earned thatt he [pet i t i o n e r ] was c u r r e n t l yt a k i n g Pr o l i x i n , a n a n t i p s y c h o t i c me d i c a t i o n , a nd C ogent i n, a drug us ed t o t r eatt he s i de ef fec t s of Pr ol i xi n.
D r
. A ngel i l l o t es t i fi ed thatdur i ng hi s s econd vi s i t , he admi ni s t er ed the W echs l erA bbr evi ated Scal e of I nt el l i gence , or“W A SI , ” t es tt o t he [ p e tit io n e r], w h ich w a s n o t v a lid f o r “ p u rp o se s in th e c o u rtro o m ” b u t w a s v a lid for h is p u rpos e of de t er m i ni ng w hetherhe nee ded t o fol l ow up by adm inist er i ng a l onger , m or e r el i abl e t es t

. O n t he abbr evi at ed t es t , t he [ p e tit io n e r’s ] v e rb a l IQ w a s 6 2 a n d h is pe rf o rm a n c e IQ w a s 7 4 , f

o r a f u ll sc a le IQ o f 6 6 . O n e w e e k late r, h e a d m in iste re d th e “ W e c h sle r M e m o ryS c a le” tes t,
w h ich m ea su re s “ o n e’s a b il ityto p roc ess in fo rm ati o n
. ” A cc o rdin g to D r. A n g e lil lo , the [ p e tit io n e r] p e rf o rm e d b e tt e r o n th e m e m o rysc a le th a n h e d id
o n t h e a b b r e v i a t e d I Q t e s t , wi t h s c o r e s o f 8 0 a n d 7 8 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , on t he “i m m edi at e audi t or ym emory ” and “ vi s ual i mm edi at e mem or y ” por t i ons of t he tes t.

Dr

. An g e l i l l o t e s t i f i e d he s a w t h e [ p e t i t i o n e r ] f o ra f i n a l t i me appr oxi m at el yone y earl at er , i n A pr i l 2003, w hen he a dm i ni s ter ed the “W echs l erA dul tI nt el li g ence Scal e .
. . T hi r d E di t i on, ” or“W A I S I I I , ” the

“ te s t . . . a c c e p te d b y m o s t p s y c h o lo g is ts a s a t le a s t o n e o f th e g o ld s ta n d a rd s .” O n t hatt es t , t he [pet i t i oner ’ s ] verbal I Q w as 71, hi s per for m ance I Q w as 70, and hi s ful l

- s cal e IQ w as 68. W hen quest i oned by t he t r i al cour t about how t he fu ll -sca le IQ sco re c o u ld b e low er tha n eit h er the v erb al o r th e p erf o rm an ce IQ
s cor es , D r
. A ngel i l l o expl ai ned that i t w as beca us e the W A I S I I I w as “nor m ed di ffe r ent l y ” than the “W A I S R , ” i n w hi ch the ful l

- s cal e I Q i s t he mat hemat i cal
aver age of

t he verbal and per for m ance I Q s cor es
. D r
. A ngel i l l o s t at ed thathe di d not“eva l uat e [the pet i t i oner ] as fa ras r et ar dat i on” butt hat“[a ] s cor e of-7-

bel ow 70 w oul d qual i fy ordes cr i be one a s m i l dl yr et ar ded i f t her e w er e other

. . . m e a s u re s o f

a d a p tiv e f

u n c tio n in g w h ic h a ls o p o in t in th a t d ir e c tio n .” B ase d o n h is ex am ination , D r. A n g eli llo b eli ev ed that w h il e the [p eti ti o n er]
m ig h t b e a b le to u n d e rsta n d th e M ira n d a w a r n in g if it w a s b ro k e n u p in to
s e c t i o n s , h e wo u l d h a v e d i f f i c u l t yi n u n d e r s t a n d i n g i tr e a d a s a wh o l e
. On
cro ss-ex am in a tion , D r. A n g eli ll o test ifi ed h e w as a w are that the [ p eti ti o n er] had a s ubs t ant i al pr i orcrimi nal r ecor d butcoul d nots ayw hethert he [peti t i on er] had anyprevi ou s experi ence w i t h the M i randa w arni ng s.
D r
. D al e Fos t er , t he neur ops y chol ogi s t , te s t i fi ed thathe ac cept ed an appoi nt m ent t o exami ne the [pe t i t i oner ] i n February2004 and eve ntual l ym et
w i t h h i m on F ebruary25 , A pri l 13 , and A pri l 28 , 2 0 04

. D uri ng t ho se vi si t s, h e a d m in iste re d a b a ttery o f p sy c h o lo g ica l te sts , in c lu d in g th e W e c h sle r A d u lt I nt el l i gence S ca le, an I Q t es t ; t he “Cat egor i es ” t es t , a “t es tof abs t r act
re a so n in g , co n c e p t f

o rm a tio n , an d ju d g m e n t”; th e M in n e so ta M u lti p h a sic Per s onal i t y I nvent or y I I , or“M M PI , ” w hi ch w as “a pe r s onal i t yi nvent or yt hat l ooks forunconvent i onal t hi nki ng” and “the t endenc y t o
. . . m al i nger ”; and the “V al i di t yI ndi cat orPr ofi l e. ” H e s ai d t hat t he [pet i t i oner ’ s ] I Q s cor es fel l i n t he “l ow aver age” r ange, w i t h a verbal s cor e of 81, a per for m ance s cor e of 83, and
a ful l

- s cal e I Q of 81. H ow ever , t he [pe t i t i oner ] m i s s ed overs i xt yper centof t he i t ems on t h e “C at egor i es ” t es t , w hi ch pl ace d hi m i n t he r ange of per for m ance t hatone w oul d expec tfr om a chi l d of t en ort w el ve.
Dr

. F o s t e r t e s t i f

i e d t h a t t h e [ p e t i t i o n e r ] “ r e s p o n d e d i n a ve r y e xtr e me w ay ” o n t h e M M PI , s u g g e s t i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t h e was “ f a k i n g b ad” or
m al i nger i ng. H e, t her efor e, admi ni s t er ed “The V al i di t yI ndi cat orPr ofi l e, ” a
n o n v erb al val i di tyind icator, th e re su lt s o f w h ich s u g g ested that the [ p eti ti o n er]
w as notm al i nger i ng bu t inst ead w as “maki ng [a] good eff or t

. ” D r
. Fost er s t at ed thathe conc l uded the [pe t i t i oner ] had an over al l gener al i zed i m pai r m ent
w i t h s ever e i m pai r m enti n t he ar eas of abs t r act r eas oni ng, conce ptfor m at i on, at t ent i on, and conc entr at i on. H e t es t i fi ed thatbas ed on the “H al s t ead- R ei t an B a ttery, ” w h ich c o m p a re d th e [ p e tit io n e r’s ] te st re su lts w ith th o se o f p e o p le
w i t h and w i t houtor gani c br ai n damage, t he [pet i t i oner ] fi t bes t i n t he gr oup of ind ividu als w h o h ad o rga n ic bra in d am ag e w ith m o d era te i m p airm en t. D r. Fost ert es t i fi ed thatt he [pet i t i oner ] i nfor m ed hi m t hathe w as t aki ng Pr ol i xi n, D epakot e, and Tra zodone. H e expl ai n ed tha tt hos e drugs w er e an a n tip sy c h o tic, a n a n tico n v u lsa n t, a n d a n a n tid e p re ss a n t an d th a t th e y“ w o u ld h e l p wi t h t h e p r o b l e ms r e l a t e d t o t h e b r a i n - - me n t a l p r o b l e ms
. ” On
cr os s - exami nat i on , h e acknow l edged thatt he [pe t i t i oner ’ s ] “F- Scal e” on the M M P I w a s 1 2 0 a n d th a t a n “ F g re a ter th a n 8 9 is u su a llyin ter p re ted to in d ica te-8-

a n in v a lid p ro f

ile .”

D r. Jo el A ll en R ee ce m an , the p sy ch iat ri st, test ifi ed that h e re v iew ed D r. Fost er ’ s and D r
. A ngel i l l o’ s r epor t s , conduct ed hi s ow n eval uat i on of t he [pet i t i oner ] , and conc ur r ed i n D r
. Fost er ’ s concl us i on t hatt he [pe t i t i oner ] had
o rga n ic bra in d y sfu n ctio n
. H e s aid th at t h e [ p eti ti o n er] “h ad a lon g -t erm d i a g n o s i s o f o r g a n i c me n t a l d i s o r d e r a n d p r e v i o u s l y h a d b e e n found in c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial f o r th a t re a so n .” H e sta ted th a t w h e n h e sa w h im in D ece m ber2002 and J anuary2003, t he [p et i t i oner ] w as t aki ng Pr ol i xi n, an ant i ps y chot i c medi cat i on, Senequan, an ant i depr es s ant , and D ep akot e, an an ti seizu re m ed icati o n
. D r. R ee ce m an test ifi ed that the [ p eti ti o n er] w as v ery s i m pl e and co n cre te i n hi s t hi nki ng, and he opi ned thatfort hatr eas on t he [pet i t i oner ] w oul d be unabl e t o under s t and t he r i ght s cont ai ned i n t he M i r anda
w arni ng. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, he acknow l edged t hat befor e eval uat i ng t he [pet i t i o n e r ] , h e h a d h i m s i g n a wr i t t e n wai v e r o n Dec e mbe r 3 0 , 2002,
a c k n o w led g in g th a t h is e v a lu a tio n d id n o t c re a te a d o c to r-p a tien t re latio n sh ip betw een them. H e fur t herackno w ledged t haton J anuary15, 2003, he had f o u n d th a t th e [ p e tit io n e r] w a s c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial.

T he St at e pr es ent ed one w i t nes s on t he i s s ue of the [pe t i t i oner ’ s ] m ent al compet ency : D onal d N ew s om , t he [pet i t i oner ’ s ] for m erempl oy er
. N ew s om tes ti fi ed thatatt he ti m e of the vict i m ’s m urder the [p et i t i on er] w orked a s a sh o rt -ord er c o o k at his ca tfi sh restau ran t. A s p art o f h is d u ti es, t h e [ p eti ti o n er]
r ece i ved, r ead, and fi l l ed fr om 50 t o 100 or der s dur i ng a t ypi cal day

. N ew s om tes tifie d th a t th e [ p e tit io n e r] w a s a b le to w o rk in d e p e n d e n tlya n d e x p e d iti o u sly
a n d p e rf o rm e d a s w e ll as th e o th e r c o o k e m p lo y e d a t th e re sta u ra n t. H e sa id th a t, i n a d d iti o n to w o rk in g f o r him , th e [ p e tit io n e r] w a s a lso a m e m b e r o f h is chur ch and ha d once been a hous egues ti n hi s hom e fora w eek. H e t es t i fi ed t hatt he [pe t i t i oner ] r ece i ved a l et t er fr om t he Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on abouthi s di s abi l i t ybenef i t s dur i ng t he per i od he s t ay ed i n hi s hom e and that he appe ar ed abl e t o r ead the l et t erand unde rst an d it s cont ent s
. N ew s om furt her t est i fi ed thatt he [p et i t i on er] a sk e d th athis w ages be paid i n cash so t hat hi s j ob w ou l d n ot i nter fere w i t h h i s di sabi l i t yben efi t s.
A tt he conc l us i on of t he J ul y 23, 2004, hear i ng, t he tr i al cour toverrul ed t he [pe t i t i oner ’ s ] m ot i on t o s uppr es s hi s s t at ement s on t he basi s of t he al l eged F ift h A m en d m en t violati o n as w ell , fin d ing that the e v iden ce d id n o t sup p o rt t he [pe t i t i oner ’ s ] cont ent i on t hathe l acke d t he ment al capa ci t yt o under s t and t he M ir anda w arni ngs
. T he [pe t i t i oner ] w as s ubs equent l yt r i ed bef or e a cr i m i nal courtj ur y , found gui l t yof fi r s t degr ee m ur derand theftover$1000,-9-

and s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i t houtt he pos s i bi l i t yof par ol e.
I d. at*1- 6.
Subse quent l y , t he pet i t i onerfi l ed a pro se pet i t i on for pos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef, al l egi ng t hatt r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve i n a number of ar eas
. Post

- convi ct i on couns el w as a p p o in te d , a n d f

o u r a m e n d e d p e titio n s w e re f ile d

. A tt he evi dent i ary hear i ng, t he pet i t i oner t es t i fi ed t hat , i n 1980, he had be en hi ti n t he head w i t h a ca r

j ack, w hi ch had made hi m “s l ow i n t hi nki ng, s l ow i n m ovement , s tuff l i ke t hat t her e. I can’ tr ead orw r i t e. ” H e s ai d t hat he had been r ece i vi ng di s abi l i t ybenef i t s fors even or ei gh ty ears and w as abl e t o si gn his nam e. T he p et i t i on er expl ai ned his com plai nts against t r i a l c o u n s e l : “ T h a t r e a l l y h e o n l y c r o s s - e x a mi n e d t wo p e o p l e s
. He o n l ya s k e d

. . . l i k e t wo q u esti o n s fo r e ac h p erso n
. A n d as f ar a s I w as c o n ce rne d , y o u k n o w , h im an d [c o -co u n sel], t heydi dn’ tgi ve me t he pr operr epr es ent at i on t hatI neede d as faras t he tr i al

. ”

H e s ai d t hatcouns el as ked one o f the w i t nes s es , C ar l os Shaw , onl yi f he ha d been “convi ct ed i n t hi s cour t r oom aboutt hr ee mont hs ago, ” and expl ai ned w hyhe bel i eved that th is w a s in a d e q u a te:

I bel i eve he s houl d have be en a l i t t l e bi tm or e thor ough w i t h t he ques t i ons and
every t hi ng and as ked hi m a l i t t l e bi t m or e ques t i ons t ow ar d – s ee, beca us e the ques t i ons t hathe as ked, t heyr eal l ydi dn’ tm ake no s ens e, di d he getconvi ct ed i n t hi s cour t r oom
. H e s houl d have a s ked hi m how di d he know m e and s tuff lik e th a t th e re o r w h e re d id h e k n o w m e f ro m
.
T he pet i t i onerthen t ol d of t he s econd w i t n ess w hos e cr os s - exami nat i on w as i nadequa t e:
T h e lad ysh e su p p o se d to h a v e b e e n a k n if e sp e c ialist, f

o re n sic
s peci al i s tors om ethi ng l i ke t hat

. A nd t he quest i on t hat he as ked, he as ked her byherbei ng a s peci al i s t t he kni ves t hatt heyhad – theyhad tw o kni [ves ] – one of t hem t heyfound i n t he apart m ent and i t had bl ood on i t

. H e come back and t ol d m e i t w as n’ t m y bl ood, w as n’ t t he vi ct i m [’ s ] bl ood. T hat r ai s e a ques t i on fr om a thi r d par t ybei ng i n t he house. W hen I st ar t as ki ng hi m di d he go out t h e r e t o wh e r e a l l t h i s t o o k p l a c e a t , h e d i d n ’ tg o o u tt h e r e [ , ] l o o k a tt h e c r i me s c e n e o r n o th in g , a n y th in g lik e th is h e re
.
T he pet i t i o n er said that he di d notknow w hos e bl ood w as on t he kni fe a nd di d not bel i eve thatt hi s w i t nes s found t he kni fe, buthe fe l t s he shoul d have be en as ked addi t i onal-10-

qu est i on s: “W here di d theyfi nd t he k nife at or [ w ere] anyfi ng erpr i nts on t he k nife or r ai se t he ques t i on about i f i t w as n’ t m ybl ood ort he vi ct i m [’ s ] bl ood, w ho[s e] bl ood w as on t he kni fe. N o, t heydi dn’ tnone [s i c] of t hi s her e. ”

H e s ai d t hatt he vi ct i m ’ s “bes t fr i end over hear d J ames Pol k s t at i ng t hathe w as goi ng t o ki l l h er,” b u tt he tr i al cour tdi s al l ow ed thi s t es t i m onybeca us e i tw as hear s ay
. T he pet i t i o n er expl ai ned w hataddi t i onal s t eps he bel i eved tr i al couns el s houl d have t aken
r e g a r d i n g t h i s t e s t i m o n y:

W el l , h e sh o u ld hav e .
. . real l yw ent out t here and t al ked t o these peopl es
. I t w as about fourpeopl es t hats ai d t he s ame t hi ng. H e s houl d have got [t en] w i t h t hes e peopl es and t al ked t o t hem and m ade a not e on ea ch and
e v e ryo n e o f th e m c o n v e rsa tio n , . . . w h a t th e ysa id o n th e w itn e ss sta n d to h im
w h e re h e c o u ld h a v e b ro u g h t it u p a littl e b it b e tte r t h a n w h a t h e d id

.
T h e p eti ti o n er sa id tha t he f elt tr ial co u n sel h ad b ee n d istrac ted b ec au se c o u n sel’s
m ot her “w as o n the w ayt o be dec eas ed, ” and c ouns el had hi s cel l ul art el ephone on i n t he
c o u rtro o m . H e sa id th a t co u n se l sh o u ld h a v e v isited th e c rim e sc e n e b u t d id n o t alth o u g h h is i nves t i gat ordi d s o. H e s ai d t hathe as ked coun sel t o i nt er vi ew , appar ent l yas pot ent i al
w i t nes s es , a s ecur i t yguar d w hos e nam e he di d notr emem ber , and hi s fi ancé e, C hr i s t i na M c K n ig h t.

H e s ai d t hat , att r i al , C ar l os S h aw test if i ed thatt he pet i t i onert r i ed t o s el l hi m t he vi ct i m ’ s car ; and, i f t r i al couns el had i nves t i gat ed t hi s w i t nes s , he w oul d have f ound t hathe
w as a “l i ar ” and w as “notup t o parw hen .

. . handl i ng bus i nes s
. ” The pet i t i oners ai d t hat
couns e l s h o u l d h a v e i n t e r v i e wed c r i me s c e n e p e r s o n n e l who d u s t e d t h e v i c t i m’ s c a rfor fi ngerpr i nt s , al t hough he di d notknow t hei rnames ort o w hat t hey w oul d have t es t i fi ed, and
s h o u l d h a v e b e e n m o r e t h o r o u g h i n c r o s s - e x a m i n i n g t h e c r i m e s c e n e o f f i c e rw h o d i d t e s t i f

y. If cal l ed as a w i t ness, his fi ancée , C hri st i na M cK night , w ou l d h ave sai d thatshe had j ust
cas hed “a fi ve hundr ed and s om ethi ng dol l archec k” fort he pet i t i oner , s o he di d notneed
m o n e y . H e sa id th a t a W a lg re e n s se c u rity g u a rd , w h o h a d se e n h im th e n ig h t th a t th e v ictim
w as ki l l ed, and C hr i s t i na M cK ni ght bot h came t o cour t , butnei t hert es t i fi ed, couns el t el l i ng th e p e tit io n e r th a t “th e ym ig h t h u rt [ h im ] m o re th a n th e ym ig h t h e lp [ h im ].” H e sa id th a t, dur i ng t he tr i al , couns el di d nott al k to h i m “more t han aboutt w o t i m es
. ” The pet i t i oner expl ai ned thatcouns el w as not fami l i ar w i t h t he def ens e’ s cas e, s ay i ng: “A s faras notdoi ng – t aki ng car e of as ki ng ques t i ons , par t i ci pat i ng i n t hi ngs t hatw as goi ng on w i t h – as faras w i t h m y cas e,
. . . , l i ke goi ng t o t he cr i m e s cene and s tuff, t al ki ng t o w i t nes s es and s tuff l i ke th a t th e re , th a t’ s a b o u t it.”-11-

H e s ai d couns el t ol d hi m t hat , i f he t es t i fied , the S tat e coul d br i ng up t hathe had p re v io u s ly b e e n c o n v ic te d o f v o lu n ta ry m a n s la u g h te r a n d a rm e d ro b b e ry.
O n cro ss-ex am ination , the p eti ti o n er sa id tha t th e W al gr eens s ecur i tyguar d coul d have t es t i fi ed t hat t he pet i t i oner w as t oo drunk t o comm i t t he cr i m es w i t h w hi ch h e h ad b een char ged. H e s ai d t hathe had l i ved w i t h C hr i s t i na M cK ni ght unt i l he ki cked out a w i ndow
a n d s h e g o ta r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e ra g a i n s th i m, wh i c h s t i l l wa s i n e f f e c ta tth e t i me o f t r i a l

. He
s ai d t hat , w hi l e i n C hi cago, he had “ been t o t he peni t ent i aryaboutei ghtt i m es ” butbel i eved h e “ p ro b a b ly w o u ld ’v e h a d a b e tte r c h a n c e ” if h e h a d te s tif

ie d a t th is tr ia l.

T h e a tto rn e yw h o re p re se n ted th e p e tit io n e r b o th a t trial a n d o n a p p e a l tes tifie d a s to the f ir st acti o n s h e too k in the m att er: [A ] ft erI gott he pr i vat e i nves t i gat or , of cour s e, w e gotal l t he di s covery , and bas i cal l y , I get t ogether w i t h m y pr i vat e i nves t i gat or , y ou know , once I gett he di s covery , of cour s e, once I get t he di s covery t he fi r s t t hi ng I do i s t al k t o [t he peti t i on er] and get a pr et t ygo od i dea ab ou t

. . . w hat hi s posi t i on i s. So, aft erI di d t hatand .

. . had numer ous conver s at i on s w ith [t he p eti ti o n er] an d w ith m yinv esti g ator, .

. . there ca m e a n issue , as th e re co rd
r efl ect s , . . . hi s r eal i s s ue w as as t o, num berone, as t o w hetherornothe w as c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tr ia l.

C ouns el des cr i bed hi s eff or t s as t o t he s t at ement of t he vi ct i m of t he t hr eatt o herby J ames Pol k:

W el l , I fi l ed a mot i on in li m i ne. I n fac t , I had att ache d t he s t at ement that I ha d in d isco v ery p lus th o se w itn esse s w ere there that I think the re co rd
w oul d r efl ectI t r i ed t o m ake a proff er of proof and I don’ tr emem bert he name, b u t o f c o u rs e , [ th e tr ia l ju d g e ] o v e rr u le d it.

W e t ook i t up t o t he C our tof A ppeal s and then the Supr eme C our t , and . . . th e A p p e lla te C o u rt s a g re e d w ith [ th e tr ia l c o u rt ].

C ouns el s ai d t hathe i s s ued subpoena s for bot h M cK ni ght and t he sec ur i t y guar d, and bo t h ap peared at t he t i m e for t ri al

. H ow ever, he deci ded no t t o cal l M cK nightas a w i t ness:

W el l , i n t he fi r s tpl ace , M i s s M cK ni ght , I t al ked t o her , I had numer ous c o n v e rsa tio n s w ith h e r a n d M iss M c K n ig h t b a sic a llysa id , y o u k n o w , an d it
s tuck out in m ym i nd, s om et i m es w hen he .

. . i s on drugs and s om et i m es he-12-

g ets v iolen t,

. . . an d sh e ha d h ad a restr ainin g o rde r ag ains t h im

. A n d

. . . it ’s notw hats he s ay s on di r ect

. I t ’ s w hats he s ay s on cr os s exami nat i on. A nd not onl yw hats he s ay s , herdemeanor , y o u k n o w
. O f cour s e w hen y ou t al k t o a w i t nes s y ou natur al l y as k her – t he l aw y eras ks hert haton di r ectand then y ou k n o w c ro ss e x a m in a tio n , if h e w a s the S tate ’s law y e r – o f c o u rse , I d o n ’t tell h e r t h a t, yo u g e t a f

e e lin g a b o u t h e r d e m e a n o r a n d e v e ryth i n g e ls e lik e th a t.

B ut that – I m ean, l ike I s ai d b efore, w hat s he w ou l d sayon cross exami nat i on as faras hert es t i m ony , I t hi nk t hat coul d have be en deva s t at i ng, beca us e y ou know , t hat w oul d have been .

. . exac t l yt he s ame fact s her e that
m aybe he ne eded some funds

. . . t o s uppor t hi s drug habi t , and he

. . . ki l l ed th e v ic tim

. C ou nsel al so exp l ai ned w hyhe d i d n ot cal l t he secu ri t ygu ard as a w i t ness:
A ga in , y o u kn ow , as a m at t er of strat egy , I’ ve learned ov er the y ears , y ou’ r e bett eroff w hen y ou putno pr oof on t han w eak pr oof.

A nd I m ean, i tw asn’td ire c tly o n po i nt, y ou kn ow
. A nd on cross ex am ination , . . . o n ce h e sa id h e sa w h im d o that – h e sa w [th e p eti ti o n er] – I t h ink h e w as g o ing to sa yh e w as in an intox icated stat e o r w h atev er[

. ]

C ouns el s ai d t hat D r s
. D al e Fost er , J os eph A ngel i l l o, and J oel R eec eman t es t i fi ed on behal f of t he pet i t i oner at t he m ot i on t o s uppr es s hi s s t at ement s
. D onal d N ew s om , hi s for m er empl oy er , t es t i fi ed fort he St at e, s ay i ng of t he pet i t i oner t hathe di d not“not i ce a nydi ffe r ence betw een hi m and the ot her [] [empl oy ees ]

. H e t akes or der s and fi l l s t hem, r eads t hem, no p rob lem

. ” A t th e co n clus ion o f t h e he aring , the t ri al co u rtd eterm ined that the p eti ti o n er’s
s ta te m e n ts w o u ld n o t b e s u p p re s s e d a n d th a t h e w a s c o m p e te n t to s ta n d tr ia l.

A s fort he pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m t hatcouns el r ece i ved t el ephon e ca l l s dur i ng t he t r i al
r egar di ng hi s el der l ym ot her , couns el s ai d he di d not r emem ber r ece i vi ng s uch a cal l dur i ng “anyki nd of t r i al

. ” C ounsel said that h e r ai s ed the i s s ue of the mi s s i ng audi ot ape i n t he d ire c t ap p e a l, bu t th is c o u rt f o u n d it to b e w ith o u t m e rit. H e sa id th a t th e re w a s “ a b so lu tely
no m er i t ” that o n e of t he pr os ecut or s w entt hr ough t he doort hatl ed t o t he j ur yr oom and
s e c o n d s la te r t h e ju ry re tu rn e d w ith v e rd ic ts o f g u ilty.-13- A N A L Y S IS

I
. I nef f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel

O n appea l , t he pet i t i oner s et s out a num ber of ar eas i n w hi ch he al l eg es th at t ri al
couns el w as i neff

ect i ve, as s er t i ng t hatcouns el “di d not pr oper l y i nves t i gat e and pr epar e for t he tr i al i n t hi s m at t erand[, ] as a re s ul t , empl oy ed a s er i ous l y defe ct i ve tr i al s t r at egy , ” thus p re ju d ic in g th e p e titio n e r. W e w ill e x a m in e h is c la im s
.
T he pos t

- convi ct i on pet i t i onerbear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng hi s al l egat i ons by cl earand
co n v incin g ev iden ce
. S ee T en n
. C o d e A n n
. § 4 0 -30 -11 0 (f) (20 0 6 ). W h en an ev iden ti ary h e a ri n g is h eld in the p o st- co n v ict ion sett ing , the find ing s o f fact m ad e b y the c o u rtare concl us i ve on appe al unl es s t he evi dence pr eponder at es agai ns t t hem

. See T i dw el l v. St at e, 92 2 S

. W

. 2d 49 7, 50 0 (T enn
. 19 96 ). W here app el l at e revi ew i nv olves p urel y fact ual i ssues, t he appel l at e cour t s houl d not r ew ei gh or r eeva l uat e t he evi dence

. See H enl ey v. St at e, 960 S .W .2 d 5 7 2 , 5 7 8 (T e n n
. 1 9 9 7 ). H o w e v e r, re v iew o f a tria l co u rt’s a p p lica tio n o f th e law to t he fact s of the case is de novo , w i t h no pr es um pt i on of cor r ect nes s
. See R uf f v. St at e, 978 S .W .2 d 9 5 , 9 6 (T e n n
. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e iss u e s o f d e fic ien t p e rfo rm a n c e o f c o u n se l an d p o ss ib le pr ej udi ce t o t he def

ens e ar e m i xed ques t i ons of l aw and factand, thu s, s ubj ectt o de novo
rev iew b y the a p p ell ate c o u rt

. S ee S tat e v
. B u rns, 6 S

. W

. 3 d 4 5 3 , 4 6 1 (T en n
. 1 9 9 9 ).

I n or dert o det er m i ne the compet ence of couns el , T ennessee co ur t s have a ppl i ed
s t andar ds devel oped i n fede r al cas e l aw
. See St at e v. T ay l or , 968 S. W

. 2d 900, 905 ( T enn. C r i m
. A pp. 1997) ( not i ng t hat th e sam e st andar d fordet er m i ni ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of
couns el t hat i s appl i ed i n fede r al cas es al s o appl i es i n T ennes s ee)

. T he U n it ed St at es Sup r e me Cour ta r t i c ul a t e d the s t a nd a r d i n Str i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ng t on , 46 6 U. S. 66 8, 10 4 S. C t

. 2052 ( 1984) , w hi ch i s w i del yacc ept ed as t he appr opri ate st andar d foral l cl ai m s of a convi ct ed pet i t i onert h atcouns el ’ s as s i s t ance w as defe ct i ve. T he s t andar d i s fi r m l ygr ounded i n t he bel i ef thatcouns el pl ay s a r ol e thati s “cr i t i cal t o t he abi l i t yof t he adve r s ar i al s y s t em t o pr oduce j us tr es ul t s
. ” I d. at685, 104 S. C t

. at2063. T he St r i ckl and s t andar d i s a t w op ro n g tes t:

F irst, th e d e f

e n d a n t m u st s h o w th a t c o u n se l’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e f

icie n t. T h is
r equi r es s how i ng t hatcou ns el m ade e r r or s s o s er i ous t hatcouns el w as not f u n c tio n in g a s th e “ c o u n se l” g u a ra n tee d th e d e f e n d a n t b yth e S ix th A m endment

. Second, the def endantm us t s how t hatt he def i ci entper for m ance prej ud i ced the defe nse. T his requi res show i ng t hat coun sel ’s err ors w ere s o s er i ous as t o depr i ve the def endantof a f

ai rtr i al , a tr i al w hos e r es ul ti s r el i abl e.
I d. at687, 104 S. C t

. at2064. T he St r i ckl and C our tfur t herexpl aine d the m eani ng of-14-

“ d e f i c i e n tp e r f

o r m a n c e ” i n t h e f

i r s tp r o n g o f

t h e t e s ti n t h e f

o l l o w i n g w a y: In any case present i ng an i neff ect i ven ess cl ai m , t he perform ance inqu i rym ust be w het h er couns el ’ s as s i s t ance w as r eas onabl e cons i der i ng al l t he ci r cumst ance s
. . . . N o par t i cul ars etof det ai l ed rul es for c o u ns el ’ s conduct
can sat i sfact ori l y t ake accou nt of t he vari et y of ci rcum st ances faced bydefe nse c o u n se l o r th e ra n g e o f leg iti m a te d e c isio n s re g a rd in g h o w b e st to re p re se n t a
c rim in a l d e f

e n d a n t.

I d. at688- 89, 104 S. C t

. at 2065. T he pet i t i onerm us tes t abl i s h “thatcouns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on f e ll b e lo w a n o b

je c tiv e s ta n d a r d o f

re a s o n a b le n e s s u n d e r p re v a ilin g p ro f e s s io n a l n o rm s .” H ous e v. St at e, 44 S. W

. 3d 508, 515 ( T enn. 2001) ( ci t i ng G oad v. St at e, 938 S. W

. 2d 363, 369 (T en n
. 1 9 9 6 )).

A s fort he pr ej udi ce pr ong of t he t es t , t he St r i ckl and C our ts t at ed: “The defe ndant
m ustshow t hat there i s a reas on able p robabil i t y t hat, bu t for cou nsel ’s un professi on al err ors, t he resul t of t he pr oc e e di ng w ou l d ha ve be e n di ff e r e nt

. A r e a s on a bl e pr ob a bi l i t y i s a p ro b a b ili tysu f

f icie n t to u n d e rm in e c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tco m e .” 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t. at2068; s ee a l s o O vert on v. St at e, 874 S. W

. 2d 6, 11 ( T enn. 1994) ( concl udi ng t hatpet i t i oner fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hat“there is a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , butforcouns el ’ s err or s , t he
o u tcom e o f th e p roc ee d ing s w o u ld h av e b ee n d iffe ren t”).

C o u rts n e e d n o t a p p ro a c h th e S trick lan d tes t in a sp e c if ic o rd e r o r e v e n “ a d d re ss b o th
c ompon e nt s of t he i nq ui r y i f t he de fe nd a nt make s a n i ns uf fi c i e nt s ho w i ng on on e
. ” 46 6 U. S. at697, 104 S. C t

. at2069; s ee a l s o G oad, 938 S. W

. 2d at370 ( s t at i ng t hat“fa i l ur e t o pr ove ei t herdefi ci encyorpr ej udi ce pr ovi des a s uffi ci entbas i s t o denyr el i ef on the i neff ec t i ve assistan ce claim ”).

W e n o te t h at w h en p o st- co n v ict ion p roc ee d ing s h av e in c lu d ed a f u ll ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g , as w as true in this ca se, t h e tri al j u d g e’s f ind ing s o f f

ac t and co n clus ion s o f law are g iven t he eff

ect and w ei ght of a j ur y ver di ct , and t hi s cour t i s “bound by t he t r i al j u d g e’s fi ndi ngs of fa ctunl es s w e conc l ude t hat t he evi dence cont ai ned i n t he r ecor d pr eponder at es agai n st the jud g m ent ent er ed i n t he ca us e. ” B l ack v. St at e, 794 S. W

. 2d 752, 755 ( T enn. C r i m
. A pp. 1990)

. T he r evi ew i ng cour t m us t i ndul ge a s t r ong pr es um pt i on t hatt he conduc t of couns el fal l s w i t hi n t he ra nge of r eas onabl e prof es s i onal as s i s t ance , s ee Str i ckl and, 466 U

. S. at690, 104 S. C t

. at2066, and maynots econd- gues s t he t act i cal and s t r at egi c choi ces m a d e b ytrial c o u n se l u n les s th o se c h o ice s w e re u n in f o rm e d b e c a u se o f

in a d e q u a te pr epar at i on. See H el l ar d v. St at e, 629 S. W

. 2d 4, 9 ( T enn. 1982)

. T he fac t t hat a s t r at egyor t act i c fa i l ed or hur t t he defe ns e does not al one s uppor t t he cl ai m of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of
c o u n s e l

. S e e T h o m p s o n v
. S t a t e , 9 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 1 5 6 , 1 6 5 ( T e n n
. C r i m
. A p p
. 1 9 9 7 )

. F i n a l l y,-15-

a per s on char ged w i t h a cr i m i nal offe ns e i s notent i t l ed t o per fec t r epr es ent at i on. See D ent on v. St at e, 945 S. W

. 2d 793, 796 ( T enn. C r i m
. A pp. 1996)

. A s expl ai ned i n B ur ns , 6 S. W

. 3d
a t 4 6 2 , “[ c ]o n d u c t th a t is u n re a so n a b le u n d e r t h e f a c ts o f o n e c a se m a yb e p e rf e c tly
re a s o n a b le u n d e r t h e f

a c ts o f a n o th e r.”

A
. T ri al P reparat i on
T he pet i t i oner al l eges t hat t r i al couns el “di d not pr oper l y i nves t i gat e and pr epar e for t he t r i al i n t hi s m at t er and as a r es ul t , empl oy ed a s er i ous l y defe ct i ve tr i al s t r at egy ; t her efor e, he hamper ed [p] et i t i oner ’ s defe ns e i n t hi s m at t er
. ” A s exampl es of t hes e claim s, t he pet i t i onerar gues t hatcouns el “pr ovi ded no di r ect i on” forhi s i nves t i gat or , “i gnor ed the ci r cumst ant i al evi dence ” w hi ch w oul d be pr es ent ed by t he St at e, and fai l ed t o i nves t i gat e t he lig h tin g c o n d iti o n s a t K ristyB o d d ie’ s a p a rtm e n t.

T he pet i t i onerar gues on appea l t hat couns el ’ s pr epar at i on for t he cr os s - exami nat i on of K r i s t yB oddi e w as inad eq u at e i n t hathe di d notper s onal l yvi s i tt he apa r t m entcompl ex w her e s he l i ved t o exami ne the adequa cy of t he l i ght i ng or i ns t ruct t he i nves t i gat ort o do s o. T h u s , a c c o rd in g to th e p e titio n e r, c o u n s e l d id n o t “ tr [ y ] t o im p e a c h h e r t e s tim o n ya t tr ia l.” T he St at e r es ponds t hat , as t o t he l i ght i ng condi t i ons atB oddi e’ s apart m ent , t he pet i t i oner pr ese n ted n o evi dence att he evi dent i aryhear i ng orci t at i ons t o t he r ecor d i n t hi s r egar d. T h u s, ac co rdin g to the S tat e, th e p eti ti o n er’s claim s tha t th e li g h ti n g co n d it ion s w ere i nadequa t e ar e “pur el ys pecul at i ve. ” W e agr ee. T her e i s no bas i s t o as s um e t he pet i t i oner w as pr ej udi ced beca us e couns el di d not i nves t i gat e and then cr os s - exami ne B oddi e aboutt he lig h tin g c o n d itio n s , w h e n th e re is n o p ro o f in th e re c o rd a s to w h a t th e c o n d itio n s w e re
.
B
. P reparat i on f

or D i rec t and C ros s - E x am i nat i on of W i t nes s es
T h e p eti ti o neral l eges t hatt r i al couns el w as notpr epar ed fort he exa m i nat i ons of
w itn e ss e s, D o n a ld N e w so m , D r. D a le F o ste r , a n d D r
. J o e l R e e c e m a n . W e w ill re v iew h is
s p e c if ic c o m p la in ts re g a rd in g th e s e w itn e s s e s
. Fi r s t , as t o t hes e cl aim s, w e n o te t hatt he pos t

- convi ct i on cour tfound t hem t o be
w ith o u t m e rit:

T h e P e t i t i on er next al l eges t hat tri al cou nsel fai l ed to properly in v e stig at e his case t o suff i ci entl yprepare for the tes t i m on yof w i t nesses, inclu d ing C arlos S h aw , K ri sty B o d d ie, D o n ald N ew so m , D r. D ale F o ster, D r. J os eph A ngel i l l o, and D r
. J oel [R eec em an ] a t t r i al

. T he Pet i t i onerfur t her all eg es t h at tr ial co u n sel fa il ed to pro p erly inv esti g ate as to th e P eti ti o n er’s
m ent al condi t i on gener al l yand att he t i m e of th e crim e. A tt he Pet i t i on for-16-

P o st-C o n v ic tio n R e lief p ro c e e d in g s, trial c o u n se l tes tifie d th a t in o rd e r to p re p a re f o r e x a m in a tio n o f

th e w itn e ss e s, h e h ire d a p riv a te in v e stig a to r to i nves t i gat e the fa ct s of t he ca s e. T r i al couns el al s o t es t i fi ed t hat he obt ai ned
c o p ies o f

th e P e tit io n e r’s m e d ica l re c o rd s in o rd e r to p re p a re f o r h is
e x a m in a tio n o f th e d o c to rs w h o w e re p u t o n th e w itn e ss sta n d to tes tifya s to t he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ent al capa ci t y
. T r i al couns el al s o t es t i fi ed thatbeca us e of t he natur e of the Pet i t i oner ’ s cas e, he hi r ed the thr ee ment al hea lt h ex p er t s w ho t est ifi ed in o r dert o as s i s tt he tr i al cour ti n det er m i ni ng w hetherornott he Pet i t i oner w as compet ent t o s t and t r i al

. T he Pet i t i oner has not s how n t hatt r i al
couns el ’ s act i ons in p rep ari ng forw i t nes s t es t i m onyfel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s ta n d a rd o f

re a s o n a b le n e s s
. A s to D o n a ld N e w so m ’s te stim o n y, th e p e tit io n e r a lleg e s th a t co u n se l f a iled to ques t i on N ew s om fur t her about hi s t es t i m ony t hat t he r es t aur ant or der s w hi ch the pet i t i oner r ead, acc or di ng to co u n s el ’ s ques t i on, w er e w r i t t en i n “verycrypt i c Engl i s h. ” Thi s w as i m por t antt es t i m ony , acc or di ng t o t he pet i t i oner , beca us e hi s cl ai m w as t hathe coul d notr ead
a t a ll.

News o m d i d n o t t e s t i f y a t t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , a n d t h e p e t i t i o n e r d o e s n o tpoi nt t o anypr oof i n t he re cor d w hi ch w oul d s how w hether ques t i oni ng hi m fur t herr egar di ng t he p e t i t i o n e r ’ s a b i l i t yt o r e a d wo u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d i n a r e s p o n s e h e l p f u l t o h i m. T h u s , we co n clud e th at the pe ti ti o n er ha s n o t sh o w n eit h er th at co u n sel w as i n ef fe cti v e i n this rega rd
o rt h a tt h e p e t i t i o n e rw a s p r e j u d i c e d t h e r e b y.
A ddi t i onal l y , as t o N ew s om , t he pet i t i oner ar gues t hatcouns el w as defi ci enti n t hat h e d id n o t cla rif

yth ro u g h th is w itn e ss w h o re c e iv e d th e lette rs f ro m th e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s t r at i on t o t he pet i t i oner
. T hus , t he pet i t i oner ar gues “the j ur yw as pr es ent ed w i t h t he i nfor m at i on t hat[t he pet i t i oner ] coul d r ead be caus e i t w as i m pl i ed t hat t he l et t erhe r ece i ved
ca m e to N ew so m [] instea d o f C h ri sti n a M cK n igh t. ” H o w ev er, the re is n o p roo f in the re co rd
a s to w h o m re c e iv e d th e c h e c k s a n d o th e r m a ter ials se n t b yth e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s t r at i on t o t he pet i t i oner
. N ei t herN ew s om , as w e have s t at ed, norM cK ni ghtt es t i fi ed att he hea r i ng, and ther e i s no pr oof t hatt hei rr es pons es t o t he ques t i ons posed byt he pet i t i oneron appea l w oul d have been hel pful t o t he def ens e. A ccor di ngl y , t he pet i t i onerhas nots how n ei t hert hatcouns el w as i neff ect i ve in this reg ar d ort hatt he pet i t i onerw as p re ju d ic e d th e re b y
. O n appea l , t he pet i t i onerar gues that couns el “di d s uch a poorj ob of pr es ent i ng t he D oct or s , t hati tr es ul t ed i n gi vi ng t he [p] r os ecut i on a fr ee opportuni t yt o cont es tany a lleg a tio n th a t [ th e p e tit io n e r] w a s in c o m p e ten t to a n y d e g re e a n d m a k e th e e x a c t sa m e p o in ts
as t hey di d at t he com pet ency hear i ng w i t hout anyeff or tt o s al vage the D oct or s ’ t es t i m ony-17-

byt he def

ens e. ” A s t o D r
. Fost er , t he pet i t i oner as s er t s t hathe w as “neve raddr es s ed byt he [ d ] e f e n s e a b o u t t h e ‘ f

a k i n g b a d s c o r e ’ e v e n o n r e d i r e c t a f t e r t h e [ p ] r o s e c u t i o n r ai s ed t he i s s ue. ” Thus, i n t he pet i t i oner ’ s vi ew , couns el “es s ent i al l yconce ded that[he] w as ‘ faki ng bad ’ about anydefe ct s he m i gh thav e had

. ” D r. F ost er di d n ot t est i fyatt he h eari ng and , t hu s, th e re is n o p ro o f

in th e re c o rd th a t a d d iti o n a l q u e stio n in g , as th e p e tit io n e r su g g e sts , w o u ld h a v e b e e n f

ru itf u l.

D r. R eecem an w as cr oss- exam i ned att he sup press i on he a r i ng , a s the pe t i t i on e rr e l at es, “aboutt he medi cal r el eas e he ha d t he [pe t i t i oner ] s i gn, ” and the tr i al cour tl at erdes cr i bed the
re lea se a s “ b e in g ‘m o re c o m p lex th a n M ira n d a .’” S in c e th e d e f e n se d id n o t th e n a d d re ss th is
a tt r i a l , t h e d e f

e n s e “ c o n c e d e d t h a t[ t h e p e t i t i o n e r ] c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d c o mp l e x ma t t e r s
. ” At the e v iden ti aryh ea ri n g , tr ial co u n sel ex p la in e d h is p u rpo se f o r ca ll ing the th ree ex p ert
w itn e ss e s a t trial: [ W ]e w e re tr y in g to g e t o u t, yo u k n o w , e v e ry t im e y o u ’v e g o t a w itn e s s , . . ., cert ai nl yw hen theycr os s exami ne, t hey ’ r e goi ng t o br i ng outpoi nt s fort he St at e,
. . . , as w el l as t he defenda nt

. Y ou have t o w ei gh t hat , butevi dent l y , y ou know , ourt houghtpr oces s w as t he bene fi tas faras get t i ng .
. . t hei rt es t i m ony abouthi s m ent al s t at e .
. . out w ei ghed any t ype of pos s i bl e cr os s exami nat i on p o in ts th a t th e S ta te c o u ld m a k e . I’ m s u re I a rg u e d th a t to th e ju ry.
T hus , couns el expl ai ned t hat he cal l ed t hes e t hr ee w i t nes s es at tr i al t o have pr oof as to th e p e tit io n e r’s m e n tal sta te a n d th a t, in c o u n se l’s v iew , th is ne e d o u tw e ig h e d th e liab ili ty
o f h a v in g th e m s u b

je c te d to c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n
. A d di t i onal ly , as to tr ial co u n sel’s ha n d li n g o f w itn esse s, the p eti ti o n er f au lt s co u n sel’s eff or t s t o i nt r oduce hear s ay t es t i m ony s ugges t i ng t hat t he vi ct i m ’ s ex- boy fr i end, J ames Pol k, ki l l ed her

. H e ar gues t hat , in hi s m ot i on, couns el at t ache d s um m ar i es of t he s t at ement s of L a rn itra W a llac e a n d L e o n a rdi s C un ningham bu tno t th e sta tem e n ts th e m se lv e s n o r a f f id a v its
o r o th e r in f

o rm a tio n , an d th is w a s an in e f f e c tiv e w a y o f

p re se n tin g th is m o tio n . H e a ss e rts t hat“[t ] he act ual s t at ement of Leonar di s C unni ngham ra i s ed the pos s i bi l i t yof t he exc i t ed
u ttera n c e e x c e p tio n .” T h e re is n o b a sis f o r o u r c o n c lu d in g th a t th e trial c o u rt’s r u lin g w o u ld have be e n d i f

f e r e n th a d t r i a l c o u n s e l a t t a c h e d t h e s t a t e me n t s o f t h e wi t n e s s e s o rr e l e v a nt
a f f id a v its. L ik e w ise , the re is n o b a sis f o r o u r c o n c lu d in g th a t th is h e a rsa ysta tem e n t w o u ld have be en admi t t ed had tr i al couns el ar gued thati tw as an exci t ed ut t er ance
. T r i al couns el t es t i fi ed att he evi dent i aryhear i ng t hathe di d notcons i dert he s t at ement t o b e an exci t ed
u t t e r a n c e ; a n d s i n c e n e i t h e rWa l l a c e n o rCu n n i n g h a m t e s t i f i e d a t t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , we w o u ld b e s p e c u la tin g to c o n c lu d e th a t th is w o u ld h a v e b e e n a s u c c e s s f u l a rg u m e n t.-18-

A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e p e t i t i o n e ra r g u e s t h a tc o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e i n f

a i l i n g t o c i t e t he
co u rtto the ruli n g o f o u r sup rem e c o u rt in S ta te v
. B row n , 2 9 S

. W

. 3 d 4 2 7 (T en n
. 2 0 0 0 ),
a ss e rtin g th a t, ha d th is h o ld in g b e e n c ited , “th e ju ry w o u ld h a v e lik e ly h e a rd a b o u t th e th re a ts fr om J ames Pol k w hi ch w er e inc red ibly si m i l art o t he manneri n w hi ch the vi ct i m w as ki l l ed. ” H ow ever , i tdoes notappea rt hatt r i al couns el w as as ked att he evi dent i aryhear i ng w hetherhe had c ons i der ed ar gui ng t hat t hi s cas e w as r el evant t o t he hea r s ayt es t i m onyabout the threa ts. W e ca nnotas s um e that , s i m pl ybeca us e couns el di d notci t e thi s cas e, he w as in e f f e c tiv e a n d th e p e titio n e r s u f f e re d p re ju d ic e th e re b y
. A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re c o rd su p p o rts the c o n c lu sio n o f th e p o stconvi ct i on cour tt hatt he pet i t i onerfai l ed t o s how t hatcouns el w as i neff ect i ve.
CO NC L US I ON

B as ed upon the fo reg o ing a ut hor i t i es and r eas oni ng, w e af fi r m t he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t ’ s di s m i s s al of t he pet i t i on forpos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef.

_________________________________ AL AN E

. GL E NN, J UDGE