### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON June3, 200 8 S es sio n 

### TIM OTHY TERELL MCKI NNEY v . STATE OF TENNES 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 o . P - 26860 A rt hur T . B ennet t , Judge

N o. W 2006- 02132- C C A - R 3- P D - F i l ed M arch 9, 2010

T h e P e tit io n e r, T im o th yT e re ll M c K in n e y , ap p e a ls f ro m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e S h e lb yC o u n ty C rim in a l C o u rt d e n y in g h is p e tit io n f o r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief

. In Ju ly 1 9 9 9 , a S h e lb yC o u n ty juryfo u n d the P eti ti o n er g u il ty o f first d eg ree m u rde r an d att em p ted s ec o n d d eg ree m u rde r. For t he ca pi t al convi ct i on, t he j ur y s ent ence d the P et i t i oner t o death. T he tr i al cour ti m pos ed a s ent ence of t w el ve y ear s ’ confi nement for t he att empt ed s econd de gr ee mur derconvi ct i on an d o rde red that itb e se rve d c o n s e c u tiv elyto the sen tenc e o f d ea th. T h e P eti ti o n er’s c o n v ictio n s a n d se n ten c e s w e re a f f irm e d o n d ire c t a p p e a l b yth e T e n n e ss e e S u p re m e C o u rt. See S t a t e v . M c Ki n n e y , 7 4 S

. W. 3 d 2 9 1 ( Te n n . ) , c e r t

. d e n i e d , 5 3 7 U. S

. 9 2 6 ( 2 0 0 2 )

. On N ovember 4, 2002, t he Pet i t i oner fi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on forpos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef. T he O ffi ce o f th e P o st- C o n v ict ion D ef en d er w as a p p o inted to rep rese n t th e P eti ti o n er. E v iden ti ary h e a r i n g s o n t h e p e t i t i o n we r e c o n d u c t e d o n v a r i o u s d a t e s i n J a n u a r ya n d F e b ru a r y2 0 0 6

. On appea l t o t hi s C our t , t he Pet i t i oner pr es ent s t he fol l ow i ng cl ai m s : ( 1) t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve foragr eei ng t o a cons entor derr egar di ng di s coverym at er i al s ; ( 2) t r i al couns el w as i neff

ect i ve forfai l i ng t o confr ontD eb ra K i m bl e w i t h herpr i ors t at ement ; ( 3) t r i al couns el w as i neff

ect i ve forfai l i ng t o pr epar e for t r i al and pr es ent evi dence favor abl e t o t he Pet i t i oner ; ( 4) t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o i nves t i gat e mi t i g at i ng ci r cumst ance s adequa t el y ; ( 5) t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o i nt r oduce r es i dual doubtevi dence ; (6) t he pr os ecut i on deni ed the Pet i t i onera fa i rt r i al ; ( 7) t he exc l us i on of t he P eti ti o n er’s e y e w itn e ss e x p e rt a t trial v io late d h is righ t to p re se n t a d e f e n se ; a n d (8 ) th e d e a th p e n a ltyis uncons t i tut i onal and i n vi ol at i on of i nt ernat i onal t r eat i es . W e c o n c l u d e thatt he Pet i t i onerw as d e p riv e d o f th e e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l at b o th th e g u ilta n d p e n a ltyp h a se s o f th e trial. A c c o rd in g ly , the ju d g m e n t o f th e p o s t- c o n v ictio n c o u rt is re v e rse d a n d th e m a tter is re m a n d e d f

o r a n e w trial.-2-

T . R . A . P . 3 A p p eal as of R i gh t; Ju d gm en t of

the C ri m i n al C ou rt R eversed ; C ase R em anded J OS EP H M. T I PT ON , P. J

. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of t he court , i n w hi ch A L AN E. G L ENN a n d D. K EL L Y T HO MAS , J R

. , J J

. , j oi ned. P au l J. M o rrow , Jr. , N ash v il le, T en n esse e, Jam es W

. B

. B en k ard , B en jam in A ll ee , A lexa n d ra P a rra , C o u rtn e yH o w a rd , T h o m a s M . N o o n e , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o r k , f o r th e a p p e llan t, T i m o t h y T e r e l l M c K i n n e y. R o b e rt E . C o o p e r, J r., A tto rn e y G e n e ra l an d R e p o rte r; M ich a e l E . M o o re , S o licito r G e n e ra l; M ar k E

. D avi ds on, Seni orC ouns el ; W i l l i am L

. G i bbons , D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al ; and J ohn C ampbel l , A s s i s t antD 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

Fac t ual Backg r ound T h e f ac ts un d erly ing the P eti ti o n er’s co n v ict ion are set fo rt h in o u r sup rem e c o u rt ’s opi ni on: O n th e n ig h t o f D e c e m b e r 2 5 , 1 9 9 7 , the v ictim s, D o n a ld W i l l i a ms a n d Fr a n k Le e , wer e wor k i n g a s s e c u r i t y g u a r d s for Cru mp y ’ s , a n i g h t c l u b i n M e mp h i s , Te n n e s s e e . Bo t h W i l l i a ms and L ee w ere off-dutyM em ph i s poli ce of fi cers . T h e d e f e n d a n t, T im o th yM c K in n e y, w a s a tt e n d in g a p a rty att he ni ght cl ub. L at er tha t n i ght , t he def endant , w ho w as w ea ri n g a blac k d erb y , m u lt i- co lored sw ea ter, g o ld v e s t, d ark pant s , a n d g o l d s h o e s , l e f t t h e c l u b a n d b e c a me u p s e t whe n he coul d notfi nd hi s car i n t he parki ng l ot

. A l t hough W i l l i ams and L ee a s s ur ed hi m t hathi s carw as i n t he parki ng l ot, t he defe ndants cr eamed, “M ycar ’ s been s t ol en, s om ebody ’ s goi ng t o pay fori t , orI ’ m goi ng t o come back and s hootup t he cl ub or bl ow i tup. ” W i l l i ams ur ged the def endantt o cal m d ow n and stop m ak ing threa ts. T h e de fe n d an t rep li ed that “h e d idn ’tca re a b o u tg o i n g t o j a i l ” b e c a u s e h e h a d j u s tf i n i s h e d s e r v i n g t w e n t yt hree m on t hs.-3- Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , a fr i end of the def endant ’ s , Y arr on Y o u n g , ca m e o u t o f

th e c lu b a n d f

o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s c a r in t he parki ng l ot

. W hi l e Y oung w as ou tsi d e, Lee s epar at ed the defe ndantand W i l l i ams. Y oung t es t i fi ed t hat t he def endantw as s peaki ng l oudl yand w as drunk, and thathe hea r d t he def endant sayh e w o u ld “b e b ac k

. ” A n o ther w itn e s s, S teph o n S p en ce r, t al ked t o t he defe ndant near hi s car . T he defe ndant t ol d Spencer t hat“he ha d got t en i nt o i t w i t h a s ecur i t yguar d” and thatt he guar d had hi th im

. S p ence rdi d nots ee a nys i gn t hatt he defe ndanthad bee n i nj ur ed. T he defe ndant t hen dr ove out of t he par ki ng l ot , butl at er r etur ned and tr i ed t o r e- ent ert he cl u b. L ee t ol d t he def endant t hathe w as notper m i t t ed bac k i n to the cl ub and off er ed t o go i ns i de and fi nd hi s fr i ends

. T he def endantr efus ed the off

erand i ns t ead w ai t ed out s i de the cl ub benea t h a l i ghtpol e. L ee t es t i fi ed th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t “ ju s t s a t th e re a n d lo o k e d a t u s a ll n ig h t.” W i l l i ams ca l l ed the M emphi s Pol i ce D epart m entand r eques t ed th a t a p a tro l c a r in v e stig a te. A lth o u g h th e d e f e n d a n t ev e n tu a lly lef t, he re tu rn e d y e t ag a in a n d p a rk e d h is c a r in th e lo t. M emphi s pol i ce of

fi cerR onal d M ar s hal l arr i ved att he s cene on an unr el at ed mat t er , and W i l l i ams s poke t o hi m about t he def end an t. W hen M cK i nneyagai n t r i ed t o ent ert he cl ub, O ffi cerM ar s hal l s t opped hi m , pl aced hi m i n a patr ol car , and a sk e d h im w h y h e h a d re tu rn e d to th e c lu b . T h e d e f e n d a n t to ld M ar s hal l t hat he “di d not w ant anyt r oubl e. ” M ar s hal l t ook t he d e f e n d a n t’s d riv e r’s lice n se a n d g a v e it to W ill iam s, w h o w ro te dow n t he def

endant ’ s name, dat e of bi r t h, and addr es s . W hen W i l l i ams s ai d t hathe di d notw antan arr es tt o be made, M ar s hal l t ol d t he def

endantt o l eave t he s cene , and he c om pl i ed. J o y c e J e l t z t e s t i f

i e d t h a tl a t e r , a r o u n d 2 : 3 0 o r3 : 0 0 a . m. o n the m o rnin g o f D ec em b er 2 6 , sh e sa w a m an run n ing tow ard W i l l i ams and Lee w i t h a gun aga i ns thi s r i ghtl eg, and s he s aw th e m a n s h o o t W illia m s “ p o in t b la n k in t h e b a c k o f h is h e a d .” J el t z s ai d t hatt he man w as w ear i ng br ow n pant s and an u n b u t t o n e d v e s t

. S h e l a t e rs e l e c t e d t wo me n f r o m a phot ogr aphi c arr ayw hom s he bel i eved c oul d have be en the sh o o ter ; o n e o f

th e m e n w a s th e d e f

e n d a n t.-4- L ee t es t i fi ed thathe hea r d t he guns hot , s aw W i l l i ams on t he gr o u n d , a n d t h e n s a w t h e d e f e n d a n t“ e y e t o e y e ” f

r o m a di s t ance of fi ve ors i x fee ti n t he w el l

- l i ght ed ar ea. A l t hough t he defe ndanthad a gol d bandana overt he l ow erpar tof hi s fac e, he s t i l l w or e the m ul t i

- col or ed s w eat er and dar k pant s . L ee pur s ued t he def endantand exc han g ed guns hot s w i t h hi m befor e the defe ndantdr ove fr om t he s cene i n t he same vehi cl e he ha d been us i ng t hr oughoutt he eve ni ng. L ee l at er i dent i fi ed the def endant fr om a phot ogr aphi c arr ay , s peci fi cal l ypoi nt i ng t o hi s “l azy ” or “dr oopy ” ey es , and he t es t i fi ed that he had “ no doubt ” thatt he defe ndantw as t he shoot erand the man he had cha s ed fr om t he s cene . W i l l i ams w as gi ven C PR att he s cene and then t r ans por t ed t o t he hos pi t al

. T he guns hott o hi s neck ha d tra n se c ted h is s p in e , res u lti n g in p a ra ly sis a n d a n in a b ili tyto br eathe. W i l l i ams w as pl ace d on an art i fi ci al vent il atorand co n tr ac ted p n eu m o n ia an d o ther inf ec ti o n s. H e d ied o n Jan u ary 29, 1998. A ft ert he s hoot i ng, on D ece m ber26, 1997, t he def endant w entt o St ephon S pence r ’ s hous e and t ol d hi m , “Theys ai d I s hot a p o lice o f

f ice r.” T h e re a f

ter th e d e f

e n d a n t tele p h o n e d h is p a r e n t s a n d t wo l a wy e r s , b u tt h e n l e f tS p e n c e r ’ s h o me . On D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 1 9 9 7 , p o lice o f f ice rs f o u n d th e d e f

e n d a n t at a M emphi s apart m en t

. L at ert hatday , offi cer s found t he defe ndant ’ s hat , s w eat er , ves t , and vehi cl e l i ce ns e pl at e i ns i de hi s gi r l fr i end’ s hous e. B al l i s t i cs t es t s l at err evea l ed par t i cl es of g u n sh o t re sid u e o n th e d e f e n d a n t’s v e st. A lt hough t he def

endantdi d noti nt r oduce a nyevi dence att r i al , he ch al l enged the i dent i fi cat i on t es t i m onyof Lee and J e l t z a n d a t t e m p t e d t o d e v e l o p a n a l i b i d e f e n s e . T h e j u r y, how ever , convi ct ed t he defe ndant of t he fi rst d egre e pr emedi t at ed murde rof D onal d W i l l i ams and t he att empt ed s econd de gr ee mur derof Fr ank Lee.-5- S en tenci n g P h ase A ft ert he convi ct i on of M cK i nneyfort he pr emedi t at ed fi r s tdegr ee mur derof D onal d W i l l i ams, t he t r i al m oved i nt o t he s ent enci ng phas e for t he offe ns e. I n s ent enci ng, t he St at e r el i ed upon t he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance i n T enn. C ode A nn. § 39- 13- 2 0 4 (i )( 2 ) ( 1 9 9 7 ), i.e ., t hatt he def endant had a pr i orconvi ct i on fora fe l onyw hos e s t atut or yel ement s i nvol ved the us e of vi ol ence t o a per s on. T he S t at e i nt r oduced e vi dence t o s how t hat t he def endanthad pl ed gui l t y t o aggr avat ed robbe r y on M ay1, 1994 i n M emphi s , T ennes s ee. T h e o f f e n se o f a g g ra v a ted ro b b e ry , in p e r tin e n t p a rt, i s t he i nt ent i onal or know i ng t heft of pr oper t yfr om t he per s on of anotherbyvi ol ence orput t i ng t he per s on i n fea r , acc om pl i s hed w i th a deadl yw eapon orbydi s pl ayof anyar t i cl e us ed or fas hi oned t o l ead the vi ct i m t o r eas onabl ybel ie ve i tt o be a d e a d ly w e a p o n . See T en n . C o d e A n n . § 3 9 -13 -40 2 (a) (19 9 7 ). T he i ndi ct m entt o w hi ch t he defe ndantpl ed gui l t yhad cha r ged t hatt he def

end an t a nd a co- defe ndant“vi ol ent l y ” r obbed the v i c t i m. I n addi t i on t o evi dence of t he pr i orv i ol entfel ony aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance , t he St at e pr es ent ed vi ct i m i m pact evi dence

. Fi r s t , t he vi ct i m ’ s w i dow , Shar on W i l l i ams, t es t i fi ed t h a tt h e p e r s o n a l a n d f

i n a n c i a l l o s s s u f

f e r e d b y h e ra n d h e rt wo daught er s had bee n “deva s t at i ng. ” The chi l dr en w er e ei ghtand t en y ear s of age w hen the vi ct i m w as ki l l ed. M emphi s pol i ce of

fi cerM i chae l J

. C l ar k t hen t est i fi ed a b o u t th e v ictim ’s c a re e r a s a p o lice o f f ice r f ro m 1 9 8 2 u n til h is d e a th . C lar k sa id th a t W ill ia m s s p e n t m o st o f h is c a re e r in uni for m patr ol and had s er ved as i nt er i m vi ce- pr es i dentof t he M emphi s Pol i ce A s s oci at i on. C l ar k al s o s ai d t hat W i l l i ams w as a mem berof t he as s oci at i on’ s negot i at ing t eams, and he des cr i bed W i l l i ams as a “medi at or , ” r athert han a “ bi g, l et ’ s l ock

‘ em up, pol i cem an. ’ ” C l ar k t ol d t he j ur yt hatW i l l i ams had w or ked t o obt ai n a s chool s ecur i t y as s i gnm ent , w hi ch r equi r ed a four

- y earcol l ege de gr ee.-6- T he def ens e then pr es ent ed the t es t i m onyof num er ous fa m il ym em b ers a n d frien d s w h o d esc ri b ed the d ef en d an t’ s backgr ound and cha r act er i s ti cs . For exampl e, T aw anda W aterm an test ifi ed that sh e w as pre g n an t w ith the d ef en d an t’ s chi l d i n D ece m berof 1997, buthad l os tt he chi l d. W at er m an sa id th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t h a d in ten d e d to m a rryh e r a n d “ sta rt h is lif e o v e r.” T he def e n d a n t ’ s m ot her , E l l a Ty rus , t es t i fi ed thats he w as fi ft een w hen s he gave bi r t h t o t he def endant

. She s ai d t hatt he defe ndantw as a good ar t i s tand w as good athel pi ng ol d peopl e, an d s h e a s k e d the ju ryto sp are h is l ife. T h e d ef en d an t’ s s t epfa t her , J

. C

. T y rus , t es t i fi ed thatt he def endant , one of t hi r t een c hi l dr en , w as a nor m al boyw ho had ca us ed no p ro b lem s a n d w h o g o t alo n g w e ll w ith h is s ib lin g s. T yru s s a id t hatt he def

endanthad dr opped outof s cho o l in t he ei ght h or ni nt h gr ade, but w as a good ar t i s t

. W hen T yrus al s o s t at ed that t he def endanthad be en tr y i ng t o tur n hi s l i fe a r ound, t he p ro se c u to r c ro ss -e x a m in e d h im a b o u t th e d e f e n d a n t’s ju v e n ile adj udi cat i ons foraggr avat ed as s aul ti n 1991. St even a nd L i nda M os hi er t es t i fi ed t hat t heyw er e fr i ends and co-w orkers of the defe nd ant and t ha t th e def end ant w as a good w or ker

. L i nda M os hi er s t at ed thatt he def endantw as gr eat w ith c h ild re n a n d a v o id e d c o n f ro n ta tio n s . Z a c h a ri a s S te w a rt , a ch i l dhood fr i end, al s o t es t i fi ed thatt he def endanthad a gr eat per s onal i t yand i nt r oduced a dr aw i ng t h at th e def endanthad done. D r . J ohn V

. C i occa , a cl i ni cal ps y chol ogi s t , t es t i fi ed that he int ervi ew ed the defen dan tand revi ew ed h i s school r ecords. D r. C io c c a sa id th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a d lo w le a r n in g a b ili tyin r eadi ng, w r i t i ng, and mat hemat i cs . T he de fenda nthad a “ l ow aver age” I Q i n t he l ow er90s and had be en pl ace d in s peci al educa t i on w hen he w as ni ne. A ccor di ng t o D r . C i occa , t he d e f e n d a n t’s le a rn in g d isa b ili ty , leth a rg y , a n d d e sp o n d e n c ya t a y oung age r evea l ed a need for ps y chol ogi cal hel p t hat he neve r re c e iv e d . T h e d e f

e n d a n t w a s ex p e lled f

ro m sc h o o l in th e n in th g ra d e , b u t late r c o m p lete d th e re q u ire m e n ts f o r a G .E .D . in 1994.-7- T he def endantt hen t ook t he s t and and t es t i fi ed thathe w as t he fa t her of t w o chi l dren, bo t h of w ho m had died. H e al so s ai d t hathe h ad l earni ng pr obl ems i n s chool and gotbor ed eas i l y . T he def

endantadmi t t ed thathe had be en dr i nki ng and s m oki ng m ar i

j uana on t he day of t he off ens es , buthe deni ed that he ki l l ed D onal d W i l l i ams and ac cus ed the St at e’ s w i t nes s es of l y i ng. A l t hough t he defe ndant admi t t ed t hat he s er ved t i m e for aggr avat ed r obbery , he s ai d t hathe had onl ydr i ven a ge t aw ay carw hi l e a c o- defe ndantcomm i t t ed the r obbery . T he def endant tes tifie d th a t h e a ttain e d h is G .E .D . w h ile h e w a s in p riso n in 1994. H e admi t t ed thathe had j uveni l e adj udi cati ons for agg ravat ed assault , bu tm i nim i zed h i s r ole i n those i ncident s. A ft ert he evi dence w as compl et ed, t he ca s e w as s ubm i t t ed t o t he j ur yfors ent enci n g . T h e j ur yfound t hatt he defe ndant ’ s pr i orconvi ct i on foraggr avat ed r obberys a t i s f i e d the aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance r el i ed upon byt he St at e, see T enn. C ode A nn . § 3 9

- 1 3

- 2 0 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( 1 9 9 7 ) , a n d t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e of t hi s aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance out w ei ghed evi dence of m it ig a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. A ccor di ngl y , t he j ur yi m pos ed the deat h s ent ence upon T i m ot hy M c K in n e yf

o r t h e f ir s t d e g re e m u rd e r o f

D o n a ld W illia m s . M cK i nney , 74 S. W

. 3d at298- 301. Pro of at Pos t - C onv i c t i on H e ar i ng A t t h e p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n e v i d e n t i a r yh e a r i n g , t h e f o l l o wi n g p r o o f

was p r e s e n t e d: D onal d R ay C rum p ow ned C rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub i n 1997, i n addi t i on t o num er ous hot w in g sto re s. T h e c lu b w a s lo c a ted a t H o llyw o o d a n d Ja m e s S tre e ts a n d th e b u ild in g c o u ld acc om m odat e fourhundr ed peopl e. M r . C rum p s t at ed thatFr ank Lee, a M emphi s p o li ce o f f i c e r , a n d h e h a d a t t e n d e d c o l l e g e t o g e t h e r . Af t e r o p e n i n g t h e Co me d yCl u b , M r . Cru mp hi r ed Fr ank Lee as a s ecur i t y g u ard

. F ran k L ee “ putt ogether[a] t eam [of] fourorfi ve off i cers t o w ork.

. . . ” T he secur i t y t eam w as t o w at ch the parki ng l ot and t heyw ou l d als o e s c o rt e m p lo y e e s c a rr y in g th e s to re s ’ d e p o s its a t c lo s in g tim e . M r. C ru m p tes tifie d th a t o n D e c e m b e r 2 5 , 1 9 9 7 , M a g ic C lip p e rs, a b a rb e r sh o p , h e ld a pri vat e par t y at C rum py ’ s C om edy C l ub. T he managerof t he cl ub, H ayw ar d B r ow n, m ade th e a rra n g e m e n ts w ith M a g ic C lip p e rs. M r. C ru m p sta ted th a t alth o u g h h e h a d n o t o rig in a lly i nt ended t o at t end t he par t y , he deci ded i t w as i n hi s bus i nes s i nt er es tt o do s o. H e arr i ved-8-

a t th e C o m e d y C lu b a b o u t 9 :3 0 p .m . H e e stim a ted th a t ap p ro x im a telyth re e h u n d re d p e o p le w er e att he M agi c C l i pper s ’ par t y . M r . C rum p not i ced t hatFr ank Lee and O ffi cerE ugene R o ss w ere w o rkin g sec u ri ty at th e club

. A s the cro w d g rew large r, F ran k L ee inf o rm ed M r. C ru m p th a t an o th e r se c u rityg u a rd w a s n e e d e d

. M r. C ru m p c a lled O f f ice r D o n W ill iam s to w o rk s e c u ri ty. M r . C rum p t es t i fi ed thatt ow ar d t he end of t he eveni ng, he as ked a man t o l eave t he cl ub. M r . C rum p i dent i fi ed the m an as bei ng about 5' 10" and dr es s ed i n cas ual at t i r e. T he m an h ad b ee n stumbl i ng ar ound ear l i eri n t he eve ni ng, and M r . C rum p had advi s ed t he bar s t aff nott o s er ve thi s m an any m or e al cohol

. M r . C rum p l at erobs er ved thi s m an havi ng a conve r s at i on w i t h O ffi cerD on W i l l i ams i n t he parki ng l ot

. O ffi cerW i l l i ams w as i n t he pr oces s of ca l l i ng t he pol i ce t o have the man ar r es t ed. M r . C rum p i nt er vened a nd s t at ed that he di d notw antt o s ee a ny one arr es t ed on C hr i s t m as ni ght

. M r . C rum p di r ect ed O ffi cer W i l l i ams t o l ett he man go hom e. T w o p o li ce crui s er s arr i ved, butt heyl eftw hen O ffi cer W illia m s a d v is e d th e m to d is re g a rd th e c a ll. M r . Cru mp t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e wa s i n s i d e t h e c l u b wh e n h e h e a r d s h o o t i n g o u t s i d e . He s t at ed thatcus t om er s s t ar t ed runni ng back i nt o t he cl ub and s om eone s t at ed thatO ffi cer W i l l i ams h a d b e e n h i t

. Off i c e r Le e l a t e r r e p o r t e d t o M r . Cr u mp t h a t h e h a d c h a s ed t he s u s p e c t. M r . C rum p t es t i fi ed thathe w as i n t he nei ghbor hood w hen the Pet i t i oner w as arr es t ed. M r . C rum p ow ned a r es t aur ant t hr ee bl ocks aw ay fr om w her e t he Pet i t i oner w as arres t ed. M r . C rum p s poke w i t h one of the off i cer s att he s cene . H e advi s ed t he offi cer t hatt he man t h a th e h a d t hr own ou to f t h e c l u b e a r l i e rth a te v e n i n g wa s n o tt h e P e t i t i o n e r . M r . Cru mp st at ed t hat n o o ne fr om t he Pe t i t i on e r ’ s de fe ns e t e a m eve rs po ke w i t h h i m. O n c r os sexami nat i on, M r . C rum p admi t t ed thathe di d notknow aboutw hom O ffi cerW i l l i ams w as s p e a k in g in th e p a rk in g lo t. P eter H ay w ar d B r ow n, M r . C rum p’ s uncl e, t es t i fi ed thathe and M r . C rum p w ere bus i nes s par t ner s . H e adde d t hat he al s o act ed as t he m anage r of C rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub. O n C hr i s t m as ni ght 1997, M r . B r ow n t es t i fi ed t hat he m ai nl y s t ay ed at t he bar

. H e adde d t hat i tw oul d be i m pos s i bl e t o s ee a cr os s t he r oom w hen t he cl ub w as cr ow ded. M r . B r ow n added t hatt he part yw as a br i ng- y our - ow n li q u o r affai r . H e s t at ed thatt he bars er ved bee rand “s etups . ” M r . B r ow n t es t i fi ed thatFr ank Lee, D on W i l l i ams, and E ugene R os s w er e w or ki ng s ecur i t yatt he C om edy C l ub on t he ni ghtof t he M agi c C l i pper s ’ par t y . M r . B r ow n coul d not re c a ll h e a rin g a n ysh o ts. H e d id re c a ll th a t so m e p e o p le r a n b a c k in to th e c lu b re p o rtin g sh o ts out s i de. M r . B r ow n hes i t at ed, l ooked out s i de, and saw O ffi cerW i l l i ams l y i ng on t he gr ound.-9-

H e and a fr i en d , w h o happene d t o be a r egi s t er ed nur s e, w entout s i de t o as s i s tO ffi cer W i l l i a ms . M r . Br o wn c o u l d n o t r e c a l l g i v i n g a s t a t e me n t t o t h e p o l i c e o n t h e n i ght of t he s h o o tin g . H e s a id n o o n e f ro m th e P e titio n e r’ s d e f e n s e te a m e v e r c o n ta c te d h im

. K evi n R obi n s on, a barberatM agi c C l i pper s i n 1997, t es t i fi ed thathe w as i nvol ved i n t he pl anni ng of t he C hr i s t m as par t y . H e s ai d he w as r es pons i bl e fort aki ng t i cket s fr om p e o p le a t th e d o o r f

o r a b o u t f

o u r h o u rs. M r. R o b in so n sa id h e lef t th e p a rtya t ap p ro x im a tely mi d n i g h t a n d r e tu r n e d a b o u t 2 : 0 0 a . m. He s t a t e d h e wa s n o tp r e s e n twh e n Of f i c e rW i l l i a ms w a s s h o t. M r. R o b inso n test ifi ed that h e k n ew the P eti ti o n er. H e gre w u p w ith the P eti ti o n er’s b ro th e rs a n d sis ter s in th e sa m e n e ig h b o rh o o d . H e re c a lled se e in g th e P e tit io n e r a t th e p a rty a n d d e s c r i b e d t h e P e t i t i o n e ra s h a p p y . M r . Ro b i n s o n c l a s s i f i e d t h e P e t i t i o n e ra s a f

r i e n d

. He w a s a w a re th a t th e P e titio n e r h a d b e e n re le a s e d f ro m p ri s o n e a rl ie r t h a t yea r. M r . R obi ns on r eca l l ed otherdi s turbance s att he part y . H e r eca ll ed one man bei ng r ow dy at t he d o o r . He s a i d t h a t t h i s ma n was u l t i ma t e l y e s c o r t e d f r o m th e c l u b b yt he s ecur i t yguar ds

. M r . R obi ns on i dent i fi ed thi s m an as “G ol di e. ” H e s t at ed t hatG ol di e w as d ru n k . M r. R o b in s o n s a id G o ld ie a n d th e P e titio n e r h a d a s im ila r b u ild

. Fr dr i ck R os s , a barberatM agi c C l i pper s i n 1997, t es t i fi ed thatknew t he Pet i t i oner as b o th a n eigh b o r an d as a cu stom er. M r. R o ss stat ed that h e w as in v o lved w ith tw o o thers i n fundi ng t he par t y at C rum p’ s C om edyC l ub on D ece m ber25, 1997. M r . R os s t es t i fi ed that he w or ked the dooratt he par t y . M r . R os s s t at ed t hat aft er t he s hoot i ng occurr ed, he s t epped out s i de and s aw O ffi cerW i l l i ams on t he gr ound aboutt w o fee tfro m R os s ’ car . H e s t at ed that h e h ad n o idea w h o h ad b ee n inv o lved in th e sho o ti n g . T h e fo ll o w ing w ee k , h e h ea rd t hroug h “b arbershop t al k” thatP at ri ck Joh nson had been i nv olved i n the shooti ng . M r. R oss s ai d t hat he w as never as ked t o pr ovi de a s t at ement t o pol i ce offi cer s and t hat no one fr om t h e d e f e n s e t e a m s p o k e wi t h h i m. J o h n M a s o n t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e a n d t h e P e t i t i o n e rg r e w u p t o g e t h e ri n t h e s a me nei ghbor hood and att ended sc hool t ogether

. M r . M as on s ai d t hatt he Pet i t i oner“w as al r i ght t o m e” a nd t hatt he Pet i t i oner“w as cool

. ” M r. M as on at t ended the C hr i s t m as par t yat C rum p ’s C o m ed yC lub

. H e s a id h e w as n o t atthe c lub at t h e ti m e o f th e sh o o ti n g . M r. M as on di d r eca l l s eei ng t he Pet i t i oneratt he cl ub. H e s t at ed, “W e w as al l i nt oxi cat ed. ” M r. M ason tes t i fi ed thathe lat er l earned that a po l i ce offi cer had been shot. H e al so said that h e learn ed fro m P atri ck Jo h n so n that the P eti ti o n er d id n o t sho o t th e p o li ce o ff icer. M r. M ason tes t i fi ed thatP at ri ck Joh nson st at ed that“he d i d itand j ust l aug hed l i ke i tw as a j ok e . ” M r . M a s o n s a i d h e h e a r d f r o m s e v e r a l o t h e rn e i g h b o r h o o d s o u r c e s t h a tPa t r i ck-10-

Jo h n so n w a s th e sh o o ter . M r . M a s o n s a id h e w a s n e v e r a sk e d to p ro v id e a sta tem e n t to p o lic e a n d n o o n e f

ro m th e d e f

e n s e te a m s p o k e w ith h im

. O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , M r. M a s o n tes tifie d th a t h e h a d “ d ra n k a b o u t h a lf a p in t” befor e goi ng t o t he C hr i s t m as par t y . H e conc eded thatt he Pet i t i onerw as dr i nki ng w hen he s aw hi m at t he par t y . M r . M as on fur t her admi t t ed t hat he never came for w ard w it h t he i nfor m at i on t hatPat r i ck J ohns on had adm i t t ed t o s hoot i ng O ffi cerW i l l i ams, des pi t e the fa ct th a t th e P e titio n e r w a s b e in g c h a rg e d w ith th e c ri m e . J as on Shor t ert es t i fi ed thathe w as pr es entatt he M agi c C l i pper s ’ C hr i s t m as par t yat C rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub. H e arr i ved att he part ybetw een 9: 00 and 10: 00 p. m . H e s ai d no pol i ce c ar s w er e i n t he par ki ng l otw hen he a r r i ved. H e not i ced tw o s ecur i t yguar ds s t andi ng a t th e d o o r. H e k n ew o n e a s O ff icer W il li am s an d the o ther a s O ff icer F ran k L ee . M r. S h o rt er sa id h e w as a w are that the s ec u ri tyg u ard s w ere arm ed

. H e sa id o n e o f th e o ff icers w o u ld p at do w n p eo p le en teri n g the club an d ch ec k them b ef o re th ey w ere all o w ed to en ter. M r. S h o rt er testi fied that the d ress w as ca su al, b u t n o b lue jea n s o r t en n is sho es. M r. Shor t err eca l l ed l eavi ng t he cl ub w hi l e es cor t i ng a fem al e fr i end. M r . Shor t ers aw O ffi cer W i l l i ams on hi s l eft s i de. H e t hen s aw s om ebodyw al ki ng up behi nd hi m . T hi s per s on s hot O f f ic e r W il li am s at least three ti m es. M r. S h o rt er du ck ed an d too k co v er by a ca r. H e d esc ri b ed the e n su ing sce n e a s ch ao ti c. H e said h e saw the s h o o ter run to the all eyan d h ea rd a cou ple of shots

. M r . Shor t e r s t a t e d t h a t t o t h e b e s t o f h i s r e c o l l e c t i o n , t h e s h o o t e r ’ s g u n was n o t an a u to m a tic, b u t a r e v o lv e r. H e id e n tifie d th e sh o o ter a s b e in g d re ss e d a ll i n b lac k . H e sa id t he s hoot erm ay h av e h ad a “fade , notr eal hi gh buta fa de. ” The shoot erm ayhave ha d a m u s tac h e, sl im b u il d , ab o u t 5' 1 0 ". M r. S h o rt er sa id the p o li ce n ev er c o n tacted h im fo r a s ta te m e n t a n d n o o n e f

ro m th e P e titio n e r’ s d e f e n s e te a m c o n ta c te d h im

. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, M r . Shor t er t es t i fi ed t hat he w as i nt oxi cat ed att he t i m e he w as l eavi ng t he cl ub. H e s ai d t hati n hi s opi ni on, hi s femal e compani on w as s i m i l ar l yi nt oxi cat ed. L o n d o n L e e tes tifie d th a t h e k n e w th e P e tit io n e r. H e sta ted th a t th e tw o m e n m e t in j uni orhi gh s chool and thatt heyhad bee n fr i ends evers i nce. M r . L ee al s o at t ended the C hr i s t m as par t yatC rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub i n 1997. H e s ai d t he s ecur i t y at t he par t y“w as li k e p lai n cloth es se cu ri ty

. ” H e sa id h e w as n o t patted d o w n w h en h e e n tered the c lub

. M r. L ee de s cr i bed an e ncount eratt he part yw hen an “obnoxi ous and boi s t er ous ” man bum ped agai ns thi m . A ft ert hi s encount er , M r . L ee de t er m i ned thatt he part yw as get t i ng outof hand and i tw as t i m e forhi m t o le ave. H e r eca l l ed the t i m e bei ng appr oxi m at el y12: 30 or1: 00 a. m . M r. L ee l eft t he p artybefo re the sho oti ng . H e w as l at er i n form ed thatt here w as a-11-

s hoot i ng att he cl ub. M r . L ee des cr i bed t he Pet i t i oner as “a cal m t ype per s on. ” H e s ai d he d id n o t believe that the P eti ti o n er w as th e sh o o ter. H e sa id tha t no o n e f rom the P eti ti o n er’s d e f e n s e te a m c o n ta c te d h im

. Soni a St i ger , L ondon L ee’ s s i s t er , t es t i fi ed thats he knew t he Pet i t i oneras a fr i end of herbr ot her

. M s . St i geral s o at t ended the C hr i s t m as par t yatC rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub. She r ei t er at ed the i nci dent h er br ot herhad w i th t he i nt oxi cat ed gues tbum pi ng i nt o hi m . She des cr i bed thi s m an as w ear i ng a t w i l l j acke t and s l acks

. M s . St i gers ai d t hats he s t ay ed att he par t yunt i l about1: 45 a. m . O n cr os s - exami nat i on, s he s t at ed thatt heyl eftt he cl ub befor e t he s h o o tin g o c c u rr e d

. F e b b re L a sh e ll B e rrytes tifie d th a t h e a tten d e d th e M a g ic C lip p e rs’ C h ristm a s p a rty b u tt h a th e d i d n o tl e a r n a b o u tt h e s h o o t i n g o f Of f i c e rWi l l i a ms u n t i l a f

t e rt h e p a r t y . He re c a ll ed seei ng t he secu ri t yoff i cers bu tcou l d n ot i den t i fyt hem bynam e. M r. B errysa id t h e r e wa s a n i n c i d e n t wh e r e t h e s e c u r i t y g u a r d s h a d t o t h r o w s o me o n e o u to f t h e c l u b

. He sa id th is g u e st w a s w e a rin g a b lu e jea n jac k e t. M r. B e rryc o u ld n o t re c a ll b e in g a sk e d to w r i t e a s t at ement for pol i ce of fi cer s aft ert he s hoot i ng. H e s ai d no one t al ked w i t h hi m about th e c a s e . L a rryS p rin g f

ield , a n e n ter tain e r a n d sin g e r, tes tifie d th a t h e p e rf o rm e d a t th e M a g ic C l i pper s ’ C hr i s t m as par t y on D ece m ber 25, 1997. H i s band per for m ed i n connec t i on w i t h a DJ a n d a c o me d i a n . M r . S p r i n g f i e l d r e c a l l e d th r e e s e c u r i t y g u a r d s , o n e o u t s i d e a n d t wo in s id e th e c lu b . H e s a id th a t at s o m e p o in t d u ri n g th e e v e n in g th e re w a s “ a ru c k u s o u ts id e .” H e lo o k e d o u tsid e a n d o b se rv e d O f f ice r W ill iam s h a n d lin g so m e b o d y . H e c o u ld n o t tell to w hom O ffi cerW i l l i ams w as s peaki ng. M r . S p ri n g fi el d s ai d t hatt he s ecur i t yguar d w as ask in g the p erso n to leav e a n d that there w as n o p h y sical alt erc ati o n b etw ee n the tw o . M r. Spr i ngfi el d des cr i bed the man as w ear i ng a l i ght col or ed shi r t

. H e obs er ved the man l eave i n a l i ght

- col or ed vehi cl e. M r . Spr i ngfi el d s ai d he l eftt he cl ub befor e O ffi cerW i l l i ams w as s h o t. H e s a id th e re w e re n o o f f ic e rs o n th e s c e n e a t th e tim e h e le f t. M ar k L es t ert es t i fi ed thathe att ended t h e p artyatC rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub and that he w as pr es ent w hen O ffi cer W i l l i ams w as s hot

. H e had t o s t ay at the cl ub aft ert he s hoot i ng, a n d p o lice b ro u g h t h im b a c k to h is h o m e . H e e x p lain e d th a t h e c o u ld n o t re c a ll th e e v e n ts beca us e he ha d been dr i nki ng al l day

. M r . L es t er acknow l edged t hathe pr ovi ded a s t at ement t o pol i ce r egar di ng t he eve nt s occurr i ng at t he cl ub. H e coul d notr eca l l w hetherhe t es t i fi ed a t th e P e titio n e r’ s tr ia l. D err i ck D evaughn Boy d t es t i fi ed thathe att ended the p a rtyatC rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub acc om pani ed by R os al yn R el i for d, hi s fi r s t cous i n, and her s i s t er s . T he gr oup arr i ved att he par t yatappr oxi m at el y10: 00 p. m . H e s ai d t hats ecur i t y guar ds w er e pr es entatt he entr ance-12-

an d that h e w as se arc h ed b yO ff icer W il li am s b ef

o re e n teri n g the c lub

. D u ri n g the p arty , M r. B oy d o bserved a m an b ei ng “pu t ou t of t he cl ub

. ” T his i ncident occu rr ed w hil e L est er B i bb s, t he comedi an, w as per for m i ng. M r . B oy d coul d n o tr eca l l t he i dent i t yof t he per s on bei ng e v i c t e d f r o m th e c l u b

. M r . Bo y d s a i d h e l e f tt h e p a r t yb e t we e n 1 : 3 0 a . m. a n d 1 : 4 5 a . m. At t hi s t i m e, t he s ecur i t yguar ds w er e i nvol ved i n a mat t erat t he fr ont

. H e al s o obs er ved a l ot of peopl e l eavi ng. H e s ai d t he s ecur i t y guar ds w er e di r ect i ng t r aff i c. H e al s o r eca l l ed s eei ng a p o lic e c a r. A n tho n y S ledg e t esti fied that h e did so m e w o rk as a sec u ri ty g u ar d a t C ru m p y ’s C om edyC l ub. M r . Sl edge s ai d he w as not at the cl ub on t he ni ghtt hatO ffi cerW i l l i ams w as m ur der ed. M r . Sl edge t es t i fi ed t hathe and A

. C

. C ar t erw oul d pr ovi de s ecur i t yon t he i ns i de o f th e c lu b . H e e x p lain e d th a t th e y g re e ted c u sto m e rs, fris k e d th e m , an d se a rc h e d th e m to m ake sure no w eapo ns w ere being br ou gh t i nto t he club. O ffi cers L ee, W i l l i am s, and R oss w er e r es pons i bl e for s ecur i t y on t he out s i de of t he cl ub, t he car s and the ext er i orboundar i es o f th e c lu b . M r. S le d g e s a id th e s e c u ri ty g u a rd s w o u ld w e a r C ru m p y ’s s e c u ri ty sh ir ts

. M r . Sl edge s t at ed thatt he cl ub di d nothave a r egularl i quorl i cens e. T he es t abl i s hm entw as a br i ng- y our - ow n- l i quorcl ub. Pat r ons w er e s ear ched i n or dert hatt hey di d notbr i ng anyt hi ng i nt o t he bui l di ng t hat t he cl ub s ol d, l i ke ora nge j ui ce. T he cl ub had a tw o i t em m i ni m um . M r . Sl edge t es t i fi ed t hat aft er t he shoot i ng, t he cl ub “w entt o a qui ck d e mi s e . ” He s a i d h e wa s n e v e r c o n t a c t e d b y a n y o n e f r o m th e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s d e f e n s e t e a m. He e x p la in e d , h o w e v e r, t h a t h e w a s n o t a t th e c lu b o n th e n ig h t o f th e in c id e n t. C as s andr a Turne r , an empl oy ee of t he M emphi s C i t y School s , t es t i fi ed t hats he knew O ffi cer D o n W ill i am s i n a p rofessi on al capac i t y . S he ex plai ned t hat s he w orked a s a b a sk e tb a ll co a c h a n d a s a n a ss ista n t p rin c ip a l. B e c a u se o f h e r p o sitio n s, M s. T u rn e r w o u ld cont actpol i ce of

fi cer s t o w or k s ecur i t y . She s ai d t he pol i ce of fi cer s w er e i n uni for m w hen th e yp ro v id e d s e c u ri ty se rv ic e s . M s . T ur nert es t i fi ed thats he att ended the C hr i s t m as par t yatC rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub. She arr i ved at10: 00 p. m . , buts he w as unabl e t o l eave unt i l 3: 00 or4: 00 a. m . beca us e of the sh o o ti n g . U p o n h er arri v al, sh e reca ll ed that O ff icer W il li am s w as sho w ing p eo p le w h e re t o par k. M s . T ur ner al s o knew O ffi cer L ee and s poke w i t h hi m br i efl y . M s . T ur nert es t i fi ed t hatats om e poi nti n t he eve ni ng, s he s aw O ffi cerW i l l i ams and a not herper s on dr aggi ng a m an outof t he c lub

. S he es t i m at ed thatt hi r t y - fi ve t o for t ym i nut es aft ert hi s i nci dent , t he s hoot i ng occurr ed. T he cr ow d w as not i fi ed of the s hoot i ng beca us e O ffi cerL ee e nt er ed the cl ub and s t at ed thatO ffi cerW i l l i ams had be en s hot

. M s . T ur ners ai d t he pol i ce w oul d not l etany on e ou tof the cl ub

. M s. T urner sai d she d i d n ot know w ho had shot O ffi cer W i l l i am s.-13-

M s . T ur ner t es t i fi ed t hat t he pol i ce as ked her ques t i ons and conduct ed a fo ll o w - up cal l

. She t ol d pol i ce offi cer s t hat s he di d notknow w ho had s hotO ffi cerW i l l i ams. She w as c o n tac ted b y“ so m e c o m p a n y ,” b u t sh e c o u ld n o t re c a ll th e n a m e . S h e w a s n o t co n tac ted to test ifyat t ri al. S h e later said th at the co m p an ythat co n tacted h er m ayh av e b ee n Inq u isi tor, In c . Paul i t a Jones at t ended t he 1997 C hr i s t m as par t yatC rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub w i t h her fr i end A l i ci a Thom as , arr i vi ng befor e mi dni ght

. She r eca l l e d t w o s ecur i t yguar ds out s i de and on e i n the i nsi de at the d oo r. T he g uards w ore bl ack shir t s, black pan t s, and black bo ots

. M s. Jo n e s d id n o t lea rn o f

O f f ice r W ill iam s’ m u rd e r un til th e n e x t d a yo n th e n e w s. M s. Jo n e s d id re c a ll th a t a g e n tle m a n w a s d ru n k a n d w a s th ro w n o u t o f th e c lu b

. H ersh ell H arts test ifi ed that h e att en d ed M ag ic C li p p ers’ C h ri stm as p artyat C rum p y ’s C om edyC l ub, arr i vi ng about8: 30 or9: 00 p. m . H e s ai d t hatt he parki ng l otw as notcr ow ded a n d t h a th e wa s a b l e t o p a r k n e a r t h e d o o r . M r . Ha r t s s t a y e d a t t h e p a r t y u n t i l t h e e n d

. He sai d thathe w as i nsi de the cl ub w hen t he sho oti ng occu rr ed. H e w as unab l e t o leave becau se t he pol i ce ha d a cr i m e s cene r i bbon ar ound hi s car . H e s ai d t hathe w as notdet ai ned byt he pol i ce butt hathe onl y coul d not l eave i n hi s ow n vehi cl e. M r . H ar t s w as notappr oache d by pol i ce of fi cer s . H e s ai d he had l eftt he bui l di ng befor e the pol i ce ha d gone i nt o t he bui l di ng. H e admi t t ed thati tw as l ogi cal t hatt he pol i ce offi cer s di d notknow t hathe had be en i n t he b u ild in g e a rl ie r. T ead M anni ng t es t i fi ed thathe and the Pet i t i onergr ew up i n t he s ame nei ghbor hood and att ended s chool t ogether

. M r. M an n ing s ai d he att ended the C hr i s t m as par t yatt he co m ed yclub in D ec em b er 1 9 9 7

. H e stated that h e m et O ff icer W il li am s a f

ew w ee k s b ef

o re t he part yat a hi gh s chool bas ketbal l game. M r . M anni ng s t at ed t hat he di d not l eave t he cl ub unt i l about5: 00 a. m . t he fol l ow i ng m or ni ng. H e w as pr es entw hen O ffi cer W il l i ams w as s hot , buthe di d nothearan y g u n sh o t s fi r ed. H e s ai d t hathe happe ned t o be nea rt he door w hen O ffi cerW i l l i ams w as s hotand thathe as s i s t ed the nur s e admi ni s t er i ng C PR t o O ffi cer W illia m s . H e w a s n e v e r c o n ta c te d b ya n y o n e f ro m th e P e titio n e r’ s d e f e n s e te a m . K es ha F

. D avi s t es t i fi ed thats he att ended the C hr i s t m as par t yatC rum py ’ s C om edy C l ub, arr i vi ng betw een 9: 30 and 10: 00 p. m . . She s ai d t hat s he not i ced O ffi cerW i l l i ams and t w o ot her m en doi ng s ecur i t y w or k. A t s om e poi nt i n t he eveni ng, the cl ub l i ght s w er e tur ned on and t he par t y - goer s w er e aske d t o l eave . A s M s . D avi s and St acyW i l l i ams w er e l eavi ng, M s . D avi s not i ced the “f l as hi ng l i ght s ” of pol i ce c ar s , and theyw er e es cor t ed t o t he exi tby th e se c u rityg u a rd s. S h e sa id th e y w e re u n a w a re th a t th e re h a d b e e n a sh o o tin g . M s. D a v is was n o t q u e s t i o n e d a n d wen t d i r e c t l y t o h e r c a r . Sh e s a i d s h e was n e v e r c o nt act ed byl aw e n f o rc e m e n t o r t h e d e f

e n s e te a m re g a rd in g th e e v e n ts a t th e c lu b

.-14-

D ana A r m s t rong at t ended the C hr i s t m as par t yatC rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub w i t h her br ot her , w ho w as empl oy ed byt he Shel byC ount ySher i ff’ s D epart m ent

. She s ai d t hatdur i ng th e p a rty , an in to x ica ted p a tr o n p u sh e d h e r. M s. A rm stro n g late r sa w se c u ritya sk in g th is patr on t o l eave t he pr emi s es . She s ai d t he man w as ups et and obvi ous l ydi d notw antt o l eave th e p a rt y . M ar cus A l exande rt es t i fi ed that he w as att he C hr i s t m as par t y . M r . A l exande rknew O ffi cerL ee. D ur i ng t he part y , M r . A l exande rs aw s ecur i t yt ake one m an fr om t he danc e fl oor . H e des cr i bed the m an as “ l i ght

- s ki nned, abouts i x- t w o, had a br ow n t an haton, fl as hy cl ot hes , m at chi ng out fi t

. ” M r . A l exande rw as i ns i de t he cl ub w hen the s hoot i ng occurr ed. H e re c a lle d th a t O f

f ic e r L e e s a id th e s h o o te r w a s lig h t- s k in n e d

. W ill iam M c K in n ie te stif ied th a t h e a tten d e d th e M a g ic C lip p e rs’ C h ri stm a s p a rtyw ith h i s w i f e a n d h e rf

r i e n d

. M r . M c K i n n i e s a i d h e g r e w u p w i t h O f f i c e r M a r s h a l l

. A tt h e p a r t y, he met up w i t h O ffi cerM ar s hal l and R egi nal d L amber t

. H e s ai d t he part yw as cr ow ded. O f f ice r M a rsh a ll w a s in a n d o u t o f th e c lu b b e c a u se h e h a d to g o to w o rk . O f f ice r M a rsh a ll i nt r oduced M r . M cK i nni e t o O ffi cerD on W i l l i ams. M r . M cK i nni e s ai d he w as s t andi ng out s i de w hen O ffi cer W i l l i ams w as s hot

. H e sai d he and “St efa n” w er e t al ki ng out s i de t he cl ub. W hi l e the tw o m en w er e t al ki ng:

t h a t ’ s w h e n T e r r y w a l k e d u p b e h i n d h i m w i t h T i m [ M c K i n n e y] and t ol d hi m , y ou know , l et ’ s go l i ke t hat

. A nd w e w as s t andi ng i n t he mai n door w ayand theyw al ked dow n t o t he end of t he bui l di ng t o t he r i ght , t o m y r i ght , and he t ol d – he s ai d t o St efa n, h e s a id , m a n , th e c a r i s g o n e , lik e th a t. . . . . . .[ T im o th yM c K in n e y ] w a lk e d d o w n t o th e e n d o f th e . . . b u ild in g . A n d h e sa id th a t

– h e to ld D o n [ W ill iam s], he sa id if m ycardon’ ttur n up, he s ai d y ou goi ng t o pay , y ou goi ng t o pay ort he ow nerof t hi s cl ub i s goi ng to p ay . H e s ai d s om ebody g o in g to p a yto n ig h t, j u st lik e th a t. M r . M cK i nni e r eca l l ed O ffi cerW i l l i ams as ki ng t he Pet i t i onerfora des cr i pt i on of hi s vehi cl e. T he Pet i t i oner r es ponded t hat he dr ove a bur gundy C ut l as s . O ffi cerW i l l i ams i nfor m ed t he Pet i t i onert hatt heyhad not s een any car l eavi ng t he l ot

. M r . M cK i nni e then r etur ned t o t he c lu b

. T en mi nut es l at er , M r . M cK i nni e w entback out si de the cl ub, obs er ved thatO ffi cer M ar s hal l had r etur ned, and s aw O ffi cerW i l l i ams on t he gr ound. H e di d notr eca l l hear i ng a n yg u n s h o ts w h ile in s id e th e c lu b

.-15-

C l i ffor d R obi ns on, a di s pat cher fort he M emphi s Pol i ce D epart m ent , t es t i fi ed thathe att en d ed the C h ri stm as pa rt y at C rum p y ’s C o m ed y C lub

. A lth o u g h h e n o ti ce d that there w ere t w o s ecur i t yguar ds att he cl ub, he di d notknow ei t herone. M r . R o b inso n k n ew t he Pet i t i oner , havi ng gr ow n up i n t he same nei ghbor hood. M r . R obi ns on w as notaw ar e of the s h o o tin g u n til h e w a s a t th e d o o r a n d s a w O f f ic e r W illia m s lyin g o n th e g ro u n d

. M r. R o b in so n tes tifie d th a t h e w a s in ter v iew e d b yth e M e m p h is P o lice D e p a rtm e n t. H e s a i d h e was i n a g r o u p p h o t o g r a p h wi t h t h e Pe t i t i o n e r t h a t was t a k e n t hat ni ght at C rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub. H e s t at ed t hat he t ol d the pol i ce “ i nfor m at i on abouta gent l eman byt he name of Pat r i ck. ” H e re cal l ed that“[Patr i ck] and [the Pet i t i oner ] gott o t he cl ub t ogethert hatni ght

. ” M r . R obi ns on w as t ol d t o be at t he P et i t i oner ’ s t r i al , but he w as never c a lle d a s a w itn e s s . M r. W ill iam G o sn e ll a n d M r. Ja m e s B a ll rep re se n ted th e P e tit io n e r a t th e trial le v e l. W ill iam G o sn e ll, W ill iam M a ss e y , a n d B ro c k M e h ler re p re se n ted th e P e tit io n e r o n a p p e a l. M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed thathal f of hi s l egal pr act i ce w as cr i m i nal defe ns e w or k. T he t echni cal re c o rd o f th e P e tit io n e r’s c a se re f lec ts th a t M r. B a ll an d C o lem a n G a rre tt w e re a p p o in ted to r epr es entt he Pet i t i oneron February13, 1998. M r . G os nel l w as not appoi nt ed unt i l J une 24, 1 9 9 8 . T h e P e tit io n e r’s trial w a s M r. G o sn e ll’s f irst d e a th p e n a ltyc a se . H e sa id th a t M r. B a ll w as des i gnat ed l ead c ouns el

. A tt he t i m e of hi s appoi nt m ent , M r . G os nel l s ai d t hathe had n o t a t t e n d e d a n y d e a t h p e n a l t y s e mi n a r s b u t t h a t h e d i d f a mi l i a r i z e h i ms e l f wi t h t he ABA D e a th P e n a ltyG u id e lin e s. M r. G o sn e ll ex p lain e d th a t h is d u ties w e re to “ a ss ist [ M r. B a ll] at t h e tri al, ” to p rep are a p re-tr ial m o ti o n fo r ch an g e o f v en u e, an d to w o rk o n the ju ry q u e s tio n n a ir e . H e s a id M r. B a ll w a s th e p e rs o n d ir e c tin g th e a c tio n s in th e c a s e . M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed thatt he t r i al w as or i gi nal l y s chedul ed forO ct ober5, 1998, but th a t a c o n tin u a n c e w a s g ra n ted u n til F e b ru a ry8 , 1 9 9 9

. H e sa id th a t at th e tim e o f th e trial, M r. B a ll w a s s u f

f e rin g f ro m tac h y c a rd ia a n d w a s in a n d o u t o f th e h o sp ital. D e sp ite th is i l l nes s , M r . B al l r emai ned i n cont actw i t h M r . G os nel l dur i ng t hi s t i m e. T h e ca se w as re sc h e d u led f

o r Ju ly1 2 , 1 9 9 9 . D u rin g th e P e tit io n e r’s trial, M r. G o sn e ll cro ss -e x a m in e d six w itn e s s e s a n d p re s e n te d th e d ir e c t te s tim o n yo f D r. J o h n C io c c a d u ri n g th e p e n a lty p h a s e . M r . G os nel l conce ded that he w as not i nvol ved i n t he di s coverypr oces s , w hi ch w as co m p let ed b ef

o re h is ap p o intm en t. H e sa id h e w as aw are that M r. B all h ad ask ed the c o u rt forfunds fort he s er vi ces of bot h D r . C i occa and Inqui s i t or , I nc. M r . G os nel l s t at ed he ha d w e e k ly o r b i-w e e k ly m e e tin g s w ith M s. G lo ri S h e ttl e s a n d /o r M s. B a n k s, in v e stig a to rs w ith I nqui s i t or , I nc. , dur i ng w hi ch theyw oul d br i ng i nfor m at i on orcouns el w oul d di s cus s w hat th e yn e e d e d th e in v e s tig a to rs to d o .-16-

R egar di ng t he t heory of t he cas e, M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed t hat t he gui l tphas e def ens e w as th a t “ th e v ictim w a s sh o t a n d th a t th e re w a s v e ry lit tle ev id e n c e a s to w h o c o m m it te d th is cr i m e, s o t he def

ens e for t he P et i t i oner w as m i s t aken i dent i t y or t hat es s ent i al l y t hathe w as n o t th e p e rso n w h o c o m m itt e d th is c rim e .” M r. G o sn e ll co n c e d e d th a t, un d e r th is th e o ry , it wa s i mp o r t a n tt o n o t e wh e r e t h e P e t i t i o n e rwa s a ta l l t i me s r e l e v a n tt o t h e s h o o t i n g . He r eca l l ed thatw i t nes s C har l es G oi n coul d not r ecogni ze any one on a phot ogr aph s pr ead s heet d a te d D e c e m b e r 2 6 , 1 9 9 7 . H e sa id th is w o u ld b e h e lp f u l if th e p ro se c u tio n late r u se d th is i nfor m at i on t o i dent i fy t he Pet i t i oner . H e s t at ed t hat i t w oul d be us eful i n cr os s - exami nat i on. M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed r egar di ng t he var i ous des cr i pt i ons of t he as s ai l ant

. H e s t at ed that K a re n M e lissa T h o rn to n d e sc rib e d th e p e rp e tra to r a s a b lac k m a le, a g e 2 9 to 3 2 , 5 ' 9 ", 1 5 5 to 1 7 0 p o u n d s, slim , sk in n yf a c e , d a rk sk in , w e a r in g b lac k tu rtlen e c k sw e a ter a n d d a rk p a n ts or j eans. M r. G osnell st at ed thatt ri al t est i m on ydescri bed t he p erpet rat or as w eari ng a vest ora s w eat er . H e s t at ed thatJ oy ce El i zabe t h J el t z w as a n ey ew i t nes s t o t he cr i m e. D ur i ng t he t r i al , M s . J el t z i dent i fi ed the perpetr at oras w ear i ng a dark kni ttur t l enec k s w eat erpul l ed overhi s nos e and mout h. M s . J el t z i dent i fi ed the perpetrator as w ear i ng a gol d ves tand m u lti- c o lo re d s w ea ter. M s. Jelt z a lso f ail ed to ide n ti fythe p erp etrator fro m a li n eu p . M r. G o sn e ll sa id th a t h e c ro ss -e x a m in e d M s. Je ltz d u rin g th e g u iltp h a se o f th e trial. M r. G o sn e ll s ai d t ha tt h e r e was n o d e s c r i p t i o n o f a p e rp e t r a t o rwea r i n g a g o l d v e s to rmul t i

- c o l o r ed s w e a te r. M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed tha tt he def ens e t eam had r ece i ved i nfor m at i on t hatPat r i ck J ohns on m ayhave be en i nvol ved i n t he s hoot i ng. H e s ai d a s t at ement t o pol i ce byJ ohn M i ckens m ent i oned a “ Pat r i ck ora Pat ” as havi ng s om ethi ng t o do w i t h t he murde rof O ffi cer W i l l i ams. M r . G os nel l add ed tha t“Pat ” w as des cr i bed as a bl ack mal e, 6' t al l , m edi um compl exi on, t w enty - one t o t w enty - four y ear s of age, s hor t hai r , fade on t he s i de, t al l eron t op, 165 t o 180 pounds

. H e r eca l l ed that t heyhad as ked I nqui s i t or , I nc. , t o i nves t i gat e Pat r i ck John son. M r. G osnell beli eved t hat i f Pat ri ck Johnson w as no t m enti on ed at t ri a l, i t m u st have be en due t o t he l ack of anyi nfor m at i on t hatw oul d have be en of s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance to th e P e titio n e r. M r . G os nel l s t at ed thatO ffi cerW i l l i ams d id notdi e att he s cene . H e s ai d O ffi cer Fr ank Lee w as one of the mai n pr os ecut i on w i t nes s es att r i al

. H e reca ll ed O ff ic erL ee rec o u n ti n g an ea rl ier en co u n ter at th e c lub w ith a g u est i d en ti fied as th e P eti ti o n er. M r. G o sn ell said that O ff

icer L ee test ifi ed that the P eti ti o n er c am e o u t of the c lub an h o u r be fo re t he s hoot i ng and coul d notfi nd hi s vehi cl e. T he Pet i t i oner t hought t hat hi s vehi cl e had be en s t ol en fr om t he parki ng l ot

. L at er , t he pr oof r evea l ed t hat one of t he Pet i t i oner ’ s fr i ends had us ed the vehi cl e and moved i tt o a di ffe r entl ocat i on. O ffi cer s L ee a nd W i l l i ams ca l l ed for s quad ca r s t o come t o t he s cene as a r es ul t of t he Pet i t i oner ’ s di s turbance

. B yt he t i m e the pol i ce c ar s arr i ved, t he Pet i t i onerhad al r eadyl eftt he s cene . T he Pet i t i oner l at err etur ned and-17-

a t t e mp t e d t o r e - e n t e r t h e c l u b

. Of f i c e r Wi l l i a ms a s k e d f

o r h i s i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n a n d wr o t e d o wn hi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e num ber

. M r . G os nel l s ai d t hatt hi s i nfor m at i on w as l at err etr i eved f r om O ffi cerW i l l i ams’ pocketaft erhe w as s hot

. H e s ai d t hatO ffi cer L ee d escr i bed the p erp etrator as 5 ' 9 " to 5 ' 1 0 1⁄2 "; 1 5 0 to 1 6 5 p o u n d s, b lack m ale, m id-t w en ti es, no fa cial ha ir , m u lti -c o lo re d sw e a ter , b lac k d e rb yh a t, an d a sw e a ter m a d e o f so m e k in d o f a y a rn m a ter ial, n o t th a t bu lky ; had circu lar de sign s aro u n d the a rm s an d aro u n d the b o d y , an d there w ere g o ld, y el l ow , r ed and a gol d s l eeve l es s l eatherves t , bl ack orbl ue tr ous er s , H us h Puppi es or ange oror ange/ gol d. T hi s w as t he des cr i pt i on of t he per s on w ho had thoughthi s carhad b e e n sto len . O f

f ice r L e e late r de sc rib e d th e sh o o ter a s a b lac k m a le, 5'9" to 5 ' 1 0 1⁄2 ", 15 0 to 165 pounds , a bl ack t

- s hi r t , bl ack pa nt s , or ange orgol d H us h Puppi es l i ke s hoes w it h an o ra n g e b a n d a n a a ro u n d h is m o u th , n o h a t. M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed thatt he Pet i t i oner ’ s vehi cl e w as des cr i bed as a D el t a 88, m ar oon orbur gundyw i t h a l i ght ergr ayvi ny l t op. M r . G os nel l s ai d t hatt he Pet i t i oner ’ s vehi cl e w as s ol d atauct i on l ong befor e the tr i al

. H e coul d notr eca l l anydi s cus s i on aboutt he di s pos al o f th e v e h ic le a n d th e f

a c t th a t e v id e n c e w a s p o s s ib ly d e s tr o y e d

. M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed thatI nqui s i t or , I nc. gener at ed a w i t nes s l i s tof appr oxi m at el y99 per s ons . T he def

ens e t eam t hen began w hi t t l i ng dow n t he l i s t , el i m i nat i ng peopl e w ho knew no t hing abo ut the case. T heybeg an w i t h the prem i se t hat s om eon e att he club co uld est abli sh t hatt he Pet i t i oner w as i ns i de t he cl ub att he t i m e of the s hoot i ng. H e s ai d t hatt hi s t as k w as f u til e . A lth o u g h a lo t o f p e o p le c o u ld p lac e th e P e tit io n e r i n sid e th e c lu b , th e y w e re u n a b le to p in p o in t w h a t tim e h e le f t. M r . G os nel l conce ded thatt he bul k of t he moneyforI nqui s it or , I nc. ’ s s er vi ces w as s pen t o n the gui l tphas e of the tr i al

. H e ac know l edged thathe w as aw ar e thatO ffi cerL ee w as “w r i t t en up as a r es ul tof b eing [at t he cl ub as an off

- dut yoffi cer ]

. ” H e di d notknow w h yM r. B a ll d id n o t u se th is in f o rm a tio n to im p e a c h O f f ice r L e e ’s te stim o n y . M r. G o sn e ll s t at ed thatt heydi d notr ece i ve di s pat ch l ogs befor e tr i al

. H e s ai d t heyw er e oper at i ng under t he t i m e l i ne thatt he i nci dentw i t h t he Pet i t i onerhappene d at12: 30 a. m . butt hatt he s hoot i ng d id n o t o c c u r u n til 2 :3 0 a .m . T h e d isp a tch lo g s in d ica te th a t th e p o lice w e re d isp a tch e d to t he sce ne at 1: 25 a. m . and t he l as t car depart ed at 2: 01 a. m . M r . G os nel l s ai d t heyr eques t ed t he di s pat ch l ogs butneverr ece i ved them. M r . G os nel l s ai d t hey al s o r eques t ed the I nt er nal A ffa i r s fol derof O ffi cerFr ank L ee butneverr ece i ved i t

. M r . G os nel l s t at ed thata s hoot i ng tim e o f 2 :3 0 a .m . w a s c o n s is te n t w ith te s tim o n ya t tr ia l. M r . G osn el l t es t i fi ed thati tappea r ed thatbot h O ffi cerFr ank Lee and O ffi cerD on W i l l i ams w er e w or ki ng as off- dut yoffi cer s w i t houtper m i s s i on. M r . G os nel l conce ded that th e re w e re n u m e ro u s in c o n sis ten c ies w ith O f f ice r L e e ’s tria l te stim o n y a n d h is re sp o n se s to t he I nt ernal A ffa i r s i nves t i gat i on. T he bas i s of O ffi cerL ee’ s r epr i m and w as t hat he had no-18-

p e rm iss io n to b e th e re o f f -d u tya n d th a t h e w a s u sin g a p o lice -iss u e d f ire a rm . M r. G o sn e ll s t at ed thatO ffi cerM ar s hal l ’ s t es t i m onyt hathe arr i ved att he cl ub at12: 45 a. m . w as i n c o n s i s t e n twi t h h i s t r i a l t e s t i mo n y t h a t h e wa s a tt h e c l u b b e t we e n 1 : 0 0 a . m. a n d 1 : 3 0 a . m. H e al s o admi t t ed thati f t he di s pat ch l ogs s how ed t hats quad ca r s w er e ac tual l ycal l ed t o t he s cene s om ew her e ar ound 1: 18 a. m . , an d “a l l cl ear ed” a bout2: 01 a. m . , s uch w oul d pl ace O ffi cerM ar s hal l att he s cene aft er2: 01 a. m . , es s ent i al l y changi ng t he w hol e t i m e l i ne of the p ro s e c u tio n a n d th e d e f e n s e th e o ry o f

th e c a s e . R egar di ng t he s el ect i on of D r . C i occa as an exper t w i t nes s , M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed t hat he had n o i n p u t i n t o h i s s e l e c t i o n . He s a i d t h a t Dr

. Ci o c c a was a n e u r o p s y c h o l ogi s t and r ecor ds w er e s uppl i ed t o hi m t o r evi ew for m i t i gat i on purpos es . T he r ecor ds w er e s uppl i ed byG l or i Shet t l es , a mi t i gat i on s peci al i st w it h Inq u i s i t or , I nc. D r . C i occa r evi ew ed the Pet i t i oner ’ s s chool r ecor ds ; r es ul t s of s om e ps y ch o l ogi cal t es t i ng w hen the Pet i t i onerw as ni ne, el even, and fi ft een; an I Q t es t ; and a W oodcock- J ohns on t es t s cor e. D r . C i occa di d not have a cce s s t o t he Pet i t i oner ’ s bi r t h r ecor ds orh is juv en il e r ecor ds

. M r . G os nel l w as u n a w a r e o f

D r . C i o c c a ’ s m a k i n g a n y i n q u i r y i n t o t h e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s d ru g a n d a l c o h o l h i s t o r y. O n cr os s - exam ination , M r. G o sn ell ac k n o w ledg ed that M r. B all h ad fo rt yy ea rs of tr i al exper i ence . H e des cr i bed thei rpr ofes s i onal r el at i ons hi p as good, s t at i ng t hatt heyw or ked w el l t ogether

. H e sai d t hat M r . B al l w oul d vi s i t t he P et i t i oneron Satur day s orw hen he w as doi ng hi s j ai l vi s i t s . M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed t hat M r . B al l es t abl i s hed a good r appor tw i t h t he P e tit io n e r. M r. G o sn e ll state d th a t d u rin g th e ir m e e tin g s w ith th e P e tit io n e r, th e yw o u ld expl ai n how t he tr i al w as goi ng t o pr ocee d butt hatt he mosti m por t antdeci s i on w as deci di ng w hetherornott he Pet i t i oner w oul d t es t i fy

. T he Pet i t i onerdeci ded aga i ns tt es t i fy i ng att he g u ilt p h a s e . T h e P e titio n e r t e s tif ie d d u ri n g th e p e n a lty p h a s e . M r. G osnell t est i fi ed that Inquis i t or, Inc. , w as ret ai ned by t he d efen se t eam t o assi st i n t r i al pr epar at i on and thatM r . B al l deal tw i t h t he i nves t i gat or s . H e s ai d G l or i Shet t l es w o rk e d o n th e m iti g a tio n e v id e n c e , w h ile D e n ise B a n k s a n d R o n L a x w o rk e d o n th e g u ilt phas e i nves t i gat i on. M r . G os nel l s t at ed that“b y and l ar ge the l ayw i t nes s es . . . w er e not hel pful beca us e theyw er e ei t heri ns i de the cl ub and di dn’ ts ee a nyo f the ev ent s t hat tr a n s p ir e d o r t h e y h a d a lr e a d y le f t th e c lu b a n d d id n ’t s e e a n yo f th e e v e n ts th a t tr a n s p ir e d .” M r . Go s n e l l 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 p r o v i d e d t h e n a me s o f h i s g i r l f r i e n d a n d s o me ot her peopl e t o M r . L ax. H e s t at ed t hat M r . B al l and M r . L ax w er e t he per s ons w ho i nt er vi ew ed the Pet i t i onerand as ked for i nput as t o pot ent i al w i t nes s es . H e s t at ed thatdur i ng t he pena l t yphas e of the tr i al , t he Pet i t i oners ai d he w as athi s gi r l fr i end’ s hom e an d n o t a t t he cr i m e s cene . T he Pet i t i oner ’ s gi r l fr i end t ol d M r . G os nel l t hat“s he w as aw oken and s he t al ked w i t h hi m br i efl y . ” She sai d t hat s he w ent back t o s l eep a nd t hatw hen s he gotup t he n e x t m o rn in g , h e w a s g o n e . M r. G o sn e ll co n c lu d e d th a t h e r te stim o n yw a s o f “ e x tre m e ly-19-

l i m i t ed val ue” a nd di d not“s eal up an al i bi defe ns e for hi m . ” Fr om hi s ow n t es t i m ony , t he Pet i t i onerpl ace d hi m s el f athi s gi r l fr i end’ s hom e at2: 15 a. m . H ow ever , t her e w as no evi dence t o corr obor at e thatt he Pet i t i onerw as t her e at2: 30 a. m . w hen the s hoot i ng occurr ed. M r. G o sn e ll state d th a t th e P e tit io n e r’s g irlfr ien d d id n o t g iv e th e m th e tim e f ra m e to es t abl i s h a more s ubs t ant i al al i bi

. W hi l e he c oncede d t hathe had he ar d t he rum ort hatPat J ohns on w as t he actual s hoot er , M r . G os nel l s ai d t hatM r . L ax made i nqui r yi nt o t he rum or but t hat t he defe ns e t eam w as unabl e t o es t abl i s h anypr oof t o s uppor tt he rum or . H e s ai d he wo u l d n o th a v e i n t r o d u c e d a ru mo ri n t o e v i d e n c e . He s t a t e d t h a tt h e r e mu s th a v e b e e n s o me foundat i on t o t he pr opos ed evi dence fori t s admi s s i on butt hat , in hi s opi ni on, t he Pat J o h n s o n ru m o r w a s in a d m is s a b le

. M r . G os nel l t es ti fi ed thatt heyw er e aw ar e thatO ffi cerL ee w as i nvol ved i n a d isci p li n aryp roc ee d ing as a resu lt o f h is u n au tho ri ze d w o rk as a se cu ri tyg u ard at C rum p y ’s C om edyC l ub. H e t es t i fi ed thatt he def ens e t eam at t empt ed t o have the s er vi ce s o f an ey ew i t ness exp ertauthori zed b yt he tri al cou rtbu tt hat the requ estw as denied. T he d efen se t eam di d engage an expert , R aym ond C ooper , r egar di ng t he guns hot r es i due. M r . C o o p er w as p rov ided the f

ind ing s o f th e S tat e’s e x p ert. H e d id n o t dispu te t h eir find ing s. M r. G os nel l t es t i fi ed thatno i ndepende ntt es t i ng w as done on the evi dence

. H e s t at ed t hat i ndepende ntt es t i ng w oul d have har m ed t he P et i t i oner ’ s cas e had M r . C ooperfound guns hot re s id u e . M r . G osn ell test if

i ed thatG l or i Shet t l es of I nqui s i t or , I nc. , w as i n char ge of the m i t i gat i on as pectof t he i nves t i gat i on. H e coul d not r eca l l M s . Shet t l es evers ay i ng t hats he coul d notfi nd s chool r epor t s orot hers peci fi c document s . M r . G os nel l stated t hatt he s er vi ces of D r . C i occa w er e re t ai ned t o eval uat e t he P et i t i oner . D r . C i occa i ndi cat ed thatt he Pet i t i onerhad a l ow l earni ng abi l i t yof r eadi ng, w r i t i ng, and m athemat i cs . T he Pet i t i onerhad a l ow aver age I Q i n t he l ow er 90s

. M r . G os nel l s ai d t hatD r . C i occa di agnos ed the Pet i t i oner wi t h a l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y , l e t h a r g y , a n d d e s p o n d e n c y a t a y o u n g a g e a n d s u r mi s ed t hat t he Pet i t i onerhad ps y chol ogi cal needs t hatw er e nev er m et. M s . Shet t l es al s o di s cus s ed t he P e tit io n e r’s h o m e life a n d c irc u m sta n c e s w ith h is f a m ilym e m b e rs. M r. G o sn e ll sa id th a t h is pl an dur i ng t he penal t y phas e w as t o pai nt a pi ctur e of a y oung m an w i t h pr obl ems, a y oung m an w i t h a cl os e fa m il y . H e w as at t empt i ng t o es t abl i s h t hata s ent ence of l i fe i n pr i s on w o u ld b e a s u f

f ic ie n t p u n is h m e n t f

o r t h e P e titio n e r. R on al d L

. L ax, t he o w ner of In q u isito r, Inc. , t est i fi ed thathe h ad b een in bu si ness sinc e A u g u st 19 7 8

. In 19 9 7 , h e ha d ap p rox im atelytw elve to f ift ee n em p loy ee s. T h e f irm w as r et ai ned t o p erform i nv est i gati on o n t he P et i t i on er’ s case, w i t h h i m , G l ori S hett l es, D anes e B anks , and A l y s on Fr azi eras s i gned t o w or k on the ca se. A l y s on Fr azi erw as r es pons i bl e forgather i ng r ecor ds and l ocat i ng i ndi vi dual s . G l or i Shet t l es w as t he mi t i gat i on in v e s tig a to r, a n d D a n e s e B a n k s w a s th e g u ilt p h a s e in v e s tig a to r.-20-

M r. L ax test ifi ed that h e w as c o n tacted in F eb rua ry1 9 9 8 b yJ. C

. T yu s, the P eti ti o n er’s s t epfa t her

. M r . T yus w as r efe r r ed t o I nqui s i t or , I nc. , byanotherat t or ney . M r . L ax s t at ed that M r . T yus di d nothave s uffi ci entfunds fora r et ai nerfee

. L at er, In q u is i t or , I nc. , w as co n tacted b yo n e o f th e P eti ti o n er’s ap p o inted att o rne y s. M r. L ax said h e f ir st m et w ith M r. B a ll o n A p ri l 2 9 , 1 9 9 8 , re g a rd in g th e P e titio n e r’ s c a s e . M r . L a x t e s t i f

i e d t h a tt h e ywo u l d p r e p a r e a t i me l i n e , b a s e d o n t h e i rd i s c o v e r yr e v i e w, t h e i r i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e P e t i t i o n e r , i n t e r v i e w s w i t h w i t n e s s e s , a n d o t h e rd o c u m e n t s . He expl ai ned thatt her e w oul d be a gui l tphas e t i m e l i ne and a m i t i gat i on t i m e l ine. M r . L ax tes tifie d th a t in o rd e r to p re p a re a p ro p e r d e a th p e n a ltyin v e stig a tio n , In q u isito r, In c . w o u ld nor m al l yneed $20, 000 t o $25, 000. T he tr i al cour tgr ant ed I nqu isi tor, I nc. $1, 000 fort he i nves t i gat i on. H e s ai d t hatM r . B al l never r eques t ed a cert ai n m onet aryamount fr om t he tr i al cour t

. M r . L ax s t at ed thatI nqui s i t or , I nc. ’ s , nor m al r at e for an i ndi gent cas e at t he t i m e of t he P eti ti o n er’s inv esti g ati o n w as $ 6 5 p er h o u r. M r . L ax ac compani ed M r . B all to the D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al ’ s O ffi ce t o r evi ew d isco v erym aterial

. H e said th ey d id no t see m u ch d u ri n g the op en fil e disco v ery . T h eyw ere notper m i t t ed t o l ook att he fi l es i ndepende nt l y . M r . L ax knew of t he di s ci pl i naryfi l e of O ff icer F ran k L ee . H e sa id O ff icer L ee w a s re p ri m an d ed fo r w o rkin g as a sec u ri tyg u ard w it h o u t pr i orappr oval and forfi r i ng hi s s er vi ce r evol veratt he s us pect

. O ffi cerL ee ’s s er vi ce f i l e r efl ect ed hi s admi s s i on t hathe had w or ked onl y one ni ght atC rum py ’ s C om edy C l ub. M r . L ax sai d he never w as abl e t o obt ai n t he Int ernal A ffa i r s r ecor ds of O ffi cerFr ank L e e . M r . L ax t es t i fi ed thatJ oy ce J el t z, an ey ew i t nes s t o t he s hoot i ng, w as i nt er vi ew ed by A l y so n Fr azi er . D ur i ng t hi s conver s at i on, M s . J el t z des cr i bed the s hoot eras “mal e bl ack, appr oxi m at ely 5 foot10, t hi n bui l d, w ei ghi ng 175 t o 180 pounds

. ” She des cr i bed t he gunm an as w ear i ng a br ow n s w eat erw hi ch appea r ed t o be a tur t l enec k and dar k pant s . She s t at ed thatt he gunman had a l ow hai r cut

. M s . J el t z saw no ves t or j acke t , and s he di d not m e n tio n o ra n g e s h o e s . M r . L ax t es t i fi ed thati n ear l ySept ember 1 9 9 8, he met w i t h M r . B al l and i dent i fi ed t w entyi nves t i gat i ve t as ks I nqu isi tor, I nc. , det er m i ned nee ded compl et i ng. T hi s w as done appr oxi m at el yone mont h befor e the fi r s t t r i al dat e. I t ems i n t hi s l i s ti ncl uded s ubpoenai ng pol i ce l ogs and di s pat ch t apes , obt ai ni ng col or p h o togr aphs of t he l i neups , and obt ai ni ng expertw i t nes s es t o compar e s ki d m ar ks

. T h ese it em s w er e neve robt ai ned. M r . L ax i den t i f i e d o t h e re x p e r twi t n e s s e s t h a tmi g h th a v e b e e n h e l p f u l t o t h e Pe t i t i o n e r ’ s d e f ens e. T hese r eques t s w er e neve rdi s cus s ed w i t h defe ns e couns el

. H e al s o r eques t ed thatt he d e f e n s e t e a m r e q u e s te x c u l p a t o r ye v i d e n c e . M r . La x a d v i s e d M r . Ba l l wh e n r e q u e s t e d i t e ms had notbeen tur ned overt o t he def ens e, i ncl udi ng t he phot ogr aphi c l i neup. M r . L ax s t at ed-21-

t hat he bel i eved M r . B al l w as r el uct ant i n i ns i s t i ng upon t hi s evi dence beca us e t he A s s i s t ant D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al w as a fr i end of hi s . M r . L ax s ai d t hatM r . B al l w as unor gani zed a n d u n p re p a re d f

o r t h e irm e e tin g s . M r. L a x tes tifie d th a t P a trick Jo h n so n d e v e lo p e d to b e a p o ss ib le s u sp e c t re sp o n sib le fort he murde rof O ffi cerW i ll i ams. T hi s rum orw as nevers uppor t ed bypr oof ot hert han w itn e ss e s w h o sa id th a t P a trick Jo h n so n w a s in th e a re a o f C ru m p y ’s th a t n ig h t. M r. L a x sa id th a t h e a ttem p ted to lo c a te th e P e tit io n e r’s v e h icle , a 1 9 8 4 O ld sm o b ile, b u t th a t itw a s s o ld on M arc h 3 , 1 9 9 8

. M r . L ax di d notobt ai n t hi s i nfor m at i on unt i l O ct ober8, 1998. T he v e h ic le h a d b e e n im p o u n d e d D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 1 9 9 7

. M r . L ax s t at ed thathe had ga t her ed i n fo rm ati o n t hatw oul d cal l i nt o ques t i on t he t es t i m onyof O ffi cerL ee. H e s ai d t her e w as s om e ques t i on as t o t he di s t ance t hat O ffi cerL ee w as fr om t he s hoot er , w hi ch ques t i oned O ffi cerL ee’ s i d e n t i f i cat i on. H e s ai d t he des cr i pt i ons of t he s hoot er ’ s cl ot hi ng pr ovi ded byot herw i t nes s es di d notm at ch the des cr i pt i on of w hat t he Pet i t i onerw as w ear i ng t hatni ght

. M r . L ax s t at ed he di d noti nt er vi ew M r . C rum p, but h e a d m itte d th a t h e s h o u ld h a v e . M r . L ax s ai d t hati n O ct ober1998, he w r ot e t o D avi d K eef e, t he head of

t he C api t al D i vi s i on of t he Publ i c D efe nder ’ s O ffice, a sk ing foraddi t i onal hel p. M r . L ax s ai d he b eli ev ed they w ere n o t getti n g the d isc o v e ryh e f eltw as th ere , inclu d ing ex cu lpato ry e v id e n c e , an d th a t th e re w a s n o m o v e m e n t f ro m M r. B a ll. O n th is s a m e d a te, M r. L a x w ro te a lett er to M r. B all ex p ressing h is co n ce rns o v er th ese sam e m att ers an d req u esti n g that M r. L ax be r el i eved ort er m i nat ed fr om t he ca s e. H e al s o compl ai ned thatt heyhad notr ece i ved paym entand had s ever al out s t andi ng bi l l s . O n N ovember 2, M r . L ax di s cus s ed the mat t er w i t h M r . B al l

. H e s ai d t hatw hen he di d nothearfr om M r . B al l agai n, he s poke w i t h t he t r i al j udge. M r . L ax s ai d t hati n his o p inion , t r i al couns el w er e notpr epar ed fort hei rm eet i ngs w ith In q u isito r, I n c . H e sa id th a t h e su g g e ste d th a t co u n se l f ile a n in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l to g a rn e r t h e d is c o v e ry ite m s th e yh a d n o t r e c e iv e d b u t th a t M r. B a ll r e je c te d th is id e a . M r. L ax tes t i fi ed thatJudg e D ai l eyapp roved t he foll ow i ng fun ds for t heirser vices : $1, 000 on A pr i l 8, 1998; $5, 000 on M ay 13, 1998; $10, 000 on A ugus t3, 1998; and $7, 311. M r. L a x s ta te d th a t $ 2 3 ,3 1 1 h a d b e e n a p p ro v e d a n d th a t th e yh a d b ille d $ 2 4 ,1 2 5

. D anese B ank s, an invest i gatorw i t h Inqu isi t or, Inc. , w orked a s the g uil tph ase i nves t i gat oron t he Pet i t i oner ’ s cas e. She r eques t ed that defe ns e counse l s ubpoena the pol i ce lo g s a n d d isp a tch tap e s f ro m th e n ig h t o f

th e sh o o tin g . S h e a lso re q u e ste d th a t th e yo b tain t he fi l es of O ffi cer s L ee a nd W i l l i ams. I n heropi ni on, t he pol i ce l ogs and di s pat ch t apes w e re e s s e n tia l in c re a tin g a tim e lin e o f e v e n ts

.-22-

M s. B a n k s s a id sh e in ter v iew e d th e P e tit io n e r’s g irlfr ien d , D e b ra K im b a ll. S h e sa id M s. K im b a ll state d th a t th e P e tit io n e r a rriv e d a t h e r a p a rtm e n t at 2 :1 5 a .m . M s. B a n k s s a id that in h er o p inion , M s. K im b all ’s stat em en t estab li sh ed an ali b i fo r t h e P eti ti o n er. H o w ev er, w hil e t he P et i t i on er s t at ed thathe an d M s. K i m ball “w ere t og et her i nti m at el yt hat ni gh t , ” M s. K i m bal l r efut ed thi s s t at ement

. M s . K i m bal l s t at ed t hat s he w ent t o bed i n t he bedr oom and th a t s h e a s s u m e d th a t th e P e titio n e r s le p t o n th e c o u c h

. M s . B anks s ai d s he al s o i nt er vi ew ed D ana A r m s t r ong. She s ai d t hatM s . A r m s t r ong des cr i bed an a l t er cat i on w i t hi n t he comedycl ub i nvol vi ng an int oxi cat ed man w ho w as r emoved fr om t he cl ub. M s . A r m s t r ong des cr i bed the man as “medi um compl exi on, ” “ l i g h t er t han A ngel a B as s , ” 5' 10" or5' 11", w i t h a must ache , s hor tbl ack ha i r but not t oo l ow , ki nd of cl ean, w i t h a khaki orbr ow n bl aze r . M s . B anks s ai d s he al s o i nt er vi ew ed C har l es G oi n, t he audi o engi neert hatni ghtatt he comedycl ub. She t es t i fi ed thatM r . G oi n s t at ed t hat he w as lo a d in g e q u ip m e n t o u tsid e o f th e c lu b a n d a c tu a llysa w so m e th in g o f th e sh o o ter . M r. G o in descri bed t he shooter as “app roxi m at el y5 fee t9 inches, m edium bu i l d, w eari ng dark cl othes, and dark s ki nned. ” M s . B anks s ai d t hatM r . G oi n w as unabl e t o s el ectany one mat chi ng t he d e s c ri p tio n o u t o f

a p o lic e p h o to g ra p h lin e u p a s h e o n ly sa w th e s h o o te r f ro m th e b a c k

. M s . B anks t es t i fi ed t hat s he had a conve r s at i on w i t h O ffi cerR onal d M ar s hal l dur i ng w hi ch O ffi c e rM a r s h a l l s t a t e d t h a th e was a tt h e c l u b t wi c e o n t h e n i g h to f t h e s h o o t i ng. O ffi cer M ar s hal l s ai d he dr opped off hi s cous i n R egi nal d L amber t at t he cl ub. H e then re tu rn e d to th e c lu b b e c a u se h e h a d L a m b e rt’s k e y s. O n th is s e c o n d v isit, h e talk e d w ith O ffi cerW i l l i ams aboutt he Pet i t i oner . M s . B anks s ai d t hatO ffi cer W i l l i ams i ndi cat ed that th e P e titio n e r w a s d ru n k a n d th a t h e to ld O f f ic e r M a rs h a ll to le t th e P e titio n e r l e a v e . M s . B anks s ai d s he att empt ed t o getan af fi davi tfr om M i ke’ s A ut o Pl ex r egar di ng t he P e tit io n e r’s v e h icle

. S h e c o u ld n o t r e c a ll w h e th e r sh e re c e iv e d a n a f f id a v it, b u t sh e d id sta te t hatt heyw er e neve rabl e t o gett he ca r . She s ai d t heyw ant ed t o obt ai n C rum py ’ s C om edy C lu b ’s r e c o rd s in o rd e r to g e t in f o rm a tio n a b o u t O f

f ice r W ill iam s a n d th e o th e r se c u rity gu ards w ho w ere w orki ng on th e d a te o f t he sho oti ng . T heyw ere unab l e t o o btai n these re c o rd s . M s . B anks s t at ed thati tw as t he pos i t i on of t he i nves t i gat or s t hat t he pol i ce f ocus ed on t he Pet i t i onerbeca us e of the al t er cat i on w i t h t he s ecur i t yguar ds ear l i ert hatni ght

. She s a id th e re w e re o th e r a lte rc a tio n s th ro u g h o u t th e n ig h t. M emphi s Pol i ce Ser geantJ ohn M cC l ai n t es t i fi ed thathe w as as s i gned t o t he G ener al In v e stig a tio n s B u re a u in 1 9 9 7 . In th e c o u rse o f h is d u ties , h e w a s a sk e d to g o to th e jail to se e a n d p h o to g ra p h th e c lo th e s th e P e tit io n e r w a s w e a rin g w h e n h e w a s b o o k e d in to jail.-23-

Se rge an t M cC lai n said that the p h o tog rap h o f th e P eti ti o n er’s clo thing ind icated a mul t i

- col or s w e a te r, a b la c k h a t, a n d a g o ld v e s t. D r . Pam el a A ubl e, a ps y chol ogi s t , w as r et ai ned byt he Pet i t i oner ’ s pos t

- convi ct i on at t or ney s t o eval uat e t he P et i t i oner . A s par t of t he eva l uat i on pr oces s , D r . A ubl e r evi ew ed t he Pet i t i oner ’ s j uveni l e r ecor ds , s chool r ecor ds , and m edi cal r ecor ds

. She al s o cons i der ed t he men tal h ea lth r ecor ds of t he Pet i t i oner ’ s pat ernal aunt , M ar gr etM cK i nney , and the Pet i t i oner ’ s m at ernal aunt , E ver l een Fl emi ng. D r . A ubl e fur t herr evi ew ed the Tennes s ee S up rem e C ou rt ’s op i nion i n the Peti t i on er’ s di rectapp eal , S helbyC ou ntyj ai l recor ds, m emor a n d a o f

i n t e r v i e ws wi t h t h e Pe t i t i o n e rc o n d u c t e d b e t wee n J a n u a r y2 0 0 3 t hr ough M a r c h 2 0 0 4 , i n t e r v i e w s w i t h f a m i l y m e m b e r s , a n d D r . C i o c c a ’ s r e c o r d s a n d t r i a l t e s t i m o n y. D r. A u b le a l s o c o n s i d e re d th e s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n re c o rd s o f th e P e titio n e r’ s h a lf

-s is te r, a genogr am, and a r epor tof D r . M ur r aySm i t h. D r. A u b le te stif

ied th a t sh e in ter view ed the Pe t i t i on er atR i verben d M a x im u m S e c u rity In stitu tio n in N a sh v ill e o v e r f o u r d a y s in A p ril 2 0 0 4

. S h e sa id sh e sp e n t ap p ro x im a tely tw elve h o u rs an d fo rty -f iv e m inu tes i n terview ing the P eti ti o n er. D u ri n g thes e v isi ts, D r. A u b le a d m in iste re d th e W e c h sle r A d u lt In tellig e n c e S c a le ( W A IS ), T h ird E d iti o n , w h ich is an i nt el l i gence t es t

. She al s o admi ni s t er ed the W echs l erM emoryScal e, T hi r d E di t i on, w hi ch i s a t es tof abi l i t yt o l earn and r emem b er n ew inf or m at i on. T o det er m i ne w hethert he P eti ti o n e r w a s “ f

a k ing m em o ryp rob lem s, ” D r. A u b le ad m inist ere d the T est o f M em o ry M al i ng eri ng . O t her t est s adm i nis t ered t o the P et i t i on er i ncluded t he B oo klet C at ego ryT est ( a t es tof m ent al fl exi bi l i t yand the abi l i t yt o for m and t es thypot heses), t he D el i s K apl an E xecut i ve Funct i on Sy s t em (de s i gned t o m eas ur e fr ont al l obe func t i oni ng orm ent al fl exi bi l i t y , conce ptual fl exi bi l i t y ) , H al s t ead- R ei t an Tra i l m aki ng T es t( m eas ur e of a t t ent i on and ment al fl exibi l i t y ) , C ont r ol O r al W or d A s s oci at i on ( a l anguage t es tm eas ur i ng verbal fl uency ) , t he B os t on N ami ng T es t ( abi l i t y t o name comm on obj ect s ) , t he Fi ngerO s ci l l at i on T es t ( t es tof m ot ors peed) , and the W oodcock J ohns on T es tof A chi evementT hi r d E di t i on ( t es tof ac hi evementof s chool l earni ng)

. D r . A ubl e expl ai ned t hat t hi s bat t eryof t es t s w as o f te n u s e d in n e u ro p s y c h o lo g ic a l e v a lu a tio n s . D r . A ubl e s t at ed t hat t he Pet i t i oner w as cooper at i ve w i t h hert es t i ng and i nt er vi ew i ng. D ur i ng hereval uat i on pr oces s , D r . A ubl e l earned t hat t he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot her , U l l a Tyus , w as on e of t hirt een or fou rt een chi l dren. S he sai d ther e w as a hi st oryof “so m e m ental i l l ness” ex ist ing in the P eti ti o n er’s m o ther’s fa m il y . “H is m o ther is d esc ri b ed b y h er f am il ym em b ers

. . . as havi ng per i ods of s ei zur es and al s o as havi ng had s om e hal l uci nat i ons w her e s he s ees t hi ngs t hat ar en’ t r eal l y t her e. ” D r . A ubl e s ai d t hatt he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot herhad neve rbeen t r eat ed for any m ent al i l l nes s . U l l a T yus ’ ol ders i s t er , E ver l ean, had a hi s t or yof depr es s i on and ps y chot i c epi s odes , i ncl udi ng hal l uci nat i ons . M ar gar etM cK i nneyw as al s o t r eat ed for d ep ression an d h as re p o rt ed p sy ch o ti c sy m p tom s s u c h as h all u cina ti o n s an d d elus ion s. In-24-

ad d i t i on t o t he hi s t or yof m ent al i l l nes s , D r . A ubl e al s o l earned thatt her e w as a hi s t or yof al cohol i s m . Fam i l y m em b er s w i t h r epor t s of al cohol i s m i ncl uded W al t erM cK i nneyand E ver l ean M cK i nney . T he ol des ts i bl i ng, R oyW i l s on, r epor t ed that“mostof hi s s i bl i ngs had hi s t or i es of al cohol i s m or d rug abus e. ” D r . A ubl e r epor t ed a f ami l yhi s t or yof l ow i nt el l i gence . T hr ee of t he Pet i t i oner ’ s hal f- s i bl i ngs had bee n di agnos ed w i t h m ent al re ta rd a tio n . D r . A ubl e t esti fied as to n u m ero u s fa cts relati n g to the P eti ti o n er’s fa m il yb ac k g rou n d. H er t est i m on yi s sum m ari zed as fo l l ow s:

U l la T yus gave bi r t h t o t he pet i t i onerw hen s he w as ni net een y ear s o l d. She had bee n pr egnantt w i ce be for e havi ng t he pet i t i oner . U l l a Tyus beca m e i nvol ved w i t h J

. C

. T yus w hen the pet i t i onerw as t w o y ear s ol d. A tt hatt i m e, he had f ourchi l dr en l i vi ng w i t h hi m . J

. C

. T yus and U l l a T yus had fi ve more chi l dr en to g e th e r. T he pet i t i oner w as born i n M emphi s . H i s m ot herhad not r ece i ved anypr enat al car e dur i ng her pr egnanc y . A t t he t i m e of t he p et i t i on er’ s bi rth, U l l a T yus had an infe c tio n o f t he u t erus. T he pet i t i oner ’ s A pgarScor e w as onl ya thr ee a tone mi nut e; m o st ch il d ren re c e iv e a sco re o f n ine o r t en . T h is l o w sco re i ndi cat ed thathe had a heart r at e, but w as not br eathi ng; he w as of ab no rm al colorand he d i d n ot have refl exes. A t fi ve m i nu t es, t he pet i t i oner ’ s A pgar had i m pr oved. H e had a l i t t l e b itof m us cl e t one, he had s om e r efl exes , buthe w as sti ll not b re a th in g . D r. A u b le s ta te d th a t “ re s e a rc h

. . . in d ic a te s th a t it p u ts c h ild re n a t ris k f o r l a te r p ro b le m s .” She expl ai ned thatt he

. . . br ai n i s t he or gan thatcons um es m or e oxy gen than anyot her o rg a n in y o u r b o d y. A n d if y o u ’re n o t b re a th in g , y o u r b ra in is no tgett i ng ox y gen . A nd so no tbreat hing fo r fi ve m i nu t es i s a lo n g tim e f

o r a b ra in to b e w ith o u t o x y g e n . S h e a d d e d th a t th e la c k o f o x y g e n , in o th e r w o rd s , c a n re s u lt in b ra in d a m a g e . D r . A ubl e cont i nued:-25- T h e p e tit io n e r’s d e v e lo p m e n tal m iles to n e s d u rin g h is chi l dhood w er e normal

. H ow ever , at t w enty - t hr ee mont hs , t he pet i t i onerw as r epor t ed t o have de l ay ed l anguage . H e w as fur ther rep o rt ed t o have a n i nadequa t e di et

. I n s chool , t he pet i t i oner di d not do w el l

. H e had t r oubl e l earni ng t o r ead. T he pet i t i onerended up r epea t i ng t he fi r s tgr ade. I n t he thi r d gr ade, t he pet i t i onerw as r efe r r ed foran eva l uat i on byt he s chool s y s t em for Spec i al E ducat ion

. A tt hi s t i m e, t he pet i t i oner obt ai ned a f

ul l s cal e I Q of 92, w hi ch i s i n t he low er por t i on of the n o rm al ran g e. A lth o u g h in the thir d g rad e, th e p eti ti o n er’s a c h iev e m e n t tes t re su lts in d ica ted a se c o n d g ra d e le v e l in r eadi ng and mat h, and a f i r s tgr ade leve l f

orw r i t t en l anguage . T he pet i t i onerw as di agnos ed w i t h a l earni ng di s abi l i t yand pl ace d i n Speci al E ducat i on . T he pet i t i onerw as i n Speci al E d u ca ti o n classe s b etw ee n 1 9 8 5 an d 1 9 8 9

. T h e p eti ti o n er’s p e rf o rm a n c e in th e s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n c la s s im p ro v e d

. W hen t he pet i t i oner w as i n t he s eventh gr ade, h e w as c h a r g e d wi t h ma l i c i o u s mi s c h i e f r e s u l t i n g f

r o m h i s f i r i n g a BB gun at anot herboy ’ s but t ocks

. T hi s i s s ue w as r es ol ved w i t h a w arni ng and couns el i ng. I n February1990, t he pet i t i onerw as arr es t ed forpos s es s i on of m ar ij u an a w i t h i nt entt o s el l and p o ss e ss io n o f

c ig a re tt e s . T h e se iss u e s w e re re so lv e d w ith su p erv ised p rob ati o n . H e w as lat er arrested d u e to trua n cy . In J ul y1990, t he pet i t i onerw as arr es t ed for r obbery . T hi s char ge w as l at erdr opped. In M arch 1991, t he pet i t i onerw as arr es t ed f o r e v a d in g a rre st, c rim in a l tres p a ss in g a n d tru a n c y . In A p ril 1991, t he pet i t i onerw i t hdr ew fr om s chool

. T he pet i t i onerw as char ged w i t h aggr avat ed as s aul t , unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a w eapon, and crim i nal at t empt ed fe l ony . A ts om e poi ntaft er th e se in c id e n ts, th e six tee n -y e a r-o ld p e titio n e r w a s s e n t to W i l derY out h C ent er . T he pet i t i onerr emai ned atW i l derfort en m o n th s . D r . A ubl e t es t i fi ed t hat t he Pet i t i oneri nfor m ed hert hathe bega n s m oki ng m ar i j uana and dr i nki ng al cohol betw een the age s of t en and e l even. T he Pet i t i oners m oked mar i j uana a n d d ra n k a lc o h o l “[ e ]v e ryd a yif h e c o u ld g e t it .” W ild e r Y o u th C e n ter o f f icia ls r ecomm ended drug and al cohol t r eatm ent , butt her e w as no i ndi cati o n t hatei t hert he P e titio n e r o r h is p a re n ts f o llo w e d u p o n th is re c o m m e n d a tio n a f te r h e le f t W ild e r.-26-

D r . A ubl e r eci t ed the fol l ow i ng fac t s as t o t he Pet i t i oner ’ s backgr ound: I n 1993, t he ni net een- y ear - ol d pet i t i onerw as arr est ed and convi ct ed of aggr avat ed r obbery . H e r ece i ved a n ei ght

- y ear s ent ence of conf

i nement

. T he pet i t i o n er w as confi ned fr om M ay1994 t hr ough M ay1997 atN or t hw es tC or r ec ti o nal C om pl ex. W hi l e atN or t hw es t , t he pet i t i onerw as i nt er vi ew ed, butappar ent l yhe di d notpr ovi de ac curat e i nfor m at i on. For exampl e, t he pet i t i o n er sai d he had ne verbeen i n s peci al educa t i on cl as s es , he had s ol d drugs forfi ve y ear s , and he ha d s een pe opl e s hot i n hi s nei ghbor hood. T he pr i s on r ecor ds fr om t hi s per i od of conf

i nement i ndi cat ed t hat t he pet i t i oner ’ s gr oup in tellig e n c e tes t w a s i n th e n o rm a l ra n g e . H e w a s d o in g m a th a n d re a d in g a t th e f

o u rth g ra d e lev e l a n d sp e lli n g a t th e f if th gr ade l evel

. T he r ecor ds i ndi cat ed a le arni ng di s abi l i t y . T he pet i t i oner“w as s een a s a mem berof a s ub cul tur e i n w hi ch p ro m o ted ill e g a l ac tiv iti e s th a t w a s lik e lyto c o n ti n u e a f ter h is r e l e a s e . ” T h e p e t i t i o n e rwa s p a r o l e d i n F e b ru a r y1 9 9 7

. He compl et ed a drug offe nder ’ s s chool pr ogr am i n M ay1997. T he pet i t i oner w or ked for four m ont hs w i t h K i m co C orpor at i on and had a pos i t i ve drug s cr een i n M ar ch 1997. I n J une 1997, t he p e titio n er o b tai n ed em p loy m en t w ith M em p h is Fe n ce . In D ece m ber1997, t he pet i t i onert ol d hi s par ol e offi cer t hathe w as e m p lo y e d a t M u ltif

o rm . A s a re s ul t of her t es t i ng, D r . A ubl e concl uded thatt he Pet i t i onerw as notm al i nger i ng. She s t at ed thatt he Pet i t i onerobt ai ned a ful l s cal e I Q of 88, w hi ch w as cons i s t entw i t h pr i or eval uat i ons . D r . A ubl e not ed t hat t he Pet i t i onerhad more di ffi cul t i es w i t h t i m ed t es t s . She s ai d t hatt he Pet i t i onerhad tr oubl e w i t h at t ent i on and conc entr at i on. A l t hough s he coul d not defi ni t el yr eac h t hi s concl us i on, D r . A ubl e not ed thatt he Pet i t i oner ’ s l earni ng di ffi cul t i es w er e cons i s t en t w i t h per s ons aff ect ed byl ack of

oxy gen ea r l yi n l i fe. D r . A ubl e s ai d t he P e tit io n e r’s re a d in g le v e l w a s o n p a r w ith a n e lev e n o r tw e lv e y e a r o ld c h ild . D r. A u b le p rov ided the f

o ll o w ing d iagn o sis of

the P eti ti o n er: It’s m yo p in io n th a t h e h a s a tten tio n d e f icit, h yp e ra c tiv ity di s or der , pr i m ar i l y i nat t ent i ve t ype. T hat ’ s bot h fr om m yt es t i ng a n d f r o m m yr e c o r d r e v i e w.

. . .

. . . I t hi nk i t ’ s m or e a di s or deri n w hi ch he ha s t r oubl e foc us i ng and keepi ng t r ack. Som ethi ng t hatw as not i ced i n s chool t oo.-27- K i ds w ho have thatus ual l ydo bet t erw i t h ind i vi dual at t ent i on fr om t he t eac herand thatw as not ed. S h e n o ted th a t th e P e tit io n e r h a d “ [ c ] a n n a b is d e p e n d e n c e , m a riju a n a d e p e n d e n c e w h ich is i n r emi s s i on. . . . A l cohol abus e . . . i n r emi s s i on. ” She adde d t hatt he Pet i t i oneral s o had a h isto ryo f

lea rn in g d iso rd e r. D r. A u b le sta ted th a t in h e r o p in io n , the P e tit io n e r w a s “ a lit tle b it p a ra n o id ,” b u t s h e d id n o t h a v e a n yte s tin g to s u p p o rt th is c o n c lu s io n . O n c ro ss -e x a m in a ti o n , D r. A u b le c o n c e d e d th a t th e P e tit io n e r w a s n o t m e n tally r et ar ded. She conce ded thatt he Pet i t i oner ’ s us e of m ar i j uana a nd al cohol atage t en orel even coi nci ded w it h the d r op of hi s per for m ance i n s chool

. D r . A ubl e s t at ed thatt o her know l edge, the P eti ti onerw as a s t r eetdeal erof drugs and thatt hi s w as t he s our ce of t he m aj or i t yof hi s i ncome. D r . A ubl e adm i t t ed t hat s he w as aw ar e t hat t he P et i t i oner had a bad te m p e r a s a c h ild . S h e a ls o s a id h e w o u ld n o t b a c k d o w n f ro m a c o n f

ro n ta tio n . M u rra yS m ith , a d o c to r sp e c ializ in g in a d d ictio n m e d icin e , w a s re tain e d to e v a lu a te t he Pet i t i oner . H e r epor t ed thatt he Pet i t i onerbegan dr i nki ng and us i ng m ar i j uana a tage e lev e n . B yth e a g e o f

th irtee n , the P e tit io n e r w a s u sin g m a r ij u a n a a n d a lco h o l o n a d a ily b a sis . T h e P e tit io n e r w a s a lso in v o lv e d w ith “ so m e m in o r d e a lin g o f m a riju a n a .” D r. S m ith t es t i fi ed thatt he Pet i t i onerw as l at eri nvol ved i n s om e s el l i ng of co ca i ne, buts t r es s ed that coca i ne w as nota drug t hatt he Pet it ione r“ca r ed anyt hi ng aboutorus ed. ” H e s ai d t he Pet i t i oner ’ s drug and al cohol us e w er e cons i s t ent w i t h D r . A ubl e’ s di agnos is of att ent i on d e f icit h yp e ra c tiv ity

. H e sa id th a t m a riju a n a a n d a lco h o l w e re b o th se d a tiv e s a n d w o u ld c a lm a p erso n d o w n . H e ex p lai n ed that the P eti ti o n er’s fru str ati o n s at h o m e a n d at sch o o l w ere so u rc e s o f

f ru stra tio n th a t co u ld h a v e led h im to m a riju a n a a n d a lco h o l. D r . Sm i t h t es t i fi ed t hat al cohol and m ar i j uana s l ow dow n br ai n devel opm ent

. I n an at t em pt t o u se som et hing t hat w ou l d m ake h i m feel bett er, t he P et i t i on er w as actuall y choos i ng t hi ngs t hatw or ked aga i ns t hi m . D r . Sm i t h t es t i fi ed t hat t he us e of mar i j uana a nd al cohol a ta n e a r l ya g e a c tu a l l yc h a n g e d t h e “ h a r d wi r i n g o f t h e b r a i n . ” Th e Pe t i t i o n er r ece i ved s om e tr eatm enti n 1997 w i t h a D U I co u rt

- t ype cl as s educa t i on aboutdrugs and al co h o l

. Ot h e rt h a n t h i s b r i e f t r e a t me n t , t h e Pe t i t i o n e rn e v e rr e c e i v e d a n yr e a l i nt ens i ve tr e a tm e n t f

o r h is u s e o f

a lc o h o l a n d m a ri

ju a n a . D r . Sm i t h s ai d t hatt he Pet i t i oners t at ed thaton t he dat e of the shoot i ng, he s t ar t ed dr i nki ng and s m oki ng at8: 00 a. m . R ather t han par t aki ng i n hi s us ual beer , t he Pet i t i onerhad “s om e har d l i quor w hi ch w as not very comm on for hi m . ” Throughoutt he day , he cont i nued t o dr i nk i nt er m i t t en t l yunt i l he w entt o t he cl ub betw een 6: 00 p. m . and 8: 00 p. m . T he P e tit io n e r d e sc rib e d h im se lf a s “ tip sy .” T h e P e tit io n e r re p o rte d to D r. S m ith th a t:-28- he had gone outt o hi s car , s m oked s om e mar i j uana, came back i nt o t he cl ub, w ent back t o hi s car and hi s carw as n’ tt her e and he got ups et

. A nd beca us e he w as ups et , t he offi cercame on t he sc e n e a n d th a t’s a b o u t as f a r a s w e talk e d a b o u t it

. D r. S m i t h sum m ari zed h i s di agn oses of the Peti t i on er as foll ow s: M r . M cK i nneyhad a c hr oni c us e of a l cohol and mar i j uana cont i nui ng r igh t u p unt i l t he eve ntof t hatC hr i s t m as of 1997. T hatday w as di ffe r ent i n t hathe i ncr eas ed hi s cons um pt i on of t he m arij uana a nd t he al cohol s i gni fi cant l y . E nough t o m ake h im re a llyn o te th a t h e w a s f e e lin g th e e f

f e c ts o f it. W ith h is un derl y i ng problem of att enti on defici t , his m em oryfor detai l s, hi s per cept i on of t he compl et e pi ctur e w as l es s per fec teven than nor m al

. And s o h e h a d s o me b l a n k s a b o u twha tr e a l l ywas hap pen i ng , ho w t hings hap pen ed, w hat the sequ ence o f eve nts , t he t rue pi ctur e t hat s om ebody w ho w as not chemi cal l yal t er ed

. . . and nothavi ng t he under l y i ng at t ent i on defi ci tpr obl em w oul d h av e h ad pr obabl ya compl et el y. . . w el l , a di ffe r ent pi ctur e, a di ffe r entunder s t andi ng of t he s i tuat i on. A nd t he thi ng I w as m os ti m pr es s ed w i th w as a bel i ef s y s t em t hatM r . M cK i nney devel oped bei ng on t he st r eet s w hen he w as an adol es cent12, 13, 14 y ear s ol d. A nd t hat w as how s us pi ci ous and untrus t i ng he w as aboutot herpeopl e. . . . A n d he w as s us pi ci ous of t hei rm ot i ves . So t hat w as a m os ti m pr es s i ve thi ng t hatI came aw ayw i t h af terhavi ng t al ked t o hi m i n l ength and tim e is th a t h e w o u ld b e liev e so m e th in g th a t w a s in c o m p lete bey ond s om ethi ng t hatanybody el s e w oul d s ayand ac ton t hat as i f i t w er e re al

. A nd t hathas t o do w i t h hi s bel i ef s y s t em t hat h e c o u ld n ’t tr u s t a n d th a t h e w a s s u s p ic io u s . G l or i Shet t l es t es t i fi ed th at s h e per for m ed the mi t i gat i on i nves t i gat i on i n t he Pet i t i oner ’ s cas e forI nqui s i t or , I nc. She r eca l l ed t hat her w or k i n t he Pet i t i oner ’ s cas e w as “verys cantas compar ed t o ot hercas es . . . . ” M s . Shet t l es s t at ed thatsh e had a s chedul ed m eet i ng w i t h M r . B al l but t hat t he s ubj ectof m i t i gat i on w as neverdi s cus s ed. She s t at ed that i n es s ence , s he had no meet i ngs w i t h M r. B all rega r di ng m i t i gat i on. M s . Shet t l es fur t her exp l ai ned t hat al t ho ug h ther e w ere court -approved fun ds exp end ed for i nv est i gati on , m ost o f th e s e f u n d s w e n t to w a rd in v e s tig a tio n f o r t h e g u ilt p h a s e .-29-

M s . Shet t l es r evi ew ed t he pr epar ed m i t i gat i on t i m e l i ne. T he t i m e l i ne s t ar t ed on the dat e of t h e Pe t i t i o n e r ’ s b i r t h , J u l y 1 3 , 1 9 7 4

. M s . Sh e t t l e s c o u l d n o t e x p l a i n why s he had n ev er obt ai ned the bi r t h r ecor ds of t he Pet i t i oner . She di d obt ai n s om e of the Pet i t i o n er’s s chool r ecor ds and had s om e know l edge of hi s l earni ng di ffi cul t i es i n s chool

. M s . Shet t l es coul d notr eca l l any i ndi cat i on t hat t he P et i t i oner ’ s drug and al cohol us e began w hen he w as el even. She s t at ed thathad s he know n t hi s fac t , i t w o u ld h av e b een a r ed fl ag t o as k t he a tto rn e yto re ta in a n a d d ic tio n s p e c ia lis t. M s. S h e ttl e s tes tifie d th a t th e P e tit io n e r dr o p p e d o u t o f sc h o o l at th e a g e o f

six tee n in 1990 and thats he di d notknow w hy he dr opped outof hi gh s chool norw as s he aw ar e that he w as s entt o W i l derD evel opm entY out h C ent er . She s ai d s he ha d neverobt ai ned t he P e tit io n e r’s re c o rd s f

ro m W ild e r. S h e sa id o n e o f th e P e tit io n e r’s f

o rm e r g irlfr ien d s, L a q u ita W i l l i ams, des cr i bed the Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot heras “ment al l ys l ow . ” M s . W i l l i ams s t at ed thatt he P e t i t i o n e r wa s n o t a b u s e d b y h i s p a r e n t s b u t t h a t h e r e c e i v e d l i t t l e s u p e r v i s i o n . M s . W i l l i a ms bel i eved t hat t he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot her w as t aki ng D i l ant i n. She added thatt he Pet i t i onerw as nota trus t i ng per s on. M s . W i l l i ams al s o m ent i oned t he nam e of PatJ ohns on, i ncl udi ng t he ru m o r th a t h e w a s “ b ra g g in g a b o u t th e c o p g e tti n g w h a t h e d e se rv e d .” M s. S h e ttl e s s a id th is in f o rm a tio n w a s p ro v id e d to th e a tto rn e y s . M s. S h ett les t esti fied that sh e i n terview ed S h aro n M arion , the P eti ti o n er’s step sist er. M s . M a r i o n s t a t e d t h a th e rm o t h e r , n o t t h e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s m o t h e r , h a d a b a n d o n e d t h e f a m i l y. M s . M ar i on w oul d have t es t i fi ed on t he Pet i t i oner ’ s behal f at t r i al

. M s . Shet t l es bel i eved that s h e w o u ld h a v e m a d e a n e x c e lle n t w itn e s s . M s . Shet t l es t es t i fi ed thata mi t i gat i on t heme w as a s t r at egy . She s t at ed thatt hemes coul d i ncl ude ment al r et ar dat i on, bor de r l i n e i n t e l l i gence , or gani c pr obl ems, s ubs t ance abus e, s exual abus e, phy s i cal abus e, and t he l i ke. T he t heme coul d encompas s anynum berof t hi ngs r el at ed t o t he cl i ent , hi s l i fe, hi s fami l ybackgr ound; i n ot herw or ds , anyt hi ng t hatexpl ai ned h o w th e c lien t g o t f

ro m “ h e r e to th e re .” M s. S h e ttl e s b e liev e d th a t li n g e rin g d o u b t co u ld have be en a de fens e theme i n t h is c ase . S h e al s o s t at ed thatt he Pet i t i onerhad a de cent i ns t i tut i o nal r ecor d. M s . Shet t l es bel i eved thatanyfai l ur e i n r egar d t o devel opi ng a m itig a tio n c a s e w a s d u e to th e la c k o f c o m m u n ic a tio n b e tw e e n h e rs e lf a n d M r. B a ll. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, M s . Shet t l es admi t t ed t hat her i ni t i al s t ep w as i nt er vi ew i ng t he Pet i t i oner . T hi s i nfor m at i on w as key t o devel opi ng a backgr ound of t he P et i t i oner . A gai n, s he coul d offe r no expl anat i on w hy t he Pet i t i oner ’ s j uveni l e r ecor ds fr om W i l derw er e not o b tain e d

. M s. S h e ttl e s sta ted th a t itw a s p o ss ib le th a t th e P e tit io n e r n e v e r to ld h e r a b o u t h is s u b s ta n c e a b u s e p ro b le m s .-30-

E v erlean F lem ing , the P eti ti o n er’s m atern al au n t, test ifi ed thatsh e a n d the P eti ti o n er’s m ot her , U l l a, w er e fi ve y ear s aparti n age. T hei r father w as a s har ecr opper , and t hei rm ot her hel ped i n t he fi el d choppi ng and pi cki ng cot t on. A l t hough M s . Fl emi ng had t o hel p i n t he fi el ds , t h e Pe t i t i o n e r ’ s moth e rd i d n o tb e c a u s e s h e wat c h e d t h e s ma l l e rc h i l d r e n a thom e. T h e ir c h ild h o o d h o m e d id n o t h a v e e lec tricityo r ru n n in g w a ter . M s. F lem in g sta ted th a t th e ir fat her drank alcoho l and t hat som et i m es he go tang ryw hen he w as i ntoxi cat ed. A tt hese t i m es , he w oul d “us e bad l anguage ” t ow ar d t hei rm ot her

. M s . Fl emi ng ad d ed that “al l of [h er] s i s t er s . . . i ncl udi ng [her s el f] ” dr ank a l ot of al cohol

. She s t at ed t hat t hr ee b roth ers d ra n k a s w e ll. M s . Fl emi ng t es t i fi ed thatt he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot her had a babyw hen s he w as fi ft een. T he babydi ed, and thi s caus ed the Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot hert o be depr es s ed. She sai d t he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot herhad seizu res fr om w or r y i ng and w as t aken t o s ee a ps y chi atr i s t

. T he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot herw as gi ven medi cat i on for h er pr obl em and appear ed t o be i m pr ovi ng. M s . Fl emi ng s ai d t he Pet i t i oner had a good per s onal i t y w hen he w as a chi l d. She s t at ed that h e lik e d to p la yw ith to y s a n d d ra w a n d th a t h e lik e d to g o to s c h o o l. W anda Pal m er , anotherof t he P et i t i oner ’ s m at ernal aunt s , t es t i fi ed t hat s he w as t hr ee y ear s y oungert han the Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot her , U l l a. She s t at ed thatt her e w er e fi ft een c hi l dr en i n t hei rfami l y . She s t at ed t hat her fatherw or ked ata dai r ybarn and thatherm ot herw or ked ata nur s ery . T hei rfather dr ank a l ot of al cohol

. M s . Pal m er di d t al k w i t h s om eone f r om t he P e titio n e r’ s d e f

e n s e te a m , m o s t lik e ly G lo ri S h e ttle s . Shar on M ar i on, t he Pet i t i oner ’ s s t epsi s t er , t es t i fi ed thatherfatherm arr i ed the P e t i t i on e r ’ s mot he r . S h e s t a t e d t h a tt h e f a mi l yl i v e d i n a l a r g e h o u s e , wi t h t wo b a t h r o o ms and fourbedr oom s . B ot h par ent s admi ni s t er ed the di s ci pl i ne, but M s . M ar i on s t at ed thatt hey “har dl yevergota w hi ppi ng. ” M s . M ar i on s t at ed t hat her father coul d r ead a l i t t l e, butt he P e titio n e r’ s m o th e r c o u ld n o t r e a d a t a ll. M s. M ari on descri bed t he P et i t i on er as a hap pychil d. S he sai d the Peti t i on er w as a t eena gerw hen s he moved fr om t he hous e. She s t at ed thatw hen the Pet i t i oner w as r el eas ed f ro m ja il, h e “ k is s e d th e f lo o r” a n d s a id h e w a s n e v e r g o in g b a c k to ja il. M s. M arion rec all ed that o n C h ri stm as D ay 1 9 9 7 the f am il y , inclu d ing the P eti ti o n er, w er e atherfather ’ s hom e. T heyw er e al l pl ay i ng a gam e ca l l ed “Bop It

. ” She des cr i bed t he Pet i t i oneras happy , bec au se this w as hi s fi r s tC hr i s t m as bei ng outof pr i s on. M s . M ar i on s ai d s he w as i nt er vi ew ed byG l or i Shet t l es . She t ol d M s . Shet t l es t hats he w oul d have t es t i fi ed att he Pet i t i oner ’ s t r i al i f as ked. M s . M ar i on at t ended t he Pet i t i oner ’ s t r i al butw as nevercal l ed t o t es t i fy

. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, M s . M ar i on admi t t ed thatt he Pet i t i onerus ed-31-

m arij u an a an d d ran k alco h o l. S h e e x p lai n ed that sh e w as n o t con ce rne d b ec au se h e “ w asn ’t doi ng i tl i ke a drug addi ct

. ” Je n n if e r S tew a rt tes tifie d th a t sh e k n e w th e P e tit io n e r th ro u g h c h u rc h a n d th a t th e ir par ent s w er e fr i ends

. M s . St ew ar ts t at ed that , i n her opi ni on, t he P et i t i oner ’ s fami l y w as not as s t r i ctas her s . She s t at ed t h at th e k ids w er e al l ow ed t o come and go and di d nothave a cur few

. She t es t i fi ed t hat t he Pet i t i oner ’ s s t epfa t herbeca m e a pr eac herl at eri n l i fe a nd t hat w i t h t hi s change , hi s r eadi ng i m pr oved. M s . St ew ar t s ai d t hatt he Pet i t i onerw as a t al ent ed ar t i s t

. She s ai d t he Pet i t i oner s t at ed upon hi s r el eas e fr om pr i s on t hat he w as goi ng t o s t ay o u t o f tr o u b le

. Z acha r i as M cG hee, J enni ferSt ew ar t ’ s br ot her , t es t i fi ed thathe w as an ac quai nt ance of t he Pet i t i oner . H e des cr i bed the Pet i t i oneras bei ng qui et and m i l d. H e re cal l ed t hatt he P eti ti o n er’s p are n ts’ rea d ing sk il ls w ere v ery p o o r. M r. M cG h ee test ifi ed at t h e P eti ti o n er’s 1999 t r i al

. H e expl ai ned thathe s aw t he tr i al on t he t el evi s i on and t hat he w entand found t he Pet i t i oner ’ s at torney s . H e s t at ed that , i n hi s opi ni on, t he Pet i t i onerw as notbei ng a c c u ra te ly p o rt ra y e d

. C ar ol yn W hi t l ey , a r et i r ed t eac herfr om Snow den J uni or H i gh School , t es t i fi ed that sh e tau g h t a ju n io r h ig h re so u rc e c las s. T h e P e tit io n e r w a s a stu d e n t o f h e rs in th e se v e n th and ei g h t h g r a d e s a n d d u r i n g t h e f i r s t s e me s t e r o f n i n t h g r a d e . Sh e s t a t e d t h at s peci al educa t i on r es our ces cl as s es w er e onl y fort hr ee hour s a dayforcert ai n chi l dr en, i ncl udi ng t he Pet i t i oner . She s ai d t hes e student s w oul d be phase d back i nt o t hei rr egul arcl as s r oom . She expl ai ned that ni nt h gr ade w as r emedi al and thats he mai nl yj us ttut or ed the Pet i t i oner . T he Pet i t i onerw as pl ace d i n t he r egul arm ath cl as s w i t h M s . W hi t l ey tut or i ng hi m . She s t at ed he d id v eryw ell , ea rnin g a B av era g e. M s. W h it leyd esc ri b ed the P eti ti o n er a s a v ery cooper at i ve and r es pect ful s tudent

. She coul d notr eca l l anybehavi or al pr obl ems i n t he c la s s ro o m . M s . W hi t l ey r eca l l ed t hat t he P et i t i oner ’ s hal f- s i s t er , Pat r i ci a T yus , w as al s o a s tudent of her s . Pat r i ci a Tyus w as al s o l earni ng di s abl ed. M s . W h it ley said Pat r i ci a w as h a rd w o rk in g a n d d id f

a ir ly w e ll in s c h o o l. L i eut enantC l ar ence C ox t es t i fi ed that he w as i nvol ved i n i nves t i gat i ng t he s hoot i ng death of O ffi cer W i l l i am s. H e no t ed thatt he all ey beh i nd t he club w as dark w i t h d i m l i gh t s. He s a i d t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n t wo c a l l s f o r o f f i c e r s t o g o t o t h e c l u b ; t h e f i r s t a t 1: 18 a . m. O ffi cer W i l l i ams m ade thi s cal l and advi s ed thatt her e w as a drunk s us pectt hatkeptgoi ng t o hi s vehi cl e. O ffi cerW i l l i ams bel i eved thatt he s us pecthad a gun. T he ca r s l eftt he s cene a t2 : 0 1 a . m.-32-

L i eut enantL arr yC harnes t es t i fi ed that dur i ng t he i nves t i gat i on i nt o t he s hoot i ng of O ffi cerW i l l i ams, a fe m al e w i t nes s m ent i oned thatPat r i ck J ohns on w as br aggi ng about h a v in g so m e th in g to d o w ith th e sh o o tin g . L a w e n f o rc e m e n t atte m p ted to m a k e c o n tac t w ith Pat r i ck J ohns on and s poke w i t h hi s m ot her

. A not herw i t nes s , J ohn M i ckens , al s o br ought u p P atri ck J o h n so n ’s na m e, ev en p rov iding Jo h n so n ’s pa g er n u m b er. A g ain, of fice rs a ttem p te d to c o n tac t P a trick Jo h n so n b u t w e re u n su c c e ss f u l. A th ird a ttem p t w a s m a d e to cont actM r . J ohns on, t o no avai l

. L i eut enantC harnes t es t i fi ed thatO ffi cerW i l l i ams di d not d ie u n til J a n u a ry 2 9 , 1 9 9 8 . T h e c a s e w a s th e n tr a n s f e rr e d to th e h o m ic id e d iv is io n . L ieu ten a n t C h a rn e s te stif ied th a t T o d d B lac k m a n w a s s to p p e d d riv in g a v e h icle s i m il ar t o t he one dr i ven byt he s us pect

. T he vehi cl e di d notm at ch, butB l ackman w as a r r e s t e d o n u n r e l a t e d c h a r g e s . B l a c k m a n i n i t i a l l y s t a t e d t h a th e w a s n o ta tt h e p a r t y. L i eut enantC harnes l at ers how ed B l ackman a phot ogr aph of the Pet i t ion er an d B l ackman t a k e n a tt h e p a r t y. P o li ce D ir ec tor W alt er C re w s h an d led th e a d m inistrati v e h ea ri n g o n O ff icer L ee ’s r epr i m and. A tt he hea r i ng, O ffi cerL ee s t at ed thathe tho u g h t h e w oul d w or k off- dut yfor onl ya s hor tper i od of t i m e and thathad i t tur ned i nt o a l ong- t er m engage m enthe w oul d have c o m p le te d o f

f -d u ty d o c u m e n ts

. O ffi cerR on M ar s hal l t es t i fi ed thathe w as on dut yon t he ni ghtof D ece m ber25, 1997. B e f o re ro ll ca ll, h e to o k h is c o u sin to C ru m p y ’s C o m e d yC lu b . A f ter ro ll c a ll , h e h a d to re tu rn to th e c lu b to g iv e a k e yto h is c o u sin . W h e n h e re tu rn e d to th e c lu b , h e sp o k e w ith O ffi cerW i l l i am s aboutt he di s turbance w i t h t he Pet i t i oner . L at ert hatni ght , he hea r d t hat O f f ice r W ill iam s h a d b e e n sh o t. O ffi cerW i ll iam s cont act ed the pol i ce de par t m entat1: 18 a. m . on D ece m ber26, r epor t i ng a bl ack mal e occ upy i ng a bur gundyO l ds m obi l e 98 w ho w as t hr eat eni ng t o s hoot inside the c lub

. O ff

icer W il li am s ind icate d that this m an w as v eryd run k

. C ars w ere di s pat ched a t1: 21 a. m . , and the off i cer s l eftt he s cene at2: 01 a. m . A t 2: 26 a. m . , a ca l l w as r ece i ved advi s i ng t hatan off i cerhad bee n s hot i n t he hea d atC rum py ’ s C om edyC l ub. T he s us pectw as i dent i fi ed as a mal e bl ack, w hi t e cap, bl ack s hi r t , bl ack pant s , and occupy i ng a bur gundyO l ds m obi l e 98. St andard of Proof Post

- convi ct i on r el i ef i s w arr ant ed w hen a pet i t i oner es t abl i s hes t hat hi s or her c o n v i c t i o n i s v o i d o rv o i d a b l e b e c a u s e o f a n a b r i d g e me n to f

a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t

. T

. C. A § 40- 30- 103. T he pet i t i on i s governed byt he 1995 Pos t

- C onvi ct i on A ct , w hi ch r equi r es t hat all eg ati o n s o f f

ac t be p rov en b yclea r an d co n v incin g ev iden ce . S ee T

. C

. A

. § 4 0 -30 -11 0 (f).-33-

“Evi dence i s cl earand convi nci ng w hen ther e i s no s er i ou s o r subs t ant i al doubtaboutt he corr ectnes s of t he concl us i ons dr aw n fr om t he evi dence

. ” H i cks v. St at e, 983 S. W

. 2d 240, 2 4 5 (T e n n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). O n ce the p o s t- c o n v iction co u rth as ru led u p o n a p eti ti o n , it s fin d ing s o f f ac t are concl us i ve on appe al unl es s t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d pr eponder at es agai ns tt hem. W al l ace v. St at e, 121 S. W

. 3d 652, 656 ( T enn. 2003) ; St at e v. N i chol s , 90 S. W

. 3 d 5 7 6 , 5 8 6 ( T enn. 2002) ( ci t i ng St at e v. B ur ns , 6 S. W

. 3d 453, 461 ( T enn. 1999) )

. T hi s cour tm aynotr ew ei gh orr eeva l uat e the evi dence or s ubs t i tut e i t s i nfer ence for t hos e dra w n by t he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t

. N i chol s , 90 S. W

. 3d at586. Q ues t i ons conce r ni ng t he cr edi bi l i t y of w i t nes s es and the w ei ghtt o be gi ven t hei r t es t i m onyar e forr es ol ut i on byt he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t

. I d. ( ci t i ng H enl eyv. St at e, 960 S. W

. 2d 572, 579 ( T enn. 1997) )

. T he bur den i s now o n t he pet i t i oner t o s how t hatt he evi dence pr eponder at ed agai ns t t hos e fi ndi ngs . C l ennyv. St at e, 576 S. W

. 2d 12, 14 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1978)

. N ot w i t hs t andi ng, det er m i nat i o n s of w hethercouns el pr ovi ded a de fen dantcons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci entand pr ej udi ci al as s i s t ance pr es entm i xed ques t i ons of l aw and fa ctt o be r evi ew ed de novo. W al l ace , 121 S. W

. 3d at656; N i chol s , 90 S .W .3 d a t 5 8 6

. I . I NEFF ECTI VE ASS I S TANCE O F COUN S EL L egal St andard T he S i xth A m end m ent pr ov i des, i n p ert i nen tpart , t hat, “[i ]n al l cri m i nal pr osecuti on s, t he a c c us e d s ha l l e nj oy t he r i gh t

. . . t o ha ve t he A s s i s t a nc e of Couns e l fo rhi s de fe ns e . ” U

. S. C ons t

. amend. V I

. T hi s r i ghtt o couns el i s “s o fundament al and es s ent i al t o a fa i rt r i al , and so , to d u e p ro c e ss o f

law , tha t itis m a d e o b lig a to ryu p o n th e s ta te s b yth e F o u rte e n th A m en d m en t. ” G ideo n v . W ainw ri g h t, 3 7 2 U

. S

. 3 3 5 , 3 4 0 (19 6 3 ) (qu o tat io n o m itt ed ). I nher enti n t he r i ghtt o couns el i s t he r i ghtt o eff ect i ve as s i s tanc e of couns el

. C uy l erv. S u ll ivan , 4 4 6 U

. S

. 3 3 5 , 3 4 4 (19 8 0 ); M cM an n v . R icha rdso n , 3 9 7 U

. S

. 7 5 9 , 7 7 1 n . 1 4 (19 7 0 ); see also S tr icklan d v . W ash ing ton , 4 6 6 U

. S

. 6 6 8 , 6 8 6 (19 8 4 ). “T h e b en ch m ark fo r j u d g ing an y claim o f inef fe cti v en ess m u st b e w h ethe r co u n sel’s conducts o under m i ned t he pr operfunct i oni ng of t he adve r s ar i al pr oces s t hatt he tr i al cannot be r el i ed on as havi ng pr oduced a j us t r es ul t

. ” St r i ckl and, 466 U

. S. at686; s ee a l s o C om bs v. C oy l e, 205 F. 3d 269, 277 ( 6t h C i r . 2000)

. A t w o- pr ong t es tdi r ect s a court ’ s eval uat i on of a cl ai m of ineffecti ven ess:

Fi r s t , t he defenda nt m us t s how t hatcouns el ’ s per for m ance w as defici ent. T his requi res show i ng t hat coun sel m ade error s so se rio u s th a t co u n se l w a s n o t f u n c tio n in g a s th e “ c o u n se l”-34- guar ant eed t he defenda nt by t he S i xt h A m endment

. Second, t he defe ndantm us ts how t hatt he def i ci entper for m ance pr ej udi ced t he d efen se. T his requi res show i ng t hat co un sel ’s err ors w ere s o ser i ou s as t o d epri ve the defen dan tof a f ai r tri al , a t ri al w ho se re s u lt is re lia b le

. St r i ckl and, 466 U

. S. at687; s ee a l s o C om bs , 205 F. 3d at277. T he per for m ance pr ong of t he S t r i ckl and t es t r equi r es a pet i t i oner r ai s i ng a cl ai m of i neff ect i venes s t o s how t hatcouns el ’ s r epr es ent at i o n fe ll bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of re a s o n a b le n e s s , o r “ o u ts id e th e w id e ra n g e o f p ro f e s s io n a lly c o m p e te n t a s s is ta n c e .” S tr icklan d , 4 6 6 U

. S

. at 69 0 ; see a lso K im m elm a n v . M o rri so n , 4 7 7 U

. S

. 3 6 5 , 3 8 6 (19 8 6 ). “J udi ci al s crut i nyof per for m ance i s hi ghl y defe r ent i al , and ‘ [a] fai ras s es s m entof at t or ney per for m ance r equi r es t hateveryeff or tbe made t o el i m i nat e the di s t or t i ng eff ec ts of h in d sig h t, t o re c o n stru c t th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f c o u n se l’s c h a llen g e d c o n d u c t, an d to e v a lu a te t he conduc tfr om couns el ’s p ersp ec t i ve att he t i m e. ’ ” C om bs , 205 F. 3d at278. U pon r evi ew i ng cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of co u n sel , t he court“musti ndul ge a s t r ong pr es um pti o n t hatcouns el ’ s conductfal l s w i t hi n t he w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal as s i s t an ce ; tha ti s , t he def endantm us tover come t he pr es um pt i on t hat , undert he ci r cumst ance s , t he cha l l enged a ct i ons ‘ m i ghtbe cons i der ed s ound tr i a l s tr a t e g y . ’ ” Str i ckl and, 466 U

. S. at689. A ddi t i onal l y , cour t s s houl d defe r t o t r i al s t r at egy or t act i cal choi ces i f t hey ar e i nfor m ed ones bas ed upon adequa t e pr epar at i on. H el l ar d v. St at e, 629 S. W

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

. Fi nal l y , i ti s ack n o w ledg ed t hatcr i m i nal defe ndant s ar e “notent i t l ed t o per fec t r epr es ent at i on, onl y cons t i tut i onal l y adequa t e re pr es ent at i on. ” D ent on v. St at e, 945 S. W

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

. I n ot herw or ds , “i n cons i deri ng cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l, ‘w e a d d re ss n o t w h a t is p ru d e n t o r a p p ro p ri a te , b u t o n lyw h a t is cons t i tut i onal l ycompel l ed. ’ ” B ur gerv. K emp, 483 U

. S. 776, 794 ( 1987)

. N ot w i t hs t andi ng, i ti s t he dutyof t hi s C our tt o “s ear ch forcons t i tut i onal [def i ci enci es ] w i t h pai ns t aki ng car e” as t hi s r es pons i bi l i t yi s “neve rm or e exa cti n g tha n i ti s i n a ca pi t al cas e. ” I d. , 483 U

. S. at 785. I f t he Pet i t i oner s how s t hat couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on fel l bel ow a r eas onabl e s t andar d, t hen the Pet i t i onerm us t s at i s fy t he pr ej udi ce pr ong of t he St r i ckl and t es tbydemonst r at i ng “ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but for couns el ’ s unpr ofes s i onal err or s , t he r es ul tof th e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e re n t.” S trick lan d , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 9 4 . “A re a so n a b le p rob ab il ityis a p rob ab il itysu ff ici en t t o u n d erm ine c o n fid en ce in th e o u tcom e.” Id

. In eval uat i ng w het h er a pet i t i oners at i s fi es t he pr ej udi ce pr ong, a courtm us tas k “w hether couns el ’ s defi ci entper for m ance r ender s t he r es ul tof t he t ri al u n rel i abl e ort he pr ocee di ng fundament al l yunfai r . ” Lockhar tv. Fr etw el l , 5 0 6 U

. S. 364, 372 ( 1993) ( ci t i ng St r i ckl and, 466 U

. S. at687)

. T hati s , a pet i t i onerm us tes t abl i s h t hatt he def i ci encyof couns el w as of-35-

s uch a de gr ee thati tdepr i ved the def endantof a f

ai rt ri al a n d cal l ed i nt o ques t i on t he reli ab il ityo f th e ou tcom e. F o r ex am p le, the e v iden ce stem m ing fro m the f ail u re to p rep are a s ound defe ns e ort o pr es entw i t nes s es m us tbe s i gni fi cant , but i t does notnece s s ar i l yfol l ow t hatt he tr i al w oul d have ot herw i s e re s ul t ed i n an ac qui t t al

. N eal yv. C abana , 764 F. 2d 1173, 1178- 79 ( 5t h C i r . 1985) ; C ode v. M ont gom ery , 799 F. 2d 1481, 1483 ( 11t h C i r . 1986)

. “A r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t y of bei ng found gui l t y of a l es s er char ge, ora s hor t ers ent ence s at i s fi es t h e s e c o n d p r o n g o f S t r i c k l a n d

. ” S t a t e v . Zi mme r ma n , 8 2 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 5 ( Te n n . Cr i m. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); see also C h am b ers v . A rm o n tr o u t, 9 0 7 F

. 2 d 8 2 5 , 8 3 2 (8th C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ). M o reo v er, w h en ch all en g ing the i m p o sit ion o f a sen tenc e of d ea th, the pe ti ti o n er m u st sh o w that “the re i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , absen t the error s , t he s ent ence r. . . w oul d have c oncl uded t h a tt h e b a l a n c e o f a g g r a v a t i n g a n d m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s d i d n o tw a r r a n td e a t h

. ” H e n l e y, 9 6 0 S

. W

. 2 d at 57 9 -80 (cit ing S tr icklan d , 4 6 6 U

. S

. at 69 5 ). A

. G ui l tPhas e D efi ci enci es T h e Pe t i t i o n e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o f u n c t i o n a s e f

f e c t i v e c o uns el as g u a ra n tee d b yb o th th e T e n n e ss e e a n d U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n s. T h e P e tit io n e r a ss e rts t hatt r i al couns el deni ed hi m eff ect i ve ass i s t ance of counse l at t he gui l t phas e of hi s capi t al trial b yb re a c h in g a c c e p tab le s tan d a rd s f o r c a p ital re p re se n tatio n , in th a t: 1. T r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve for agr eei ng t o a cons entor der regar ding dis cov erym at eri al s. 2. T r i al couns el fai l ed t o confr ontD ebr a K i m bl e w i t h herpr i or sta tem e n t. 3. T r i al couns el fai l ed t o pr epar e for t r i al and pr es entevi dence fa v o rab le t o the P eti ti o n er.

1. C ons entO r der O n J ul y4, 1999, a cons entor derw as ent er ed r egar di ng d isco v ery m at er i al s . T he c o n se n t o rd e r p ro v id e d in p a rt:

1

. D efens e couns el has been a dvi s ed byt he St at e thatt here w er e no t es t s done on t he ski dm ar ks t hatw er e phot ogr aphed a t t he cr i m e s cene, i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o t es t s i n w hi ch compar i s ons w oul d have be en made t o t i r es on anycar s . T he St at e has al s o advi s ed defens e couns el t hatnei t herT i m ot hy M cK i nney ’ s carnorD ebr a K imbal l ’ s carw er e t es t ed i n any fas hi on and ther efor e, t here are no r epor t s w i t h r es pectt o t he-36- exis t ence o f blood , gu nsho tres i du e, ski dm ark c o m p ari sons, b u ll et ho les, fin g erp ri n ts, w ea p o n s, etc. .

. . o n eit h er c ar. 2. D efe ns e couns el has al s o been a dvi s ed byt he St at e thatt he l ocat i on of s hot s t hatw er e fi r ed on the ni ghti n ques t i on by O ffi cerL ee a nd/ ort he s hoot erw er e i ndet er m i nabl e. 3

. D e f e n s e c o u n se l h a s a lso b e e n a d v ise d b yth e S tate th a t a s ear ch for t he w eapon w as done on t he ni ght of t he i nci dentand t hat they w ere u nab l e t o fi nd any t hing. D efen se coun sel has al so been a dvi s ed thatno c r i me s c e n e r e- enac t m ent s w er e per for m ed. 4. D efe ns e couns el has al s o been advi s ed t hat t he St at e does not hav e O ffi cer W i l l i am s’ shi rti n thei r po sses si on . T he S t at e al so advi s ed def

ens e couns el on D ece m ber18, 1998, of t he exi s t ence of t w o b l ue s hi r t s t hatpurpor t edl ybel ong t o T i m ot hy M cK i nney ; t hes e s hi r t s have notbeen t es t ed and ther e has been n o in d ica tio n f

ro m th e S tate th a t th e yw ill b e tes ted o r u se d in its cas e- i n- chi ef. 5. D ur i ng t he D ece m ber18t h, 1998, cour tr epor tdat e, t he i s s ue r egar di ng t he s t at ement s of J oy ce J el t z, M ar k L es t erand C har l es G o in a n d th e p h o to g ra p h ic lin e u p s [ w e re ] d isc u ss e d . T h e S tate does not have t o pr ovi de defens e counse l w i t h t he s t at ement s of the a b o v e w itn esse s sinc e the S tat e ind icates tha t no ex cu lpato ry ma t e r i a l i s i n t h e s t a t e me n t s a n d t h e yha ve p r o d u c e d t h e n a me o f M .A . E m b ry# 2 4 2 6 a s th e o f f ice r w h o c o n d u c ted th e p h o to spreads. 6. D efe ns e counse l has al s o been advi s ed t hat t he St at e ca nnot f a c ili tate th e re c e ip t o f

c o p ies o f

th e p o lice r e p o rts, c a ll sh e e ts and l og r eports re gar di ng t he ac t i vi t i es of t he off i cer s on t he n ig h t o f th e m u rd e r. Fi r s t , t h e Pe t i t i o n e ra r g u e s t h a tt h e c o n s e n to r d e rc o n s t i tu t e s p e rs e i n e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l

. He s t a t e s t h a tt h e c o n s e n to r d e rd e mo n s t r a t e s a c o mp l e t e b r e a k d o wn in th e a d v e rsa ria l p ro c e ss . T h e P e tit io n e r a ss e rts th a t “M r. B a ll sig n e d a w a yh is d u tyto p u rs u e e x c u lp a to ry in f o rm a tio n a n d re c e iv e d n o th in g in re tu rn f ro m th e p ro s e c u tio n .” S e c o n d , the P e tit io n e r a rg u e s th a t th e re is n o leg iti m a te s tr a teg ic e x p lan a tio n f o r f a ili n g to pur s ue the pot ent i al l yexcul pat or yi nfor m at i on cont ai ned i n t he do cu m ent s i t emi zed i n t he-37-

cons entor der

. T he Pet i t i onercl ai m s t hatM r . B al l ’ s bas i s for agr eei ng t o t he cons entor der can onl y be found i n hi s “fr i ends hi p” w i t h t he A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or neyas r epor t ed byt he in v e s tig a to rs o f

In q u is ito r, I n c . I n U ni t ed St a t e s v . Cr o n i c , 4 6 6 U. S. 6 4 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , t h e Su p r e me Cou r t h e l d t h a tan appea l s court m us tr ever s e a c r i m i nal defe ndant ’ s convi ct i on “w i t houtanys how i ng of pr ej udi ce w hen couns el w as ei t hert ot al l yabs ent , orpr event ed fr om as s i s t i ng t he ac cus ed dur i ng a cr i t i cal s t age of t he pr ocee di ng. ” C r oni c, 466 U

. S. at659 n. 25. I n ot herw or ds , w hen couns el i s t ot al l yabs entdur i ng a cr i t i cal s t age of t he pr ocee dings , pr ej udi ce mustbe pr es um ed. I n W i l l i ams v. T ay l or , t he S upr eme C our t confi r m ed the vi t al i t yof t hi s “pers e” appr oach, not i ng t hatw hi l e the St ri ck land v. W as hi ngt on t es tfori neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n s e l , r e q u i r i n g p r o o f o f d e f i c i e n t p e r f

o r ma n c e a n d p r e

j u d i c e p r o v i d e s g u i dance for re so lv in g v irtu a llya ll i n e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l cla im s, th e re a re “ a f e w situ a tio n s in w h ic h p re

ju d ic e m a yb e p re s u m e d .” W illia m s , 5 2 9 U .S . 3 6 2 , 3 9 1 (2 0 0 0 ). Fr om t he r ecor d befor e thi s C our t , w e ar e unw i l l i ng t o per cei ve M r . B al l ’ s agr eement to th e c o n se n t o rd e r a s p e r se d e f icie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e . M r. B a ll d id n o t tes tifya t th e p o stconvi ct i on pr ocee di ng due t o i l l nes s . N o pr oof has been offe r ed, ot hert han s pecul at i on of th e in v e stig a to rs, a s to th e b a sis o f M r. B a ll’s d e c isio n . A b se n t su c h p ro o f , this C o u rt w ill no tcon cl ud e t hat coun sel bl i nd l yrefused t o en gag e i n the adv ers ari al process. N ot w i t hs t andi ng, t hi s C our t el ect s t o addr es s t he Pet i t i oner ’ s conce r ns undert he St r i ckl and s ta n d a rd re la tiv e to th e c la im th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l f a ile d to p re p a re f

o r t ri a l. 2. T r i al Pr epar at i on T he Pet i t i onercont ends t hatt r i al couns el fai l ed t o i nves t i gat e the i s s ue of mot i ve and t he s t at ement s of ey ew it n esses c ont r aryt o t hos e w i t nes s es pr es ent ed byt he St at e. T he Pet i t i oneral s o as s er t s t hat tri al c ouns el fai l ed t o obt ai n an ey ew i t nes s expert , a guns hot res i du e exp ert , and forensi c t est i ng of t he P et i t i on er’ s carand t i re m arks i n the al l ey . W e al so addr es s t he Pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s t hatcouns el r el i nqui s hed the r i ghtt o s eek thr ough t he dis cov eryproc e ss the d i spat ch log report s, po l i ce report s, and t he st at em ents of ey ew i t nesses.

a. N otD efi ci entPer for m ance i. E y ew itn ess E x p ert T he Pet i t i o n e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o ma k e an a d e q u a te o f

f e r o f p ro o f f o r a n e y e w itn e ss e x p e rt. A t th e tim e o f th e P e tit io n e r’s trial, th is typ e o f e v iden ce w as p er se inad m issi b le. S ee S tat e v . C o ley , 3 2 S

. W

. 3 d 8 3 1 (T en n . 2 0 0 0 ), overrul ed bySt at e v. C opel and, 226 S. W

. 3d 287 ( T enn. 2007)

. D es pi t e thi s pers e exc l us i on,-38-

t r i a l c o u n s e l d i d f

i l e a mot i o n i n l i mi n e s e e k i n g a d mi s s i o n o f t h e e x p e r tt e s t i mon yand a tta c h e d a rt ic le s c o n c e rn in g th e u s e o f s u c h te s tim o n y . T he Pet i t i onerfai l ed t o pr es ent any pr oof at t he pos t

- convi ct i on evi dent i aryhear i ng reg ard ing ex p ert t esti m o n yan d h o w an o ff er o f p roo f w o u ld h av e b en ef itted th e P eti ti o n er. B eca us e the Pet i t i oner fai l ed t o pr es ent anypr oof i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m , t hi s i s s ue i s w i t hout m e rit. i i

. For ens i c Evi dence T h e P eti ti o n er c o n tend s tha t tri al co u n sel sh o u ld h av e re q u ir ed their ex p ert, R o b ert C ooper , t o per for m i ndepende ntt es t s of t he P eti ti o n er’ s cl ot hi ng. T he r ecor d r efl ect s t hat M r . B al l pr ovi ded R ober tC ooper a copy of t he pr os ecut i on’ s s er ol ogyr epor t , w hi ch s how ed combi nat i ons of p arti cl es found i n gunpow derbutdi d notr evea l gunpow derr es i due. S im il a r ly, th e P e tit io n e r f u rth e r a ss e rts th a t trial c o u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to ch all en g e th e ad m issi b il ity o f t h e gu n p o w d er ev iden ce . H e co n tend s th a t a n y ex p ert t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he P et i t i oner ’ s ves tw as i r r el evantas no w i t nes s had eve rs t at ed thatt he sh o o ter w o re a v e st. F in a lly , the P e ti ti o n e r c o n ten d s th a t trial c o u n se l er re d b yf a ili n g to chal l enge a dequat el yt he cha i n of cus t odyof t he ves t

. H e cit es t he fa ctt hatt her e w as no t es t i m onyatt r i al r egar di ng t he tr eatm entof t he Pet i t i oner ’ s gol d ves taft eri tw as t aken f r om h is h o u se a n d b ro u g h t to th e p o lice p r o p e r tyro o m . H e c o n ten d s th a t p ro o f a t th e p o stconvi ct i on hear i ng aff

i r m ed hi s al l egat i on t hatt he ves tw as m i s handl ed i n the chai n of c u s to d y . T he pr oof att he pos t

- convi ct i on hear i ng s how ed t hatR ober tC ooperagr eed w i t h t he co n clus ion s o f t h e T B I test ing o f t h e P eti ti o n er’s cloth ing

. M r. G o sn ell test ifi ed tha t M r. C o o p e r w a s p ro v id e d th e f in d in g s o f

th e S tate ’s e x p e rt a n d th a t M r. C o o p e r d id n o t d isp u te t he St ate’s fin d ings. M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed thatno i ndepende ntt es t i ng w as done on t he e v id e n c e . H e e x p lain e d th a t th e S tate ’s p ro o f w a s n o t w ith o u t th e p o ss ib ili tyo f e rro r a n d th is f a c t w a s b ro u g h t o u t a t tria l. T h e P e tit io n e r f a iled to p re se n t a n y a d d iti o n a l p ro o f a t th e p o stconvi ct i on evi dent i aryhear i ng t o es t abl i s h how an i ndepende nt t es t coul d have be nefi t t ed the Pet i t i oner . R egar di ng t he Pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m t o t he chai n of cus t ody , he pr es ent ed t es t i m ony t hatt he ves tw as t aken out of t he bag and phot ogr aphed w hi l e i n pol i ce c us t ody

. T her e w as no proo f th a t it w as expo sed t o g un shot r esi du e. T he P et i t i on er’ s al l egati on s that the v est w a s c o n tam in a ted a re b a se d o n p u re c o n jec tu re . T h e P e tit io n e r i s n o t e n tit led to re lief o n th is c l a i m.-39- i i i

. Fai l ur e t o Pr es er ve Phy s i cal E vi dence T he Pet i t i onercont ends t hatt r i al couns el fai l ed t o pr es er ve phy s i cal evi dence , i

. e. , t he Pet i t i oner ’ s carforfor ens i c t es t i ng, t hatcoul d have i m peac hed the t es t i m ony of O ffi cerL ee. T he Pet i t i oner ’ s carw as s ei zed byt he M emphi s Pol i ce D epart m enton D ece m ber27, 1997, an d w as so ld at au cti o n o n M arc h 3 , 1 9 9 8

. T h e P eti ti o n er c o m p lai n s tha t betw ee n M r. B all ’s appoi nt m enton February13, 1998, and M ar ch 3, 1998, M r . B al l di d not h ing to se cur e the car. T he Peti t i on er con t end s t hat t he fai l ure t o pres erve t he v ehicl e w as prej ud i ci al becau se th e c a r co u ld h a v e p ro v id e d e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e . T h e P e tit io n e r sp e c u late s t h a t f o r e n sic t es t s s how i ng t hat no bl ood or guns hot r es i due w er e pre s enti n t he ca rw oul d have e xoner at ed hi m , as w oul d t es t i ng s how i ng t hat t he Pet i t i oner ’ s t i r es di d notm at ch the t i r e mar ks i n t he a lle y . Itis no t dispu ted th at t h e S tat e d id n o t con d u ct a n y fo ren sic t esti n g o n the P eti ti o n er’s vehi cl e. W h i l e t h e Pe t i t i o n e rma i n t a i n s t h a tf o r e n s i c t e s t i n g o f

t h e v e h i c l e ma yh a ve pr ov ided ex cu l pat or yevi dence , s uch s t at ement i s bas ed pur el yon s pecul at i on and i s not c o n c lu siv e . M o re o v e r, th e P e tit io n e r h a s f a iled to e sta b lish h o w re su lts o f su c h tes tin g w o u ld have a ctual l ybeen e xcul pat or y . T he Pet i t i oner has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hathe w as pr ej udi ced by couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o pr es er ve t he P et i t i oner ’ s vehi cl e forfor ens i c t es t i ng. H e i s notent i t l ed to re lie f o n th is c la im

. b. D efi ci entPer for m ance i

. A l l egat i ons ( a) M ot i ve T he Pe t i t i o n e rc o n t e n d s t h a tc o u n s e l ’ s f a i l u r e t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h o r o u g h l yt h e i s s u e of m ot i ve r ender ed couns el unp r e p a r e d t o p r es entevi dence under m i ni ng t he pr os ecut i on’ s cas e. H e as s er t s t hat t he S t at e ar gued thatt he Pet i t i oneral one had mot i ve t o comm i tt he s hoot i ng b e c a u s e h is w a s th e o n ly al te rc a tio n w ith O f f ic e r W illia m s a t th e c lu b e a rl ie r t h a t n ig h t. A tt he pos t

- convi ct i on evi dent i a ryh e a r i n g , th e Pe t i t i o n e rp r e s e n t e d e v i d e n ce thatot her p a t r o n s h a d b e e n e

j e c t e d f r o m Cru mp y ’ s Co me d yCl u b d u r i n g t h e p a r t y . Do n a l d Cru mp t est i fi ed thathe h ad eject ed a patr on , w ho t hereaft er ha d an al t ercat i on w i t h O ffi cer W i l l i am s. M r . C rum p des cr i bed thi s m an as 5' 10" a nd w ear i ng a s por t s coat

. C as s andr a Turne rt es t i fi ed t hats he obs er ved O ffi cerW i l l i ams esco rt ing a patr on outof t he cl ub befor e the comedi an p erf o rm ed

. K ev in R o b inso n also o b serv ed O ff icer W il li am s ejec t a m an k n o w n as R icha rd

“ G o ld ie” F ra n k lin

. F in a lly , F e b b re B e rry o b se rv e d a m a n in a b lu e jea n jac k e t stru g g le w ith t w o s ecur i t yguar ds s om e t i m e befor e m i dni ght

. T he Pet i t i oneras s er t s t hathad thi s t es t i m ony-40-

been p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g t h e t r i a l , Off i c e rLe e ’ s r e c o l l e c t i o n t h a tn e i t h e rh e n o rOff i cer W i l l i ams had other al t er cat i ons t hat eveni ng w oul d have been i m peac hed. A ddi t i onal l y , he ar gues t hatt he t es t i m onyof t hes e w i t nes s es w oul d have unde r m ined the St at e’ s t heoryof m ot i ve bec aus e i tw oul d have s how n t he pos s i bi l i t yof anotherper s on havi ng r eas on t o s eek re v e n g e a g a in s t O f

f ic e r W illia m s f

o r b e in g e

je c te d f ro m th e c lu b

. ( b) E y ew i t nes s T es t i m ony T he Pet i t i onercont ends t hatt r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve for fai l i ng t o di s coverand pr es entt he t es t i m onyof J as on Shor t erand K ar en Thornt on. I n a s t at ement dat ed D ece m ber 26, 1997, K ar en Thornt on pr ovi ded the fol l ow i ng des cr i pt i on of t he s hoot er : a bl ack mal e, aged 29- 32, 5' 9", 165- 170 pounds , s l i m bui l t , “s ki nnyfac e, ” and da r k co m p lected. K ar en T hor nt on fur t herdes cr i bed the s hoot eras w ear i ng a bl ack tur t l enec k s w eat er , dar k pant s or j eans , a bl ack s kul l cap, and a l ong coat

. J as on Shor t err eca l l ed thatt he s hoot er w or e a l ong black shi rt , black pan t s, and black shoes. T he P et i t i on er as ser t s that bot h o f t hese des cr i pt i ons contr adi ctt he des cr i pt i o n pr ovi ded byO ffi cerL ee, w ho t ol d t he j ur yt hatt he suspect w ore a m ult i -col ored sw eat er and go l d b and ana. Th e P et i t i on er as ser t s that had t hese w i t nes s es been pr es ent ed dur i ng t r i al , t he j ur y w oul d have que s t i oned the ac cur acyof O ffi cer L ee’ s r ecol l ect i on. H e as s er t s t hatt he abs ence of t hes e s t at ement s r ender s t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct unr el i abl e. ( c) D i s pat ch Logs T h e P e tit io n e r c o n c e d e s th a t th e d isp a tch lo g re p o rts m a yn o t h a v e b e e n su b jec t to R u le 16 d isco v eryb ec au se th eyw ere cre ated in the reg u lar co u rse o f p o li ce b u sine ss b ef o re t he St at e’ s i nves t i gat i on of O ffi cer W i l l i ams’ m ur der

. T he Pet i t i oner as s er t s , how ever , t hat couns el had a dut y t o pur s ue t he di s pat ch l og r epor t s as par tof a “ t hor ough and i ndepende nt in v e stig a tio n .” T h e P e tit io n e r a rg u e s th a t h a d th e d isp a tch lo g s b e e n d isc o v e re d b yc o u n se l, t he def ens e w oul d have ha d acc es s t o O ffi cerL ee ’s in it ial des cr i pt i on of t he s hoot eras w ea r i n g a b l a c k s h i r ta n d whi t e c a p . Th i s d e s c r i p t i o n c o n t r a s t e d t o Off i c e rLe e ’ s t r i al t es t i m onyi n w hi ch he s t at ed t hat t he Pet i t i onerdi d notw eara hatand w or e a mul t i

- col or ed s w eat er . T he Pet i t i oneras s er t s t hathad the j ur ybeen pr i vyt o O ffi cerL ee’ s i nconsi s t ent des cr i pt i ons of t he s hoot er , a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yexi s t s t hat at l eas t one j ur orw oul d have c o n c lu d e d th a t O f

f ic e r L e e ’s te s tim o n yw a s u n re lia b le

. A ddi t i onal l y , t he Pet i t i oner as s er t s t hat t he di s pat ch l ogs pr ovi ded a r el i abl e t i m el i ne of t he ni ght ’ s event s . A t t r i al , O ffi cerM ar s hal l t es t i fi ed thathe enc ount er ed the Pet i t i oner at 1 2 :30 a.m . T h e P eti ti o n er asserts that the disp atch log s sh o w that O ff ice r M a rs h a ll’ s encount eroccurr ed no ea r l i ert han 2: 01 a. m . A ccor di ng t o t he l ogs , the la s tof t he pol i ce offi cer s who r e s p o n d e d t o Off i c e r W i l l i a ms ’ 1 : 1 8 a . m. r a d i o d i s p a t c h l e f t t h e c l u b a t 2: 01-41-

a. m . O ffi cer L ee t es t i fi ed t hat t he P et i t i oner r etur ned t o t he cl ub aft ert he l as toffi cerl eftt he par ki ng l otand thatO ffi cerM ar s hal l arr i ved aft er t he Pet i t i oner w as deni ed entr yt o t he cl ub. T h e P e t i t i o n e ra s s e r t s t h a th e wa s p r e j u d i c e d b yt h e i mp l i c a t i o n t h a tt h e P e t i t i o n e rh a d t wo h o u rs to e n c o u n ter O f

f ice r M a rsh a ll, lea v e th e c lu b , d riv e to M s. K im b le’ s h o u se , arg u e w ith M s. K im b le, d riv e b a c k to th e c lu b , p a rk , a n d sh o o t O f f ice r W ill iam s. T h e P e tit io n e r a ss e rts th a t h e c o u ld h a v e o n lysp e n t a q u a rte r o f th is tim e o n th e se e v e n ts, re n d e rin g it v irtu a lly im p o s s ib le f

o r h im to h a v e b e e n th e s h o o te r. Fi nal l y , t he Pet i t i onercont ends t hatt he di s pat ch l ogs s how t hat O ffi cerL ee’ s di s pat ch announci ng O ffi cerW i l l i ams w as dow n w as m ade a t2: 32: 09 a. m . A tt r i al , t he St at e’ s pr oof wa s t h a tt h e s h o o t i n g o c c u r r e d a t 2 : 3 5 a . m. Th e P e t i t i o n e ra s s e r t s t h a tt h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n t i me fur t hers uppor t s hi s pr opos i t i on t hati t w as u n l i kel yt hathe coul d have be en det ai ned by O ffi cerW i l l i ams, m ade tw o t r i ps of four m i l es , ar gued w i t h hi s gi r l fr i end, par ked hi s car , and s hotO ffi cerW i l l i ams i n l es s t han thi r t ym i nut es . E s s ent i al l y , t he P et i t i oner ar gues t hatt he di s pat ch l ogs w oul d have c l ar i fi ed t he t i m e l i ne of t he ni ght ’ s event s bys how i ng t hatO ffi cer M ar s hal l coul d nothave be en att he cl ub befor e 2: 01 a. m . , t h e ti m e the l as toffi cerl eftt he c lu b a f te r b e in g d is p a tc h e d f

o r a d is tu rb a n c e . (d ) E y e w itn e ss S tate m e n ts T he Pet i t i oner compl ai ns t hatM r . B al l acqui es ced i n t he non- di s cl os ur e of e x c u lp a to rysta tem e n ts b yM a rk L e ste r, C h a rle s G o in , a n d Jo y c e Je ltz. T h e P e tit io n e r a ss e rts that thes e d esc ri p ti o n s co n tr ad ictthe d esc ri p ti o n p rov ided b yO ff icer L ee , w h o told the jury t hatt he s us pectw or e a m ul t i

- col or ed s w eat erand gol d bandana

. T he Pet i t i oneras s er t s t hat had thes e w i t nes s es been pr es ent ed duri ng t r i al , t he j ur yw oul d have que s t i oned the ac cur acy of O ffi cerL ee’ s r ecol l ect i on. H e as s er t s thatt he abs ence of t hes e s t at ement s r ender s t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct unr el i abl e. W e sum m ar i ze t he subs t ance of t he i n- hous e s t at ement s obt ai ned from t hese w i t nesses as fol l ow s:

M ark L es t er sa w th e sh o o tin g a n d late r p ro v id e d a c o n sid erab ly d iffe ren t des cripti o n o f th e e v en t th an that g iven b ythe S tat e’s w i t nes s es . M r . L es t er s t at ed t hat he hear d t w o guns hot s . H e s aw a m an fa l l do w n an d h eard th e shoo t er s t at e “P ayback i s a m ot herf**cke r . ” M r . L es t er obs er ved t he s hoot er run i nt o t he par ki ng l otand geti nt o t he bac k s eatof a bl ue fou r-do or O l ds m obi l e bei ng dr i ven by a bl ack mal e w ear i ng a dark col or ed cap. M r . L es t erfur t her d esc ri bed the s hoot eras a bl ack mal e, 6' 2", 190 pounds , and s hor tb lack hai r . H e adde d t hatt he s hoot erw as w ear i ng bl ue j eans and a bl ue s hi r tw i t h dar kerbl ue ar ound t he shoul der s . M ar k L es t er al s o di d not s ee O ffi ce Lee-42- an yw h ere in the v ic in ity at th e ti m e o f th e sh o o ti n g . M ark L ester coul d noti dent i fyt he s hoot erfr om t he phot os pr ead c o n ta in in g a p ic tu re o f

th e P e titio n e r. C h a r les G o in vi ew ed a phot o s pr ead butcoul d noti dent i fyt he P e titio n e r a s th e s h o o te r. J o y ce J eltz s aw t he s hoot i ng fr om t he vant ag e poi ntof bei ng fi ve fe etaw ayfr om t he vi ct i m . I n a s t at ement gi ven D ece m ber 2 6 , 1 9 9 7 , J o y c e J e l t z d e s c r i b e d t h e p e rp e t r a t o r a s we a r i n g b r o wn p a n t s a n d a d a r k c o l o r e d k n i t tu r t l e n e c k s wea t e r whi c h w as pul l ed overhi s nos e and mout h. She s t at ed thatt he s hoot erhad hi s l efthand overhi s fac e. M s . J el t z adde d t hat o n ly o n e s hot w as fi r ed and then the s us pectr an. She t hen hea r d t w o ort hr ee m or e guns hot s . She added thathercarr ec eived dam age f r om t he g un shots

. S he descri bed t he shoo t er as a black m al e, 5' 10 ", 25 t o 30 y ear s ol d, 160 t o 180 pounds , dar k compl ect ed, l ow f a d e h a ir c u t, an d d a rk b ro w n h a ir. M s. Je ltz w a s u n a b le to i d ent i fyt he s hoot erfr om a phot os pr ead. O n A ugus t19, 1998, M s . J el t z t al ked w i t h A l y s on Fr azi er . D ur i ng t hi s i nt er vi ew , s he t o l d M s . F r a z i e r t h a t s h e a r r i v e d a t t h e c l u b b e t we e n 1 1 : 0 0 p . m. and 11: 30 p . m. Sh e s t a t e d t h a t s h e o n l y s t a y e d a t t h e c l u b for t hi r t y t o for t y - fi ve m i nut es . She pr ovi ded a s i m i l ardes cr i pt i on of t he s hoot er a s pr ovi ded i n herD ece m ber26 s t at ement but a d d e d t h a tt h e s h o o t e r was n o twe a r i n g a v e s to ra j a c k e t

. At t ri al , Jel t z t est i fi ed that t he sho oterw as w eari ng a go l d v est

. M s. Jel t z adm i t t ed thatshe saw th e P e ti t i on er on t el evis i on . M s. J el t z al s o i ndi cat ed that O ffi cer L ee w as s t andi ng fac i ng O ffi cer W i l l i ams att he t i m e of the s hoot i ng.

(e ) P o lice R e p o rts T he Pet i t i onercont ends t hatbyvi r tue of the C ons entO r der , t r i al couns el r el i nqui s hed a c c e ss to p o lice re p o rts, in c lu d in g o n e re p o rt in c lu d in g a sta tem e n t g iv e n b yO f f ice r L e e to t he I ns pect i onal Ser vi ces B ur eau j us ta fe w hour s aft er t he shoot i ng, unequi vocal l ys t at i ng t hat t he P et i t i oner w as not w ear i ng a m ul t i

- col or ed sw eat er . I n t he r epor t , O ffi cerL ee ha d des cr i bed the perpetr at oras a bl ack mal e, 5' 11", 180 pounds , and w ea ri ng a w hi t e ca p. O ffi cerL ee a l s o comm ent ed that t he perpetr at orhad r emoved t he mul t i

- col or ed s w eat erand w as w ear i ng a bl ack t

- s hi r tand pant s . H e adde d t hatt he perpetr at orw as sti ll w ear i ng t he-43-

or ange s hoes

. T he r epor tfur t herr efl ect ed t hat di s pat ch i ndi cat ed a c al l t i m e of 2: 39 a. m . and th a t O f f ic e r L e e re q u e s te d th e a m b u la n c e to e x p e d ite a t 2 :4 1 a .m .

( f) D ebr a K i m bl e’ s St at ement T he Pet i t i onercont ends t hatcouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o confr ont D ebr a K i m bl e w i t h herpr i or s t a t e m e n t t o i n v e s t i g a t o r s c o n s t i tu t e s d e f i c i e n t p e r f

o r m a n c e . M o n t h s b e f

o r e h e rt e s t i m o n y, D e b ra K im b le to ld d e f

e n se in v e stig a to rs th a t sh e a n d th e P e tit io n e r h a d a rg u e d f o r tw e n ty m i nut es aft erhe arr i ved atherapart m entat2: 15 a. m . or l at er . T he P et i t i oners t at es t hathad M s . K i m bl e and t he P et i t i onerar gued fort w entym i nut es , t he Pet i t i onercoul d nothave s hot O f f ice r W ill iam s. T h e P e tit io n e r a ss e rts th a t M s. K im b le’ s s tate m e n t es tab lish e s h is a lib i. A tt r i al , D ebr a K i m bl e t es t i fi ed thatthe P eti ti onerarr i ved atherapart m entat appr oxi m at el y 2: 15 a. m . She t es t i fi ed t hat s he and t he Pet i t i oner t al ked for a “coupl e of m in u tes , m a yb e .” S h e sta ted th a t sh e th e n re tu rn e d to h e r b e d ro o m a lo n e a n d w e n t b a c k to s l eep. W hen s he aw oke the nextm or ni ng, t he Pet i t i onerw as gone. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, defe ns e couns el ques t i oned D ebr a K i m bl e as to w hatt i m e the Pet i t i onerarr i ved and how l ong he s t ay ed atherapart m ent

. M s . K i m bl e confi r m ed thatt he Pet i t i onerarr i ved betw een 2: 15 and 2: 20 a. m . and t hat t hey onl y t al ked fora coupl e of mi nut es . M s . K i m bl e conf i r m ed t hats he r etur ned t o herbedr oom and t hat s he per m i t t ed the Pet i t i onert o s l eep on he rcouch. She t es t i fi ed thatt he Pet i t i onerl efta mul t i

- col or ed s w eat er , a gol d ves t , and a ha tather r es i dence

. T he Pet i t i oneras s ert s t hathad couns el confr ont ed M s . K i m bl e w i t h herpr i or s t at ement , t he j ur yw oul d have ha d t he bas i s upon w hi ch t o ques t i on t he s t r ength of her re c o lle c tio n . D ur i ng t he pos t

- convi ct i on hear i ng, M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed thatt he def ens e t eam spoke w i t h D ebr a K i m bl e. H e char act er i zed her s t at ement s as bei ng of “extr emel y l i m i t ed val ue” beca us e s he coul d notcorr obor at e the Pet i t i oner ’ s al i bi

. H e related that t her e w as no evi dence t hatcoul d pl ace t he P et i t i oner at D ebr a K i m bl e’ s apart m ent betw een 2: 30 a. m . and 2: 33 a. m . w hen the s hoot i ng occurr ed. M s . K i m bl e t ol d t he def ens e t eam t hats he s aw t he Pet i t i oner a round 2: 15 a. m . She s t at ed thats he then w entback t o s l eep. T he di s t ance b etw ee n M s. K im b le’s ap artm en t and the c lub w as ab o u t fo u r an d o n e-h alf m inu tes b yca r. i i

. T es t i m onyD ur i ng T r i al T he St at e’ s pr oof att r i al pr i m ar i l yr el i ed upon O ffi cerL ee’ s i dent i fi ca ti on of t he Pet i t i oner . O ffi cerL ee t es t i fi ed thathe had a n encount erw i t h t he Pet i t i onerear l i eron t he eveni ng of t he cr i m e. H e expl ai ned t hat t he Pet i t i oner w as “s cr eami ng t hathi s carhad bee n s t o l e n . ” O f

f i c e r L e e s t a t e d t h a t d u r i n g t h i s e n c o u n t e r , t h e P e t i t i o n e r“ h a d o n a b l a c k d e rb y, a m u lt i- c o lo re d sw e a ter ,” d a rk p a n ts, “ so m e g o ld ish -y e llo w h u sh p u p p ies w ith a b u c k le-44-

acr os s t hem and a g o ld v est

. ” O ffi cerL ee t es t i fi ed thatas a r es ul tof t hi s encount er , t he Pet i t i o n e r was t o l d t h a t h e was n o t p e r mi t t e d b a c k i n t o t h e c l u b

. Re g a r d i n g t h e s hoot i ng, Of f i c e rL e e t e s t i f

i e d t h a t“ a r o u n d 2 : 3 0 o r3 : 0 0 , ” h e a n d Of f i c e rWi l l i a ms we n to u t s i d e . He s a id th a t O f

f ic e r W illia m s w a s s ta n d in g ri g h t b e s id e h im , “ o u r e lb o w s w a s to u c h in g .” Of f i c e rLe e “ h e a r d a s h o t

. ” He t e s t i f i e d t h a th e tu r n e d ar ou n d a n d s a w Of f i c e rW i l l i a ms d o w n . H e started ch asin g af ter th e sh o o ter. H e the n ex ch an g ed g u n fire w ith th e sh o o ter. O ff icer L ee t es t i fi ed thatt he s hoot ergoti nt o hi s carand l eftgoi ng t ow ar ds J ames Road. O ffi cer L ee t es t i fi ed t hat he r ecogni zed the s hoot eras t he Pet i t i oner“[o] nce he opened the d o o r , t h e d o me l i g h tc a me o n a n d a f t e rh e s h o tOf

f i c e rWi l l i a ms , we l o o k e d e y e t o e y e . He l ooked atm e and I l ooked at hi m . ” O ffi cer L ee t es t i fi ed thatatt he t i m e of the s hoot i ng, t he Pet i t i onerw as notw ear i ng a ves tora hat

. O ffi cerL ee t es t i fied that t he Pet i t i onerw as w eari ng t he y el l ow shoes, t he m ult i -col ored sw eat er, dark pa nts , and he had a ban dan a across hi s fac e. O ffi cer L ee’ s i dent i fi cat i on focus ed on t he P et i t i oner ’ s ey es w hi ch he de s cr i bed as “dark and gl aze d. ” O ffi cerL ee a ffi r m ed that t he P et i t i oner had “t he s ame sw eat eron” t hat h e h a d b e e n w e a ri n g d u ri n g th e e a rl ie r e n c o u n te r w ith O f f ic e rs L e e a n d W illia m s . O n cro ss-ex am ination , tr ial co u n sel q u esti o n ed O ff icer L ee as to the p e rp e tr ator’s cl ot hi ng at t he t i m e of t he shoot i ng. O ffi cer L ee confi r m ed t hat t he P et i t i onerw as w ear i ng a s w eat er , t he gol di s h s hoes , and dark t r ous er s . O ffi cer L ee ad d ed t hatt he Pet i t i onerw as a ls o w e a ri n g a g o ld b a n d a n a a c ro s s h is n o s e a n d m o u th

. A tt r i al , J oy ce J el t z t es t i fi ed thatt he s hoot erw as appr oxi m at el y5' 10", t hi n bui l d, betw een 160 a nd 180 pounds , t hi n s hape, and a l onger , s l i m fac e. M s . J el t z adde d t hatt he s hoot erw as w ear i ng dar k col or s , br ow n pant s and a br ow n ves t

. She s t at ed thatt he s hoot er had a “ s w eat erpul l ed up ar ound hi s fac e. ” O n cr os s - exami nat i on, t r i al couns el ques t i oned M s . J el t z as t o herdes cr i pt i on of t he s hoot er ’ s cl ot hi ng. M s . J el t z af fi r m ed thatt he s hoot er w as w eari ng dark cl othi ng and had t he low er port i on of h i s face cov ered w i t h clot hing. M s. Je ltz te stif

ied th a t th e sh o o te r w a s n o t w e a rin g a h a t. T ria l co u n se l q u e stio n e d M s. Je ltz r egar di ng herD ece m ber26t h s t at ement i n w hi ch s he di d not m ent i on t he fa ctt hatt he s hoot er w as w ear i ng a ves t

. She r es ponded, “I r emem ber now , bet t er t han I di d, exac t l y at t hatt i m e. B eca us e I can s ee i toverand over

. ” She expl ai ned t hat s he r emem ber ed t he ves taft ergi vi ng h e r i n itia l s ta te m e n t. D ur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent , t he pr os ecut i on r el i ed upon O ffi cer L ee’ s i dent i fi cat i on of t he Pet i t i oner . T he St at e ar gued that“[O ffi cer L ee ]’s a tr ai ned obs er ver . ” The cl os i ng ar gum ent bol s t er ed t he s i gni fi canc e of O ffi cer L ee’ s i dent i fi cat i on. T h e p rose cut or r efe r ence d t he fa ct i n cl os i ng t hat O ffi cer L ee “s aw t he sw eat er , he s aw t he fa ce a nd he s aw th e c a r.” T h e p ro s e c u to r a ls o m a d e th e f o llo w in g s ta te m e n ts : “ H e m a d e a n id e n tif ic a tio n .”

“ H e m a d e a n id e n tific a tio n n o t o n ly o f a p e rso n , b u t o f

c lo th in g .” In re b u ttal, M r. B a ll a rg ued t hat t he “quest i on of i den t i t y i s an ess enti al i ssue i n this case. ” M r. B a ll-45-

a c k n o w led g e d th e c o n tra d icti o n b e tw e e n L e e ’s te stim o n ya t trial a n d h is D e c e m b e r 2 6 th s t a t e me n ts t a t i n g t h a th e f i r s ti d e n t i f

i e d t h e P e t i t i o n e r “ wh e n t h e d o me l i g h t i n t h e c a rc a me on. ” H e al s o comm ent ed on J oy ce Je l t z’ s contr adi ct or y s t at ement s r egar di ng w hetherornot th e sh o o ter w a s w e a rin g a v e st. iii . A n a ly sis C o u n se l’s d u tyto in v e stig a te a n d p re p a re d e riv e s f ro m c o u n se l’s b a sic f

u n c tio n “ to m ake the adve r s ar i al t es t i ng pr oces s w or k i n t he part i cul ar cas e. ” K i m m el m an v. M or r i s on, 4 77 U

. S

. 36 5, 38 4 ( 19 86 ). C ou nsel ’s du t y t o i nv est i gate al l reas on able l i nes of defe nse is m os tstr ict ly o b s er ved i n capi t al cas es . A l t hough t r i al couns el i s aff or ded gr eatdefe r ence o v e r m a tte r s o f tr ia l stra teg y , the d e c isio n to se lec t a tria l stra teg ym u st b e re a so n a b ly s uppor t ed and w i t hi n t he w i de ra nge of pr ofes s i onal l ycompet entas s i s t ance . St r i ckl and, 466 U .S . at 6 9 0 . V iew in g th e p e r f o r m a n c e o f

c o u n se l so lelyf

ro m th e p e rsp e c tiv e o f

stra teg ic c o m p e ten c e , the re v iew in g c o u rt m u st f in d th a t d e f

e n se c o u n se l m a d e a s ig n if ic a n t ef f o rt, b a se d o n re a so n a b le in v e stig a tio n a n d lo g ica l ar g u m e n t, t o p re se n t th e d e f e n d a n t’s c a se a b ly to the jury

. A n att o rne y is n o t inef fe cti v e m ere ly b ec au se h e f ail s to f o ll o w ev eryev iden ti ary lea d . H o w e v e r, a s tra teg ic d e c isio n is n o t re a so n a b le w h e n th e a tto rn e yh a s f a iled to in v e s tig a te h is o p tio n s a n d m a k e a re a s o n a b le c h o ic e b e tw e e n th e m . T he evi dence pr es ent ed att he pos t

- convi ct i on evi dent i aryhear i ng r evealed that cou nse l k new of o r s ho uld have kn ow n o f con t radi ct i ng i den t i fi cat i on s byw i t nesses, i ncl udi ng t he pr os ecut i on’ s k eyw i t nes s es : J oy ce J el t z and O ffi cerL ee. T he Pet i t i oner pr ovi ded numer ous exhi b it s i l l us t r at i ng t hatt he i nves t i gat or s i nfor m ed tr i al couns el of num er ous confl i ct i ng s t at ement s of w i t nes s es . T he t es t i m ony at t he Pet i t i oner ’ s or i gi nal t r i al evidences t hat t ri al cou nsel essent i al l yi gn ored t he co nfli ct i ng st at em ents byfai l i ng t o crossexami ne O ffi cerL ee a nd J oy ce J el t z thor oughl yand byfai l i ng t o pr es entt he t es t i m onyof a d d iti o n a l w itn e ss e s w h o w e re p re se n t a t th e tim e o f th e sh o o tin g . T ria l co u n se l h a d w ith in t hei rcontr ol admi s s i bl e evi dence w hi ch w o ul d have pe r m i t t ed the def ens e t o emphasi ze f law s in th e p ro se c u tio n ’s c a se . B y f a ili n g to c ro ss -e x a m in e O f f ice r L e e e f

f e c tiv e ly a s to h is confl i ct i ng s t at ement s r egar di ng t he i dent i fi cat i on he pr ovi ded of the s hoot er , t r i al couns el l eft t he jur yw i t h essent i al l yun rebut t ed and u ntes t ed tes t i m on y . T ri al cou nsel ’s fai l ure t o u se t he pr i ors t at ement s of O ffi cerL ee a s w el l as hi s fai l ur e t o us e t he confl i ct i ng i dent i fi cat i ons of ot her w i t nes s es fai l ed t o s ubj ectt he pr os ecut i on’ s cas e ade quat el yt o t he adve r s ar i al process. T he ev i den ce con vict i ng t he P et i t i on er w as notov e rw he l ming. A gain, t he S t at e’s case r el i ed upon the ey ew i t nes s i dent i fi ca ti o n of t he Pet i t i onerbyO ffi cerL ee. I n cl os i ng ar gum ent , t he pr os ecut i on r efe r r ed t o O ffi cerL ee a s a “tr ai ned obs erve r. ” The str at egyof t h e d e f e n s e w a s t o q u e s t i o n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e p e rp e t r a t o r ’ s i d e n t i t y.-46-

T ri al co u n sel fa il ed to u se in f o rm ati o n rea d il yav ail ab le t o att ac k the p rose cu ti o n ’s ey e w itn ess testi m o n y . Ind ee d , co u n sel fa il ed to u se O ff icer L ee ’s ow n co n tr ad ict o ry sta tem e n ts o f

id e n tific a tio n to c o u n ter h is tria l te stim o n y . A t tria l, O f f ice r L e e u n e q u iv o c a lly m ai ntai ned t hat t he shoo t er w as w eari ng a m ult i -col ored sw eat er. T ri al cou nsel fai l ed to use O f f ice r L e e ’s o w n p rio r sta tem e n ts th a t th e s h o o ter w a s w e a rin g a b lac k sh irt an d a w h ite cap. Si m i l ar l y , couns el fai l ed t o t ake a dvant age of t he s t at ement s of M ar k L es t er , C har l es G oin, and Joy ce Jel t z ob t ai ned by Inquis i t or, Inc. , as refer enced i n thei r num erous i n-hou se m emora nda. L i kew i s e, byagr eei ng t o t h e co n sent or der , couns el r el i nqui s hed the o p p o rtu n ityto g ain in fo rm ati o n w h ich w o u ld h av e c o n tr ad icted O ff icer L ee ’s i n -co u rt t es t i m ony . W i t h r egar d t o a mot i ve for t he s hoot i ng, t he St at e foc us ed upon the fa ctt hatt he Pet i t i onerhad a pr evi ous al t er cat i on w i t h O ffi cerW i l l i ams t hat eveni ng. T r i al couns el fai l ed t o at t ack t hi s as pect of t he pros ecut i on’ s cas e byi gnor i ng evi dence of i nci dent s t hateveni ng in v o lv in g o th e r p a tro n s. F in a lly , co u n se l’s c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n o f D e b ra K im b le f a iled to c a ll i nt o ques t i on herpr evi ous accou n t thatt he di s cus s i on betw een he r s el f and the Pet i t i oner las ted tw e n tym in u te s a n d n o t th e “ c o u p le” m in u tes a s s h e tes tifie d . T h u s, n o t o n lyd id c o u n s e l f

a i l t o a s s i s tt h e i rc l i e n tb yn o tu s i n g i n f o r ma t i o n a v a i l a b l e t h r o u g h t h e i ro wn i nves t i gat or s , couns el negat i vel yi m pact ed th e d ef ens e byagr eei ng t o t he cons entor der w hi ch r es ul t ed i n t he fa i l ur e t o obt ai n us eful i nfor m at i on t o t he def ens e. W hen an a t t or neyhas m ade a ser i es of er r or s t hat pr event s t he pr operpr es ent at i on of a def ens e, i ti s appr opr i at e t o consi d er the cum ul at i ve i m pactof t he err or s i n as s es s i ng pr ej udi ce. See H arr i s byand thr ough R amsey er v. W ood, 64 F. 3d 1432, 1438 ( 9t h C i r . 1995) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. W hi l e i tr emai ns t he bur den of t he Pet i t i onert o “ pr ove pr ej udi ce, ” s ee S trick lan d , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 9 3 , the P e tit io n e r is n o t re q u ire d to d e m o n s tr a te h o w th e re su lt w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e re n t. R a th e r, a d e f

e n d a n t m u st s h o w th a t th e re is a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yt hat abs ent t he defi ci enci es of counse l t he out come of t he tr i al w oul d have be en di ffe r ent

. A r eas onabl e proba bi l i t y does notm ean a cert ai nt y , oreven a m or e l i kel yt han not d if f e re n t o u tco m e . S trick lan d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4

. It d o e s n o t m e a n th a t n o ra tio n a l ju ro r c o u ld cons t i tut i o n all y fin d t he Pet i t i onergui l t y . T he r evi ew i ng cour tdoes notas k as t o w het her t he def endanti s i nnocentof t he cr i m e. T he ques t i on r em ains w hethert he def endantw as depr i ved of a r eas onabl e cha nce of acqui t t al due t o hi s couns el ’ s per for m ance . T h e in c o n sis ten t tes tim o n ya n d sta tem e n ts o f O f f ice r L e e a n d Jo y c e Je ltz c o u ld e a sily h a v e ra ise d q u e stio n s in th e m in d s o f th e ju ro rs r e g a rd in g th e ir c re d ib ili ty a n d th e ir a b ili ty to id e n tifyth e P e tit io n e r a s th e sh o o ter

. Q u e stio n s o f c re d ib ili ty o f w itn e ss e s ar e n o t ap tly r evi ew ed i n hi nds i ght by an appel l at e cour t

. C onfl i ct i ng s t at ement s m ayappea ri ns i gni fi cant upon a col d r ecor d aft ert he fa ct

. T he s ame statem en ts, how ever , m ayveryw el l pr ove sig n if ica n t w h e n o b se rv e d f

irst h a n d b y a ju ry . A s s u c h , itis th e ju ry , n o t th e a p p e llate c o u rt, w h o se p ro v in c e it is to e v a lu a te th e w itn e ss e s c re d ib ili tya n d to d e c id e th e d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilt

. See M at t hew s v. A br amaj t y s , 319 F. 3d 780, 790 ( 6t h C i r . 2003)

. T he ac tual r es ol ut i on of t he-47-

confl i ct i ng evi dence , t he cr ed ibil ityof w i tnes s es , and the pl aus i bi l i t yof compet i ng expl anat i ons i s t he t as k t o be per for m ed by a r at i onal j ur y . C ouns el i n t he pr es entcas e fa i l ed t o pr es ent su ch a ca se t o t he j ur yw i t h t hei rfai l ur e t o cr os s - exami ne compet ent l yt he w i t nes s es i dent i fy i ng t he Pet i t i oneras t he s hoot er . T he j ur y i n t he pr es entcas e w as depr i ved o f t h e ri g h t to hea r test im o n y that co u ld hav e sup p li ed a “rea so n ab le d o u b t.” C o u n sel’s fai l ur e t o pr es entr eadi l yava il ab le evi dence chal l engi ng t he ey ew i t nes s i dent i fi cat i on s uffi ci ent l yunder m i nes confi dence i n t he out come of t hi s cas e t o es t abl i s h pr ej udi ce. See, e .g ., A v e ryv . P re len sn ik , 5 4 8 F .3 d 4 3 4 , 4 3 9 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (c o u n se l’s f a ilu re to in v e stig a te t es t i m onyof pot ent i al al i bi w i t nes s es pr ej udi ced defe ndant ’ s t r i al ) ; H i ggi ns v. R eni co, 470 F

. 3d 62 4, 63 5 (6t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( cou nsel ’s fai l ure t o cross- exam i ne k eyi den t i fi cat i on w i t ness u n d e rm in e d c o n f

id e n c e in o u tco m e o f

c a se ). C o u n se l’s f

a ilu re to c o n d u c t an a d e q u a te p retri al i n v esti g ati o n , co u n sel’s fa il u re to p rep are fo r t ri al ad eq u ately , an d co u n sel’s fa il u re t o us e the i nfor m at i on avai l abl e att he t i m e of t ri al s uffi ces fora s how i ng of pr ej udi ce. C ou nsel ’s defici ent act i on s throug ho ut theirrepr esent at i on of the P et i t i on er col l ect i v e ly es t abl i s h a pre

j udi ce of s uch magni tude thatw e ca n r eac h no concl us i on ot hert han thatt he err or s cumul at i vel y pr ej udi ced the Pet i t i oner ’ s r i ghtt o a fa i rpr ocee di ng and underm i ned confi dence i n t he out come of t he t r i al

. W e concl ude t hat a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yexi s t s t hat a b s e n t th e d e f

ic ie n c ie s o f

c o u n s e l, th e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e re n t. B

. Penal t yPhas e D efi ci enci es T o pr evai l on a cl ai m t hat couns el w er e i neff ect i ve i n t he pena l t yphas e of a capi t al t r i al , t he pet i t i onerm us ts how “a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , abs entt he err or s , t he s ent ence r

. . . w o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e b a lan c e o f a g g ra v a tin g a n d m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s d id notw arr an t d eat h. ” St r i ckl and, 466 U

. S. at695. T he Pet i t i onerr ai s es t w o compl ai nt s t hat t r i al couns el fai l ed t o funct i on as eff ect i ve couns el as guar ant eed by bot h t he Tennes s ee a nd U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n s. In th is re g a rd , the P e tit io n e r a ss e rts th a t trial c o u n se l d e n ied h im e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l at th e p e n a lty p h a se o f h is c a p ital trial b yb re a c h in g a c c e p tab le sta n d a rd s f

o r c a p ital re p re se n tatio n , in th a t: 1

. T ria l c o u n se l w a s ine f f e c tiv e f o r fa ilin g to in v e stig a te m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s adequa t el y ; and 2. T r i al couns el fai l ed t o i nt r oduce e vi dence of t he r es i dual d o u b t of the P eti ti o n er. 1. Fai l ur e t o I nves t i gat e M i t i gat i ng C i r cumst ance s T he Pet i t i onercont ends t hatt r i al couns el fai l ed t o i nves t i gat e mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s adequa t el y . Speci fi cal l y , t he Peti ti onercompl ai ns ( 1) t hatcouns el di d not pr ovi de s uffi ci entfunds forI nqui s i t or , I nc. t o compl et e the i nv esti gat i on of m i t i gat i on-48-

evi dence and ( 2 ) th at counse l di d notcons ul tw i t h I nqui s i t or , I nc. ’ s i nves t i gat oras t o t he in f o rm a tio n sh e d e v e lo p e d . T h e P e titio n e r m a in tain s th a t trial c o u n se l re f u se d to comm uni cat e w i t h G l or i Shet t l es , t he I nqui s i t o r in v es t i gat or , l eavi ng hert o compl et e her i nve s t i g a t i o n o n h e ro wn. Th e Pe t i t i o n e rb l a me s M s . Sh e t t l e s ’ f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n r e l evant document s , i ncl udi ng t he Pet i t i oner ’ s bi r t h, m edi cal , and j uveni l e corr ect i on r ecor ds , on t r i al couns el ’ s l ack of

i ns t ruct i on and fundi ng. A l ong s i m i l arl i nes , t he Pet i t i oners ubm i t s t hat beca us e t he Pet i t i oner ’ s backgr ound i nves t i gat i on w as i ncompl et e, D r . C i occa ’ s eval uat i on o f th e P eti ti o n er w as b ase d o n inco m p let e in f o rm ati o n an d h e w as u n ab le t o ren d er a compl et e and a ccur at e eval uat i on of t he Pet i t i oner . T he Pet i t i oner ar gues t hat D r . C i occa w as unaw ar e thatt he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot hers uffe r ed fr om a u teri n e i nfec t i on att he t i m e of the P e tit io n e r’s b irth re su lti n g in th e P e tit io n e r’s lac k o f o x y g e n a n d lik e lyre su lti n g b ra in damage. A ddi t i onal l y , D r . C i occa w as unaw ar e of the Pet i t i oner ’ s drug and al cohol addi ct i on. Fi nal ly , t he Pet i t i onercompl ai ns t hatt he j uryneverhear d t es t i m onyaboutt he P e tit io n e r’s b ra in d e f

e c ts, th a t th e P e tit io n e r’s m o th e r w a s “m e n tally slo w ” a n d e m o tio n a lly di s turbed, and thatt hr ee of t he Pet i t i oner ’ s hal f- s i bl i ngs w er e ment al l yr et ar ded. I n t he cont extof ca pi t al cas es , a d ef endant ’ s backgr ound, char act erand ment al condi t i on ar e unques t i o n a b l ys i gni fi cant

. “[E] vi dence aboutt he def endant ’ s backgr ound and char act eri s r el evant beca us e of t he bel i ef .

. . t hatdefe ndant s w ho comm i tcr i m i nal act s t hat ar e att r i but abl e t o a di s advant aged ba ckgr ound, ort o emot i onal and ment al pr obl ems, m ay be l e s s c ul pa bl e t ha n d e fe nd a nt s w ho ha ve no s uc h e xc us e . ” Cal i fo r ni a v. Br own, 47 9 U. S. 538, 545 ( 1987) ; s ee E ddi ngs v. O kl ahoma, 455 U

. S. 104, 113- 115 ( 1982) ; L ockettv. O hi o, 438 U

. S. 586, 604- 605 ( 1978) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ; Z agor s ki v. St at e, 983 S. W

. 2d 654, 657- 658 ( T enn. 1998)

. T he r i ght t hatcapi t al defe ndant s have t o pr es enta vas tarr ayof per s onal i nfor m at i on i n m i t i gat i on att he pena l t y phas e, how ever , i s cons t i tut i onal l ydi s t i nctfr om t he ques t i on w hethercouns el’ s choi ce of w hati nfor m at i on t o pr es entt o t he j ur yw as pr ofes s i onal l yr eas onabl e. T her e i s no cons t i tut i onal i m per at i ve t hat couns el m us toffe rm i t i gat i on evi dence at t he pena l t yphas e of a capi t al t r i al

. N onethel es s , t he bas i c conce rns o f couns el dur i ng a capi t al s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng ar e t o neutr al i ze the aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s advanc ed by t he s t at e and t o pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi dence on behal f of t he defe ndant

. A l t hough t her e i s no re q u ire m e n t th a t d e f

e n se c o u n se l p re se n t m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e , co u n se l d o e s h a v e th e d u tyto i nves t i gat e and pr epar e forbot h t he g u il t an d the pena l t yphas es . See G oad v. St at e, 938 S

. W

. 2 d 3 6 3 , 3 6 9 -37 0 (T en n . 1 9 9 6 ). A l t hough no abs ol ut e dutyr equi r es i nves t i gat i ng par t i cul ar fac t s ora ce r t ai n l i ne of d e f e n se , co u n se l d o e s h a v e a d u ty to m a k e re a so n a b le in v e stig a tio n o r to m a k e a re a so n a b le d ec isi o n that m ak es p arti cu lar i n v esti g ati o n u n n ec essa ry . S tr icklan d , 4 6 6 U

. S

. at 69 1

. In det er m i ni ng w hethercouns el br eac hed thi s dut y , couns el ’ s per form ance i s r evi ew ed for-49-

r eas ona b l e n e s s u n d e rp r e v a i l i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l n o r ms , whi c h i n c l u d e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t he chal l enged c onductas see n fro m couns el ’ s pr os pect i ve att he t i m e of the r epr es ent at i on. W ig g in s v . S m ith , 5 3 9 U .S . 5 1 0 , 5 2 3 (2 0 0 3 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). C o u n se l is n o t re q u ire d to inv esti g ate e v ery co n ce ivab le line o f m it igating ev iden ce n o m att er h o w u n li k elythe e ff o rt w o u ld as sistthe d ef

en d an t at sen tenc ing

. Id

. at533. N ei t heri s couns el r equi r ed t o i nt er vi ew ev eryco n ce ivab le w itn ess. H en d ri ck s v . C alde ron , 7 0 F

. 3 d 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 4 0 (9th C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ). In ot her w or ds , couns el ’ s dut y t o i nves t i gat e and pr epar e i s not l i m i t l ess. See W as hi ngt on v. W at ki ns , 655 F. 2d 1346 ( 5t h C i r . 1981)

. C ouns el ’ s per for m ance w i l l notbe found de fi ci ent forfai l i ng t o unvei l al l m i t i gat i ng evi dence , i f, aft era r eas onabl e i nves t i gat i on, not hi ng has put couns el on not i ce of t he exi s t ence of t hatevi dence

. See B abbi t v. C al der s on, 151 F. 3d 1170, 1174 ( 9t h C i r . 1998) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. I n s um m ary , “no p arti cu lar setof det ai l ed ru les c a n sa tisf

a c to rilytak e a c c o u n t o f

th e v a rie ty o f c irc u m sta n c e s f a c e d b yd e f

e n se c o u n se l. R ather , cour t s m us tj udge the r eason ab lene ss of couns el ’ s conducton t he fa ct s of t he p arti cu lar case , v iew ed as o f th e ti m e o f c o u n sel’s co n d u ct, an d jud ici al scru ti n y o f c o u n sel’s per for m ance m us t be hi ghl y defe r ent i al

. ” R oe v. Fl or es - O r t ega, 528 U

. S. 470, 477 ( 2000) (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). T o det er m i ne w hetherornott r i al counsel w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o pr es ent m i t i gati ng evidence, t he revi ew i ng cou rtm ustcon si der several fact ors.

1. T he r evi ew i ng cou rt m u s tanal y ze the natur e and e xt entof the m i t i gat i ng evi dence t hatw as avai l abl e butw as not pr es ent ed. G oad , 938 S. W

. 2d at371 ( ci t i ng D eut s cherv. W hi t l ey , 946 F. 2d 1443 ( 9t h C i r . 1991) ; St ephens v. K emp, 846 F. 2d 642 ( 11t h C i r . 1988) ; C ooperv. St at e, 847 S. W

. 2d 521, 532 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1992) ; St at e v. A dki ns , 911 S. W

. 2d 334 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 )). 2. T he courtm u st d et er m i ne w hethers ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted to th e ju ryin e ith e r th e g u ilt or penal t y phas e of t he pr ocee di ngs . G oad, 938 S. W

. 2d at371 (cit ing A tkins v

. S ing let ary , 9 6 5 F

. 2 d 9 5 2 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 9 2 ); C l ozza v. M ur r ay , 913 F. 2d 1092 ( 4t h C i r . 1990) ; M el s on, 722 S

. W

. 2 d at 42 1 ). 3. T he courtm us tcons i der w hethert her e w as s uch s t r ong evi dence of appl i cabl e aggr avat i ng fac t or ( s ) t hatt he mi t i gat i ng evi dence w oul d nothave a ffe cted the j ur y ’ s det er m i nat i on. G oad, 938 S. W

. 2d at371 ( ci t i ng Fi t zger al d v. T hom ps on, 943-50- F. 2d 463, 470 ( 4t h C i r . 1991) ; E l l edge v. D ugger , 823 F. 2d 1439 (11 th C ir

. 1 9 8 7 ). T h e t r i a l c o u r te n t e r e d t h e f o l l o wi n g f

i n d i n g s o f

f a c ta n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w: N ext , pet i t i oner cont ends couns el fai l ed t o i nves t i gat e and pr es entcr i t i cal m i t i gat i on r ega r di ng hi s neur ops y chol ogi cal fu n cti o n ing

. P eti ti o n er ack n o w ledg es t h at co u n sel ca lle d D r. C i occa t o t es t i fyabouthi s m ent al heal t h and abi l i t i es , butar gues t hat[D r . ] C i occa w as notpr oper l ypr epar ed and di d notpr es ent an ade quat e pi ctur e of pe t i t i oner ’ s abi l i t i es orhi s habi tual s ubs t ance abus e. [D r . ] C i occa t es t i fi ed thathe r evi ew ed pet i t i oner ’ s s choo l r ecor ds and found pe t i t i onerhad a l ow l e a r n i n g a b i l i t y i n a v a r i e t yo f s u b j e c t s ; h a d a “ l o w a v e r a g e ” I Q; and , att he ag e of nine, w as p l aced i n speci al edu cat i on cou rs es. [ D r.] C io c c a a lso tes tifie d th a t p e tit io n e r h a d in d ica ted to h im th a t h e u se d m a riju a n a a n d d ra n k a lco h o l an d a d m itt e d to dr i nki ng on t he ni g h t in ques t i on. A tt he pos t

- convi ct i on hear i ng, pet i t i onerpr es ent ed t es t i m onyfr om D r . A uble, al s o a neur ops y chol ogi s t

. W hil e iti s cl earD r . A ubl e r evi ew ed addi t i onal document s notr evi ew ed by D r . C i occa , admi ni s t er ed n um er ous t es t s and s penta good dea l l ongereval uat i ng pet i t i oner , t hi s cour tfi nds t hat her concl us i ons as t o t he st at e of p e tit io n e r’s m e n tal a b ili ties and subst ance a bu se w ere es se n tially the s am e. A lth o u g h sh e w as a b le t o test ifyab o u t petit ion er’s tr o u b led b irth an d the [ ef fe ct] i t m ayh av e h ad o n p eti ti o n er’s neur ol ogi cal f

unct i oni ng, hert es t i m onydi d l i t t l e more t han p ro v id e a p o ss ib le e x p lan a tio n f o r p e tit io n e r’s lo w a c a d e m ic a c h iev e m e n t.

. . . [P] et i t i oner al s o pr es ent ed t es t i m ony fr om D r . Sm i t h, an expe r ton addi ct i on. D r . S m it h g ave ext ens i ve t es t i m ony regar di ng pet i t i oner ’ s habi tual s ubs t ance abus e. T hi s court agr ees t hatD r . Sm i t h’ s t est im o n y w as farm or e ext ens i ve than t hatpr ovi ded byD r . C i occa att r i al

. H ow ever , thi s cour tfi nds t hatcouns el w as not i neff ect i ve i n fai l i ng t o pr es entt hi s pr oof. A tt he pos t

- conv ict i on hear i ng, bot h t r i al couns el and the defe ns e r e t a i n e d mi t i g a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t o rt es t i fi ed pet i t i onernever in d ica ted to th e m th a t h e h a d a su b sta n c e a b u se p ro b lem o r to ld t hem about t h e ex te ntof hi s drug and al cohol us e. Pet i t i oner-51- t es t i fi ed at the sent enci ng phas e and c oul d have i nfor m ed the j u r y o f h i s s u b s t a n c e a b u s e , b u t d i d n o t d o s o . A d d i t i o n a l l y, pet i t i oner ’ s s i s t ert es ti fied t hats he knew pet i t i oners m oked m ar i j uana a nd dr ank al cohol fr om t i m e t o t i m e, but t es t i fi ed that he di d notus e thes e s ubs t ance s “hea vi l y ” and f ur t heri ndi cat ed t hats he w as neverconce r ned aboutpet i t i o n er[ ’s] drug us e or al co h o l cons um pt i on. W hi l e G l or i Shet t l es , t he mi t i gat i on in v e stig a to r t e stif

ied th a t p e tit io n e r’s ju v e n ile rec o r d s d id i nc l u d e s e v e r a l d ru g o f f e n s e s ; b u t , s h e t e s t i f

i e d s h e d i d n ot inv esti gat e fur t herori ndi cat e t o couns el t hatt hi s w as an i s s ue f o rmi t i g a t i o n . Gi v e n t h e t e s t i mon ya tt h e p o s t

- c o n v i c t i on hear i ng and the t es t i m onyt hatw as pr es ent ed t hr ough D r . C i occa a t trial, this c o u rt f

in d s c o u n se l w a s n o t in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ili n g to pr es entaddi t i onal pr oof abo utpet i t i oner ’ s s ubs t ance abus e. T hus , t hi s cour t fi nds pet i t i oner ’ s al l egat i on t hatcouns el fai l ed t o pr oper l ypr es entt es t i m onyabouthi s m ent al defi ci t s and s u b s ta n c e a b u s e is w ith o u t m e ri t. Fi nal l y , pet i t i onercont ends couns el compl etelyfai l ed bot h t o r eques ts uffi ci entfunds foran ade quat e i nves t i gat i on of hi s s oci al hi s t or y and fai l ed t o pr ovi de di r ect i on t o t he mi t i gat i on in v e stig a to r. P e tit io n e r a rg u e s th a t itw a s e rro r f o r c o u n se l to f a il t o p re se n t an ye v id e n c e re g a rd in g h is f a m ily life a n d f

a m ily hi s t or y . H e ass ert s couns el s houl d have pr es ent ed the fol l ow i ng tes tim o n y : h is g ra n d p a re n ts w e re sh a re c ro p p e rs w h o w o rk e d in th e f ield s; th a t p e tit io n e r’s m o th e r a n d h e r sib lin g s w e re n o t ab le t o g o t o s c ho ol o n a r e g u l a rb a s i s ; t h a th i s mo t h e rb e c a me p re g n a n t at f

if tee n , b u t lo s t th e b a b ya n d b e c a m e se v e re ly depr es s ed; hi s m ot hers oughtps y chi atri c t r eatm entand had s ei zur es ; h i s m at ernal gr andfa t herw as an al cohol i c and w as a b u siv e ; hi s aunt descr ib e d h im a s “ q u iet” a n d “ w e ll-m a n n e re d ;” he, hi s par ent s and s even s t ep s i bl i ngs l i ved i n a thr ee be dr oom h o u s e ; h i s p a r e n t s c o u l d n o t r e a d ; h e wa s o f t e n l e f t o n h i s o wn a n d su b jec ted to v e rylit tle d isc ip lin e a s a c h ild ; h e w a s in sp e c ial e d u c a tio n c o u rse s; h e d ro p p e d o u t o f sc h o o l; an d h is fr i ends des cr i bed hi m as “qui et ” and “ w el l m anner ed” a nd knew h e w as d eterm ined n o t t o g o b ac k to p ri so n . D esp it e p eti ti o n er’s cont ent i ons , t hi s cour tfi nds m uch of thi s i nfor m at i on w as el i ci t ed att he s ent enci ng p h ase a nd t he fa i l ur e t o pr es entt he-52- r emai ni ng t es t i m ony does not r ender couns el s’ re pr es ent at i on in e f f e c tiv e . T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. D ur i ng the p en al t yphas e of hi s t r i al , t he Pet i t i onerpr es ent ed the t es t i m onyof num er ous fami l ym ember s and fr i ends w ho des cr i bed the de fenda nt ’ s backgr ound and char act er i s t i cs , i ncl udi ng hi s m ot herand hi s s t epfa t her , co- w or ker s St eve n and Li nda M os hi er , and fr i end Zacha ri as S te w ar t

. D r . C i occa t es t i fi ed thatt he Pet i t i onerhad a l ow l earni ng abi l i t yi n r eadi ng, w r i t i ng, and mat hemat i cs . H e s t at ed t hat t he Pet i t i onerhad a “ l ow av era g e” IQ an d h ad b ee n p lace d in sp ec ial ed u ca ti o n class w h en h e w as n ine y ea rs old

. D r. C i occa r el at ed t hat t he P et i t i oner ’ s l earni ng di s abi l i t y , l ethar gy , and des pondencyata y oung age r evea l ed a need for ps y chol ogi cal hel p t hathe neve rr ece i ved. T he Pet i t i onert es t i fi ed o n h i s o wn b e h a l f

, s t a t i n g th a th e wa s t h e f a t h e ro f t wo c h i l d r e n , b o t h o f wh o m h a d d i e d

. He s t a t e d t h a t h e h a d l e a r n i n g p r o b l e ms i n s c h o o l

. Th e Pe t i t i o n e r a d mi t t e d t h a t h e had be en dr i nki ng and s m oki ng m ar i j uana o n the dayof t he off ens es . T he Pet i t i onerdeni ed ki l l i ng O ffi cer W i l l i ams and acc us ed t he St at e’ s w i t nes s es of l y i ng. T he Pet i t i oneradmi t t ed thathe had s er ved t i m e foraggr avat ed r obbery , buthe s ai d he had onl ydr i ven the get aw aycar . T he P e tit io n e r a d m itt e d th a t h e h a d ju v e n ile a d ju d ica tio n s f

o r a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, b u t h e sim ilarly m in im iz e d h is ro le in th e s e in c id e n ts

. M r . G os nel l t es t i fi ed att he pos t

- convi ct i on hear i ng t hat M s . Shet t l es neverr epor t ed t h a ts h e was u n a b l e t o f i n d a n y t h i n g t o s u p p o r tc e r t a i n i s s u e s t h e ywer e i n t e r e s t e d i n , s u ch as in fo rm ati o n estab li sh ing tha t th e P eti ti o n er su ff ere d fro m p sy ch o log ical pro b lem s. D r. C i occa t es t i fi ed that t he Pet i t i oner had a l ow l earni ng abi l i t y forr eadi ng, w r i t i ng and mat h, had a l ow aver age I Q , had a l earni ng di s abi l i t yand s uffe r ed fr om l ethar gy , des pondency , and had ps y chol ogi cal needs t hatw er e neve rm et

. M s . Shet t l es found fami l y m ember s t o t es t i fy a b o u t th e P e tit io n e r’s h o m e life a n d m iti g a tio n c irc u m sta n c e s. M r. G o sn e ll d id n o t re c a ll h a v i n g a n ywi t n e s s e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e m b yt h e P e t i t i o n e rt h a tt h e yd i d n o tc a l l t o t e s t i f y . He s t a t e d t h a t t h e g o a l o f

m i t i g a t i o n wa s t o p a i n ta p i c tu r e o f a y o u n g m a n wh o h a d s o me pr obl ems butw as l i ked and resp ec ted by hi s fami l ym ember s . H e conc eded thatt he Pet i t i oner ’ s m i t i gat i on w i t nes s es gave br oad cha r act eras s es s m ent s t hatper m i t t ed ques t i ons a b o u t th e P e titio n e r’ s ju v e n ile re c o rd s to b e a s k e d

. A tt h e p os t

- convi ct i on hear i ng, t he Pet i t i onerpr es ent ed the t es t i m onyof t he fol l ow i ng w i t nesses as pot enti al m i t i gati on w i t nesses, w ho se t est i m on yw e sum m ari ze as foll ow s: 1

. D r. P am ela A u b le. D r. A u b le ev alua ted t h e P eti ti o n er. S h e rel ated that the P eti ti o n er’s lo w A p g a r sc o re s a t b irth c o u ld p u t a c h ild a t risk f o r l a ter d if

f icu lti e s. S h e c o u ld n o t sta te w i t h certai n tyt hatt he l ack of oxy gen atbi r t h concl us i vel ycaus ed the Pet i t i oner ’ s l at er l earni ng di s abi l i t y . D r . A ubl e s ai d t he Pet i t i oner ’ s abus e of al cohol and mar i j uana be gan at age ten or el even . S h e st at ed thatt he P et i t i on er had p rovi ded t he st aff at N ort hw est-53-

C or r ect i onal C om pl ex w i t h i nacc ur at e i nfor m at i on dur i ng hi s pr i ort er m o f i ncar cer at i on. D r. A u b le d iag n o se d th e P e tit io n e r w ith a tten tio n d e f icit h yp e ra c ti v it yd iso rd e r, p rim a rily i nat t ent i ve type. She al s o di agnos ed hi m w i t h m ar i j uana dep endence a nd al cohol d ep en d en ce . S h e stated that the P eti ti o n er w as a littl e b itp ara n o id. Sh e a g ree d w ith D r. C i occa ’ s opi ni on t hatt he Pet i t i oner ’ s drug and al cohol abus e made hi m m or e i m pul s i ve. 2. D r . M ur r ay Sm i t h. D r . Sm i t h r epor t ed thatt he Pet i t i oners t at ed thatbyt he age of t hi r t een, he w as us i ng m ar i

j uana a nd al cohol on a dai l y bas i s and t hat he w as deal i ng m ar i j uana on t he s t r eet

. T he Pet i t i oneral s o s t at ed that o n the d ate of t he s hoot i ng, he had be gan us i ng m ar i j uana a nd al cohol at8: 00 a. m . D r . Sm i t h opi ned thatt he Pet i t i onerhad a c hr oni c us e of al cohol and mar i

j uana. H e adde d t hat t he Pet i t i oner w as s us pi ci ous and untrus t i ng of ot her peopl e. H e s ai d t he Pet i t i oner ’ s poorj udgm entand i m pul s e r eac t i on w ere ev iden t in the Pet i t i oner ’ s r es pons e t o t he confr ont at i on w i t h t he off i cer s att he cl ub. D r . Sm i t h added that t he Pet i ti oner ’ s l evel of i nt oxi cat i on coul d have c aus ed al cohol

- i nduced a m nes i a and he c o u l d h a v e “ f

i l l e d i n t h e b l a n k s ” wh e n h e d e s c r i b e d g o i n g t o h i s g i r l f r i e n d ’ s h o me . He opi ned thatt he Pet i t i onercoul d have s ubs t i tut ed hi s ow n bel i ef of w hathappene d t hatni ght a n d th a t it b e c a m e h is “ re a lity” e v e n if e v id e n c e c o n tr a d ic ts th a t b e lie f

. 3. E ver l ean Fl emi ng. E ver l ean Fl emi ng, t he P et i t i oner ’ s aunt , t es t i fi ed thatherfatherdr ank and verbal l yand phy s i cal l y abus ed t hei r gr andmot her

. She s t at ed t hat t he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot her had a mi s carr i age a tt he age of fi ft een a nd s uffe r ed s ei zur es aft erw ar d. She t es t i fi ed thatt he P e tit io n e r h a d a g o o d p e rso n a litya s a c h ild a n d lik e d g o in g to sc h o o l. 4. W anda Pal m er . W anda Pal m er , t he Pet i t i oner ’ s aunt , t es t i fi ed thatherfatherdr ank and w oul d y el l a l ot

. She onl y r eca l l ed t he Pet i t i oner ’ s m ot her havi ng a s ei zur e once befor e the P e titio n e r w a s b o rn . 5. Shar on M ar i on. Shar on M ar i on, t he Pet i t i oner ’ s hal f- s i s t er , t es t i fi ed thatt he Pet i t i oner w as a happychi ld. S h e stat ed thathe w or ked upon hi s r el eas e fr om pr i s on and s w or e he w o u ld n evergo back. M s . M ar i on added thatt he Pet i t i oners m oked mar i j uana a nd dr ank alco h o l from the tim e tha t he w as fo u rt ee n b u t that sh e w as no t con ce rne d b ec au se h e “ w asn ’t d o in g it lik e a d ru g a d d ic t.” 6. JenniferS t ew art

. Jennifer S t ew art , a chil dh oo d fri end , t est i fi ed thatt he P et i t i on er w as a ni ce pe r s on w ho at t ended c hur ch. She w as unaw ar e thatt he Pet i t i onerus ed mar i j uana a nd a lco h o l. 7. C ar ol yn W hi t l ey . C ar ol yn W hi t l ey , t he Pet i t i oner ’ s s peci al educa t i on t eac her , t es t i fi ed t hatt he Pet i t i oner di d not have any behavi or al pr obl ems and s he bel i eved he w as r eadyfor t he ni nt h gr ade w hen he l efthercl as s r oom . She expl ai ned thatstudent s i n hercl as s r oom-54-

w oul d be phas ed bac k i nt o t hei rr egul arcl assr oom s and thats he bas i cal l yj us ttut or ed t he s tu d e n ts . M s . W h itle ys ta te d th a t th e P e titio n e r h a d a B a v e ra g e w h ile in h e r c la s s ro o m . W e con cl ud e t hat t est i m on y th a t th e P et i t i on er w as l ov ed, t hat the P et i t i on er w as a n ice y o u n g m a n , an d th a t th e P e tit io n e r ha d a lea rn in g d isa b ili tyw a s m e re lyc u m u lativ e to evi dence al r eady pr es ent ed i n t he penal t y phas e of t he tr i al

. W hi l e the Pet i t i onerdi d pr es ent new i nfor m at i on fr om fami l ym ember s and fr i ends , w e ca nnotconcl ude thatt he i nt r oduct i on of s uch i nfor m at i on t o t he j ur yw oul d have be en s i gni fi cant l ybenef i ci al m i t i gat i ng evi dence

. A d d iti o n a lly , the se w itn e ss e s c o u ld h a v e b e e n a sk e d q u e stio n s a s to th e P e tit io n e r’s ju v e n ile a n d a d u lt co n v ictio n s. T h e P e tit io n e r h a s f a iled to e sta b lish th a t th e re is a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yt hathad t hi s addi t i onal i nfor m at i on been pr es ent ed dur i ng t he pena l t yphas e that t he j ur yw oul d have c oncl uded thatt he bal ance of t he aggr avat i ng and m it i gat i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s d id n o t w a rr a n t d e a th

. A s r ecogni zed byt he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t , D r s . Sm i t h an d A u b l e’ s t es t i m ony conce r ni ng t he Pet i t i oner ’ s s ubs t ance abus e w as m or e ext ens i ve than thatof D r . C i occa . T he P e tit io n e r h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityd u rin g th e p e n a lty p h a se to in f o rm th e ju ryo f

th e e x ten t o f

h is s ubs t ance ab u s e . He d i d n o te l a b o r a t e . Howev e r , t h e Pe t i t i o n e r ’ s t e s t i mon yd u r i n g t he penal t yphas e w as cons i s t entw i t h t he test i m onyof Shar on M ar i on, w ho des cr i bed t he Pet i t i oner ’ s drug us e as cas ual , and not“l i ke a drug addi ct

. ” I ti s uncert ai n t he i m pactof c o n t r a d i c t o r y t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h e l e v e l o f t h e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s m a r i j u a n a u s e b e f

o r e t h e j u r y. W hi l e s uch mi s s i ng i nfor m at i on m ayhave be en bene fi ci al t o D r . C i occa , w e ca nnotconcl ude t hatD r . C i occa ’ s di agnos i s w oul d have been al t er ed byt he i nfor m at i on. D r . C i occa r el at ed t hat t he P et i t i oner had a l earni ng di s abi l i t y . T hi s di agnos i s i s nots i gni fi cant l ydi s t i nctfr om t he di agnos i s of D r . A ubl e s uch t hat i t w oul d have had an eff ect upon t he j ur yas t o al t ert he o u tcom e. A d d it ion all y , D r. S m ith ’s test im o n y m ay n o t h av e be en b en ef ici al t o the P eti ti o n er. T he j ur yfound t he pr es ence of one a ggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance , t hatt he Pet i t i onerhad a pr i or fel onyconvi ct i on foraggr avat ed r obberyw it h sta tut or yel ement s t hati nvol ved the us e of vi ol ence . T he pr i or vi ol ent fel ony aggr avat i ng fac t or “maybe more qual i t at i vel yper s uas i ve and obj ect i vel y r el i abl e” t han ot herfac t or s . See St at e v. B oy d, 959 S. W

. 2d 557, 561 ( T enn. 1998)

. W i t h t hi s cons i der at i on, w e ca nnotconcl ude thataddi t i onal i n fo rm ati o n as t o t he Pet i t i oner ’ s s ubs t ance abus e w oul d have l ed t he j ur y t o i m pos e a s ent ence ot hert han one of death. T he P et i t i on er i s not ent i t l ed to r el i ef on t his basi s. I n s um , t hi s i s n o t a c a s e i n whi c h c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o c o n d u c t a n y i n q u i r y i n t o t he acc us ed’ s backgr ound and s oci al hi s t or y . See W i l l i ams, 529 U

. S. at 396. R egar dl es s of w hat a di ffe r enti nves t i gat i on m i ghthave unc over ed, t he Pet i t i onerm us tfi r s tdemonst r at e that couns el ’ s deci s i on nott o i nves t i gat e fu rt h erw as obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e per for m ance . C authern v. St at e, 145 S. W

. 3d 571, 604 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. ) , per m . t o appea l deni ed, ( T enn.-55-

2 0 0 4 ). T h e P e tit io n e r h a s f a iled to e sta b lish th a t co u n s e l’ s p e r f o rm a n c e w a s o b

jec tiv e ly unr eas onabl e per for m ance . H e i s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef a s t o t hi s i s s ue.

2. Fai l ur e t o I nt r oduce Evi dence of R es i dual D oubt “[R]e s i dual doubtevi dence ” maycons i s tof pr oo f adm i t t ed dur i ng t he s ent enci ng p h ase that ind icates the d e f en d an t did n o t com m itthe o ff en se, no tw ith stan d ing the ju ry ’s ver di ctfol l ow i ng t he gui l tphas e. M cK i nney , 74 S. W

. 3d at 307 ( ci t i ng St at e v. H ar t m an, 42 S .W .3 d 4 4 , 5 5 -5 6 (T e n n . 2 0 0 1 )). O n d ire c t ap p e a l, th e P e tit io n e r a rg u e d a n d th e S tate c o n c e d e d th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt e rre d in re f u sin g to a llo w d e f

e n se c o u n se l’s a rg u m e n t. M c K in n e y , 7 4 S .W .3 d a t 3 0 6 -3 0 7 . T h e su p re m e c o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th a t:

. . . t he def

endant ’ s pr opos ed ar gum ent w as base d on t he e v id e n c e , i

. e. , the tes tim o n y o f w itn e ss e s L e e a n d Je ltz w ith re g a rd t o w hethert he d efen dan thad been w eari ng a vest. M or eover , i tw as i n fai r r es pons e t o t he pr os ecut or ’ s ar gum ent t hatt he def

endant ’ s t es t i m onyt hathe w as no t t he s hoot erhad notbeen cre di bl e bec aus e guns hotr es i due had be en found on t he def endant ’ s ves t

. T he t r i al cour tt her efor e err ed byr efus i ng t o all o w the ar gum ents i m pl ybeca us e i thad the ef fec tof a llu d in g to re sid u a l o r lin g e rin g d o u b t. I d. at308. N ot w i t hs t andi ng t he err or , t he s upr eme cour tdet er m i ned thatbeca us e the p ro p o se d a rg u m e n t d id n o t h a v e th e su b sta n c e o r w e ig h t o f e v id e n c e a n d c o n sid e rin g th a t th is w as nota r es ent enci ng hear i ng, t he s ent enci ng j ur yhad al rea d y h ear d t he t es t i m ony un derl y i ng t he argum ent and reconc i l ed iti n fav or of t he S t at e’s t heo ryof g uil tand against t he Pet i t i oner ’ s t heoryof i nnocenc e. I d. T hus , t he s upr eme cour tconcl u d ed thatt he pr opos ed argum entw as of “dubi ous val ue ei t heras r es i dual doubtori n m i t i gat i on. ” I d. Fi nal l y , t he courtnot ed thatt he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance w as s t r ongl ys uppor t ed byt he e v id e n c e . A c c o rd in g ly , the s u p re m e c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e P e tit io n e r h a d f a iled to es t abl i s h t hatt he tr i al cour t ’ s err or aff ect ed t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct t o hi s pr ej udi ce a nd anyerr or w as har m l es s . I d. I n t he pos t

- convi ct i on s et t i ng, t he Pet i t i oneragai n ci t es as err ort he fa i l ur e t o pr es ent re sid u a l d o u b t ev id e n c e d u rin g th e p e n a lty p h a se o f th e trial. T h e P e tit io n e r n o w c o u c h e s h is cl ai m i n t er ms o f

t h e i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f

t r i a l c o u n s e l

. He a r g u e s t h a th a d t r i a l c o u n s el conduct ed an a dequat e i nves t i gati o n , i tw oul d have y i el ded addi t i onal r es i dual doubt evi dence nothear d byt he j ur y . T he P et i t i onercl as s i fi es hi s “r es i dual doubt ” evi dence as t he num er ous ey ew i t nes s es , i ncl udi ng J as on Shor t er , w ho w i t nes s ed bot h t he s hoot i ng and t he s hoot er ; t he des cr i pt i on pr ovi ded byM ar k L es t er ; t he evi dence of t he vi ct i m ’ s al t er cat i ons-56-

w i t h o t her pat rons on the nigh t o f th e shoo t i ng ; evidence w i t hh el d b yt he S t at e; t he crossexami nati o n o f h i s al i bi w i t nes s es ; and the des cr i pt i ons of t he s hoot erpr ovi ded byot her p a tr o n s th a t d id n o t m a tc h th e P e titio n e r’ s d e s c ri p tio n . W e agr ee. C ons i s t ent w i t h our deci s i on concl udi ng t hat t he Pet i t i onerw as pr ej udi ced b yc o u n se l’s f

a ilu re to u se a n d p re se n t in f o rm a tio n w h ich w o u ld h a v e a ttac k e d th e c re d ib ili ty o f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s e y e wi t n e s s t e s t i mo n y a n d i mp l i c a t e a n o t h e r p e r s o n a t t h e g u i l tp h a s e , we sim ilarlyc o n c lu d e th a t a r e a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tye x ists th a t if c o u n se l h a d in tro d u c e d th is s a m e e v id e n c e a s “ re s id u a l d o u b t” e v id e n c e , th e o u tc o m e w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e re n t. I I . P ROS EC UT ORI AL M I S CONDUCT T he P et i t i o n e rc o n t e n d s t h a tt h e p r o s e c u t i o n v i o l a t e d i t s o b l i g a t i o n s t o s e e k j u s t i c e. T he Pet i t i onerm ai nt ai ns t hatt he Shel by C ount yD i s t r i ctA t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce ha s “comm i t t ed egr egi ous a c t s o f

mi s c o n d u c twhi c h d e n i e d h i m hi s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h tt o a f a i rt r i a l a nd r ender ed the out come of t he tr i al fundament al l yunfai r. ” S p ec i fi cal l y , he cont ends t hat “[t ] hes e ac t s i ncl ude the i m pr opers uppr es sion of exc ul pat or yey ew i t nes s s t at ement s and pol i ce l ogs , t he pr es ent at i on of t es t i m onyt hatt he s t at e knew w as fal s e, and the mi s handl i ng o f p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e .” A

. B r adyV i ol at i ons T h e P e tit io n e r c laim s tha t th e S tate k n o w in g ly w ith h e ld e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e a n d th is w a s im p licit in its a g re e in g to th e C o n se n t O rd e r. T h e P e tit io n e r a lleg e s th a t th e S tate con ceal ed d i spat ch l og s, ey ew i t ness st at em ents , ph oto spr ead st at em ents , and po l i ce report s. H e c o n ten d s th a t th e se item s in d ica ted th a t w itn e ss e s ex iste d w h o sa w th e sh o o tin g a n d d id n o t id e n tif

yth e P e titio n e r a s th e s h o o te r. E verycr i m i nal defe ndant“has a cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed pr i vi l ege t o r eques tand o b tain f ro m th e p ro se c u tio n e v id e n c e th a t is e ith e r m a ter ia l to g u ilto r re lev a n t to puni s hm ent

. ” St at e v. Fer gus on, 2 S. W

. 3d 9 1 2 , 9 1 5 ( T enn. 1999)

. I n B r ady , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our theld that t he pr os ecut i on has a cons t i tut i onal dut yt o fur ni s h an a c c u s e d wi t h e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e p e r t a i n i n g t o e i t h e r t h e a c c u s e d ’ s g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e or t he puni s hm entt hatm aybe i m pos ed. Fai l ur e to reveal excul pat or yevi dence vi ol at es due pr oces s w hen the evi d en ce i s m at er i al ei t hert o gui l torpuni s hm ent , i r r es pect i ve of the p ro se c u tio n ’s g o o d f

a it h

. B ra d yv . M a ry lan d , 3 7 3 U .S . 8 3 , 8 7 (1 9 6 3 ). E v id e n c e th a t is “fa vor abl e t o t he ac cus ed” i ncl udes evi dence t hati s deemed t o be exc ul pat or yi n natur e and evi dence t hatcoul d be us ed t o i m peac h t he St at e’ s w i t nes s es . St at e v. W al ker , 910 S. W

. 2d 3 8 1 , 3 8 9 (T en n . 1 9 9 5 ); S tat e v . C o p elan d , 9 8 3 S

. W

. 2 d 7 0 3 , 7 0 6 (T en n . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); see also U n it ed S tat es v . B ag ley , 4 7 3 U

. S

. 6 6 7 , 6 7 6 (19 8 5 ).-57-

T he “pr o sec u ti o n i s notr equi r ed t o di s cl os e i nfor m at i on t hatt he ac cus ed al r eady pos s es ses o ri s abl e t o obt ai n. ” St at e v. M ar s hal l , 845 S. W

. 2d 228, 233 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1 9 9 2 )

. Howev e r , “ t h e p r o s e c u t o r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r ‘ a n y f a v o r a b l e e v i d e n c e k n o wn t o t he ot her s act i ng on t he governm ent ’ s behal f i n t he ca s e, i ncl udi ng t he p ol i ce. ’ ” St r i ckl erv. G ree n e, 52 7 U

. S

. 2 6 3 , 2 7 5 n . 1 2 (19 9 9 ) (c it ing K y les v . W h it ley , 5 1 4 U

. S

. 4 1 9 , 4 3 7 (19 9 5 )). N e v e rth e les s, th e re is “ n o c o n stitu tio n a l r e q u ire m e n t th a t th e p ro se c u tio n m a k e a c o m p lete an d d etail ed ac co u n ti n g to the d ef en se o f a ll p o li ce inv esti g atoryw o rk o n a c ase . ” W alke r, 9 1 0 S

. W

. 2 d at 38 9 (qu o ti n g M o o re v . Il li n o is, 4 0 8 U

. S

. 7 8 6 , 7 9 5 (19 7 2 )). T he Tennes s ee Supr eme C our thas hel d t hati n or dert o es t abl i s h a B r adyvi ol ati on, f o u r e lem e n ts m u st b e sh o w n b yth e d e f e n d a n t: ( 1) t hatt he def

enda n t request ed the i nfor m at i on ( unl es s t he e v id e n c e is o b v io u slye x c u lp a to ry , in w h ich c a se th e S tate is b o u n d to re lea se th e in f o rm a tio n w h e th e r re q u e ste d o r n o t); (2 ) th a t th e S tate su p p re ss e d th e in f o rm a tio n ; ( 3) t hatt he i nfor m at i on w as favor abl e t o t he ac cus ed; and (4 ) t h a t th e in f

o rm a tio n w a s m a te ri a l. St at e v. E dgi n, 902 S. W

. 2d 387, 390 ( T enn. 1995) ; s ee a l s o W al ker , 910 S. W

. 2d at389. T he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t ent er ed t he fol l ow i ng fi ndi ngs of fac tand conc l us i ons of l a w: [P] et i t i onerar gues t hathad t he defens e adequat el yi nves t i gat ed

and r ece i ved keyexcul pat or ydocument s fr om t he D i s t r i ct A t t or neyand t he I nves t i gat i ve Ser vi ces D i vi s i on orI nt ernal A ffair s unitof the M em p h is P oli ce D epart m ent, t he d efen se w oul d h ave l earned that , i n fac t , i tw as “vi r tual l yi m pos s i bl e” for P et i t i onert o be a[ t ] t he cl ub by2: 30 a. m . t o comm i tt he sh o o t i ng. Pet i t i onerar gues t hatO ffi cerM ar s hal l ’ s t r i al tes tim o n yth a t h e a rriv e d a t th e c lu b a ro u n d 1 2 :3 0 a .m . w a s in di r ectconfl i ctt o t w o s t at ement s M ar s hal l m ade ea rl i er , w hi ch w er e neve rtur ned over t o t he defens e. Pet i t i onercl ai m s O ffi cer M ar s hal l gave a st at ement t he same dayof t he i nci denti n w hi ch h e s a i d h e a r r i v e d a tt h e c l u b b e t we e n 1 : 0 0 a . m. a n d 1 : 3 0 a . m. and near l y t w o m ont hs l at ergave a s t at ement t o t he I nves t i gat i ve Ser vi ces D i vi s i on i n w hi ch he es t i m at ed hi s t i m e of a r r i val t o be a p p ro x im a tely1 2 :4 5 a .m . P e tit io n e r . . . a s s e r ts M a rsh a ll “per j ur ed” hi m s el f att r i al t o avoi d di s ci pl i naryact i o n and-58- f u rth e r c o n ten d s th e S tate w a s “ c o m p licit” in h is lie b e c a u se it bet t erfi tt hei rt i m e l i ne.

. . .[T ]his co u rtn o tes t h at t h e d ispa tch lo g s w ere appar ent l yi n t he D i s t r i ctA t t or ney ’ s fi l e and the D i s tr ic t A tto rn e y h a d a n o p e n f ile d isc o v e ry p o licy

. T h u s , d e sp ite defe ns e i nves t i gat or s t es t i m onyt hatt heyneverr ece i ved copi es of t he l ogs , t hi s cour t i s not convi nced c ouns el w as unaw ar e of t he l ogs . Pet i t i onerpl ace s heavyemphasi s on t he cons entor der en t e r e d i n t o b y t h e d e f e n s e r e g a r d i n g c e r t a i n i t e ms t h eyhad s o u g h ti n p r e v i o u s d i s c o v e r y mo t i o n s a n d h e a r i n g s . He c l a i ms couns el i nappr opr i at el y r el i nqui s hed t hei r r i ght t o r ece i ve pol i ce rep o rt s, p o li ce ca ll sh e e ts an d p o li ce log rep o rt s. H o w ev er, T enn. R

. C r i m . P. 16 excl ud es the di s coveryori ns pect i on of r epor t s , m emora nda or ot her i nt ernal s t at e document s m ade by t he di s t r i ctat t or neygener al or s t at e agent s orl aw enfor cement offi cer s i n connec t i on w i t h t he i nves t i gat i on o rpr os ecut i on of th e c a se . . . . W h ile s o m e e x c e p tio n s a p p ly , c a s e la w h a s h e ld t hatcr i m i nal defe ndant s m ay not r out i nel y have acc es s t o pol i ce p e rso n n e l re c o rd s u n d e r th e ru le; rath e r su c h re c o rd s m a yo n ly be di s cover ed upon a s t r ong s how i ng t hatt he per s onnel r ecor ds m igh t con tai n inf

o rm ati o n m aterial to a d ef en d an t’ s ca s e . . . . T hi s c o u r td o e s n o tf

i n d c o u n s e l wou l d l i k e l yh a v e me tt h at s t andar d i n thi s cas e. Fur t her m or e, fort he r eas ons s etoutbel ow t hi s cour tdoes notfi nd t he evi dence w as di s cover abl e bas ed on it s all eg ed ex cu lpato ryv alue

. T h ere fo re, an y e rro r on the p art of coun sel in fai l i ng t o di s covert hi s m at er i al w as not p re ju d icia l. P e tit io n e r c o n ten d s ra d io d isp a tc h lo g s, re c o rd in g c a lls r egar di ng t he eve nt s att he cl ub on t he evening i n ques t i on, document t w o di ffe r entcal l s r el at i ng t o di s turbance s att he cl ub. H e cl ai m s t he l ogs r evea l t hat t he fi r s t cal l w as m ade byO ffi cer W i l l i am s at 1: 18 a. m . r eques t i ng as s i s t ance w i t h a drunk and t hr eat eni ng bl ack mal e occ upy i ng a bur g undyO l ds ‘ 98 and fur theri ndi cat es fourcar s r es ponded t o t he ca l l

. H e cl ai m s t hat t he fi r s tcararr i ved at1: 24 a. m . and the l as tcar cl ear ed the s cene at2: 01 a. m . Pet i t i onercont ends i t i s “undi s put ed” thatO ffi cer M ar s hal l arr i ved att he cl ub and enc ount er ed Pet i t i oner aft ert he r es pondi ng car s had cl ear ed the cl ub. T hus , Pet i t i onercont ends-59- h e wa s n o t d e t a i n e d b y M a r s h a l l u n t i l s o me t i me a f t e r2 : 0 1 a . m. H e a rg u e s th a t th e tim e it t o o k O f f ice r M a rsh a ll t o q u e stio n h im an d release h im an d the tim e ittoo k h im to d ri v e to K im b le’s h o u se a n d re tu rn to th e sc e n e w o u ld h a v e b e e n lo n g e r th a n th irty m i nut es . H e fur t her claim s i ti s undi s put ed thatO ffi cer W ill iam s w as shot around 2:30 a. m . H e cl ai m s this is d e m o n s tr a te d b yth e d isp a tch lo g s w h ich re v e a l a c iv ili a n c a ll r epor t i ng t he s hoot i ng came in at2: 35 a. m . and i nt ernal pol i ce r ecor ds i ndi cat i ng O ffi cerL ee’ s “off i cerdow n” ca l l came i n at 2 :3 2 a .m . an d w a s p lac e d a f ter O f f ice r L e e c h a se d th e su sp e c t. Pet i t i onercont ends t hi s pr oof obl i t e r a t e s t he St at e’ s t i m el i ne and proves h e cou l d n ot have been t he shoo t er. T his cou rtdis agrees. A lth o u g h O f

f ice r L e e tes tifie d th a t an o th e r p a tro l u n it re sp o n d e d to th e sc e n e p rio r t o O f f ice r M a rsh a ll arr iv in g , h e d id n o t tes tifya s to th e tim e o f e ith e r O f

f ice r’s a rriv a l. .

. . T h u s, it does not nece s s ar i l y s t and t hat t he uni tw hi ch r es ponded w as one of t he four w hi ch w er e di s pat ched t o t he sce ne i n r es pons e t o t he 1: 18 a. m . cal l pl ace d byO ff icer M ar s hal l

. T he uni the w i t nes s ed coul d have be en O ffi cerJ acks on, w ho t es t i fi ed thathe w as doi ng a dr i ve t hr ough and had notactual l ybeen di s pat ched t o t he s cene . O ffi cerM ar s hal l t es t i fi ed thathe arr i ved at12: 30 a. m . , buts t at ed that w as hi s bes t appr oxi m at i on. H e al s o s t at ed t hatw hen he a r r i ved he s poke t o L ee an d M ar s hal l and then we n ti n s i d e t h e c l u b f

o ra p p r o x i ma t e l yf

i f t e e n mi n u t e s . He in d ica ted th a t w h e n h e lef t th e c lu b h e h a d th e e n c o u n ter w ith Pet i t i oner . T hus , i t i s pos s i bl e O ffi cerM ar s hal l di d notexi tt he c l u b unt i l a f

t e rW i l l i a ms p l a c e d t h e d i s p a t c h c a l l a t1 : 1 8 a . m. M o re ov er, O ffi cer Le e t est i fi ed thatdu ri ng t he ti m e M ars h a ll w a s o u tsid e w ith W ill iam s h e w a s in s id e th e c lu b . T h u s, it is al s o pos s i bl e Lee di d notw i t nes s t he arr i v al of t he four r es pondi ng cars b ecaus e he w as i ns i de the cl ub. T hus , t he M ar s hal l / M cK i nney encount er coul d have been c om pl et ed l ong befor e 2: 01, t he t i m e i n w h ich t he l ogs i ndi cat e the l as tcar cl ear ed the s cene . A ddi t i onal l y , D onal d C rum p , t he cl ub’ s ow nert es t i fi ed . . . th a t h e h a d a n a lte rc a tio n w ith a p a tr o n a r o u n d 1 :0 0 a .m ., th a t h e p u t th e p a tro n o u t o f th e c lu b , an d th a t O f

f ice r M a rsh a ll ca ll ed fro m a c a r t o resp o n d , b u t l ater told the m to d isr eg ard-60- beca us e he, C ru m p , di d notw antt he man ar r es t ed. A l t hough Le e t e s t i f

i e d t h e r e we r e n o o t h e ra l t e r c a t i o n s t h a tn i g h t , Cru mp di d notm ent i on s peaki ng t o O ffi cerL ee a boutt he al t er cat i on a n d it i s p o ss ib le L e e d id n o t w itn e ss th e a lterc a tio n . T h u s, it is al s o pos s i bl e the 1: 18 a. m . cal l t o di s pat ch had nothi ng t o do w ith P eti ti o n er. H o w e v e r, f

o r p u rp o se s o f

th is c o u rt’s r e v iew , itw ill en tert ain P eti ti o n er’s arg u m e n t. A cc ep ti n g all o f P eti ti o n er’s cl ai m s as t rue, t hi s cour ts t i l l not es the S t at e’ s t i m e l i ne i s not defe ct i ve. A s s um i ng O ffi cerM ar s hal l di d notarr i ve unt i l aft er 2 :0 1 a .m ., it i s s til l p o ss ib le f o r P e tit io n e r to h a v e b e e n b rie f ly d e tain e d b yM a rsh a ll, m a d e th e f o u r a n d a h a lf m in u te d riv e to K i m bl e’ s , and r etur ned t o t he cl ub a few m i nut es l at ert o s hoot W ill iam s. T w e n ty -n in e m in u tes w a s s u f f ic ien t ti m e to acc om m odat e thes e eve nt s . M or e i m por t ant l ys t r ength of t he St at e’ s cas e di d notr el ys ol el yon a s t r i ctadh ere nce t o t he p ro p o s e d tim e lin e . Des pi t e the “ConsentO r der , ” M r . B al l m ade a gener al B r adym ot i on fordi s coveryand a mot i on fordi s cl os ur e o f im p ea chi ng i nfor m at i on and a mot i on forpr oduct i on of excul pat or yevi dence

. T he Pet i t i oneras s ert s th a tth e St a t e s u p p r es s ed fa vor abl e evi dence and m isre p re se n ted in th e c o n se n t o rd e r th a t th e d isp a tch lo g s, e y e w itn e ss s ta te m e n ts, p h o to s p re a d s ta te m e n ts a n d p o lic e re p o rt s d id n o t c o n ta in e x c u lp a to ry in f o rm a tio n . T he Pet i t i oneras s er t s t hat ( 1) M s . J el t z’ s phot ogr aph l i neup s t at ement i n w hi ch s he fai l ed t o i dent i fyt he Pet i t i oneras t he s hoot er , ( 2) M r . L es t er ’ s s t at ement des cribing t he sh o o ter a s w e a rin g b lu e jea n s a n d a b lu e sh irt, a n d (3 ) M r. G o in ’ s s ta te m e n t f a ili n g to i dent i fyt he Pet i t i oner fr om a phot o s pr ead c ons t i tut ed exc ul pat or yevi dence favor abl e t o t he P eti ti o n er. H e co n tend s that thes e stat em en ts u n d erm ine the test im o n y o f th e p rose cu ti o n ’s tw o k e y e y e w itn e ss e s, O f f ice r L e e a n d Jo y c e Je ltz. H e c o n tin u e s tha t t h e s e s ta tem e n ts pr ovi ded vary i ng des cr i pt i ons of t he s hoot er and r evea l ed thatey ew i t nes s es di d noti dent i fy th e P e titio n e r a s th e s h o o te r. T h e S tate a ss e rts th a t th e P e tit io n e r w a s p ro v id e d a c o p y o f Jo y c e Je ltz’s p h o to g ra p h ic l i neup st a t e me n ta s t h e d e f e n s e u s e d t h e s t a t e me n tt o c r o s s - e x a mi n e h e re x t e n s i v e l ya b out t he s t at ement

. M s . J el t z admi tt ed t hats he coul d noti dent i fyt he Pet i t i oneri n t he phot ogr aphs

. M or eover , t he Pet i t i onerdoes notcont end thathe w as neverpr ovi ded the sta tem e n ts o f

M r. L e ste r a n d M r. G o in . R a th e r, h e c o n ten d s t h a t th e y w e re u n a v a ilab le pr etr i al

. D anes e B anks t es t i fi ed thats he i nt er vi ew ed ea ch of t hes e w i t nes s es and l earned of-61-

th e in f o rm a tio n a b o u t w h ich th e P e tit io n e r n o w c o m p lain s a n d p a ss e d th is in f o rm a tio n o n to co u n sel. “‘[ I]f the ev iden ce in q u esti o n is av ail ab le t o the d ef en d an t from o ther so u rce s, ’” B r ady does not appl y ei t herdi r ect l yort hr ough i nves t i gat i on bya r eas onabl e def endant

. See B arnes v. T hom ps on, 58 F. 3d 971, 9 7 5 (4th C i r . 1995) ; U ni t ed St at es v. W i l s on, 901 F. 2d 3 7 8 , 3 8 0 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). A s M s. B a n k s te stif ied th a t sh e d isc o v e re d th is i nfor m at i on t hr ough heri nves t i gat i on, t her e i s no B r adyvi ol at i on. M or eover , i tappea r s t hat t he Pet i t i oner s uffe r ed no pr ej udi ce by t he fai l ur e of t he St at e t o tur n t hes e s t at ement s over pr i ort o t r i al

. M r . G oi n di d not t es t i fy at t he Pet i t i oner ’ s t r i al

. T he Pet i t i oner fai l ed t o pr es ent t es t i m onyfr om M r . G oi n att he pos t

- convi ct i on hear i ng as t o w hathi s t es t i m onyw oul d have b e e n a t tr ia l. T he Pet i t i onercompl ai ns t hatt he di s pat ch l ogs es t abl i s hed a t i m el i ne of eve nt s and su p p o rte d a n a lib i c h a rg e . H e a ss e rts th a t th e d isp a tch lo g s w e re e x c u lp a to ryitem s w ith h e ld by t he St at e. T he t r i al cour t concl uded t hat t he di s pat ch l ogs w er e i ncl uded i n t he D ist ri ct A t t or ney ’ s fi l e and thatthe D i s t r ict A tt or neyG ener al had an “ open fi l e” pol i cyr egar di ng d is c o v e ry. T h e tr ia l c o u rt r e j e c t e d th e te s tim o n yo f

th e in v e s tig a to rs f

ro m In q u is ito r, I n c ., t hat t hey never r ece i ved copi es of t he l ogs . T he r ecor d s uppor t s t he conc l us i ons r eac hed by t he tr i al cour t

. T he Pet i t i onerhas fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatt he di s pat ch l ogs w er e w i t hhel d by th e S ta te . A d d itio n a lly, th e d is p a tc h lo g s f a il to re f u te th e S ta te ’s tim e lin e o f th e c a s e . B

. Pr es ent at i on of Fal s e Test i m ony T h e P e tit io n e r c o n ten d s tha t th e S tate “ e licite d , f a iled to c o rre c t, an d e m p h a siz e d in a rg u m e n t tes tim o n yit k n e w to b e f a lse .” T h e P e tit io n e r a ss e rts th a t th e f o llo w in g sta tem e n ts w e re f a ls e : O f f ic e r M a rs h a ll’ s te s tim o n yth a t h e d e ta in e d th e P e t i t io n e r a t 1 2 :3 0 a .m ., O ff ic er Ja ck so n ’s t esti m o n ythat h e w en t t o the c lub o n a ro u ti n e c ruise a n d O ff icer L ee ’s tes tim o n yth a t O f

f ice r W ill iam s w a s n o t in v o lv e d in o th e r a lterc a tio n s, th a t th e a lleyw a s w e ll lit, a n d th a t th e c ro w d le f t th e c lu b a t 2 :3 0 o r 3 :0 0 a .m . T he Pet i t i onerar gues tha tnum er ous w i t nes s es pr es ent ed att he pos t

- convi ct i on h e a rin g tes tifie d to se e in g a lterc a tio n s in sid e th e c lu b in v o lv in g O f f ice r W ill iam s. H e a ss e rts th a t th e S tate k n e w th e tes tim o n yo f O f f ice r L e e w a s f

a lse , b u t re lied u p o n th e tes tim o n yto e s t a b l i s h m o t i v e . T h e P e titio n e rc a n n o te s t a b l i s h t h a tO f f i c e rL e e k n o w i n g l y t e s t i f i e d f a l s e l y. T her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatO ffi cerL ee w as aw are o f the acc ount s w i t nes s ed byt he cl ub ow nerand the otherpatr ons . Si m i l ar l y , w e re j ect t he P et i t i oner ’ s cont ent i on t hatO ffi cerL ee pr es ent ed fal s e t es t i m onyw hen he s t at ed thatt he al l eyw as w el l l i t

. T her e i s no pr oof ot her t han conf l i ct i ng opi ni ons t hatt he al l eyw as w el l l i t

. T he Pet i t i oner has fai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hat t h e p r o s e c u t i o n k n o w i n g l y p r e s e n t e d f a l s e t e s t i m o n y.-62- C

. M i s handl i ng of Phy s i cal E vi dence T h e P e t i t i o n e rc o n t e n d s t h a tt h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o p r e s e r v e a n d t e s te v i d e n c e . He compl ai ns t hatt he St at e di d not pr es er ve and t es thi s car , hi s s w eat er , and the s ki d m ar ks at t he sce ne. T he post

- convi ct i on cour t ent er ed t he fol l ow i ng fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons o f l a w:

. . . I n par t i cul ar , t he P et i t i onerpoi nt s t o t he handl i ng of t he

f o llo w in g e v id e n c e : h is 1 9 8 8 O ld sm o b ile D e lta 8 8 a u to m o b ile t hat the S t at e cl ai m ed he us ed t o es cape t he s cene ; t he t i r es bel ongi ng t o s ai d vehi cl e; t he t i r e tr acks l eftatt he cr i m e s cene ; P et i t i on er’ s sw eat er, hat, pan t s, j acket, t -s hirtand shoes.

. . . T es t i m ony at t he pos t

- convi ct i on hear i ng r evea l ed thatt he Pet i t i oner ’ s carw as i n t he cus t odyand contr ol of t he St at e and w as s ol d s om et i m e pr i ort o t r i al

. H ow ever , i tappea r s no t es t i ng w as ever conduct ed r egar di ng t he t i r es on t he vehi cl e. L i kew i s e, it ap p e a rs n o tes tin g w a s d o n e o n th e in ter io r o f th e v e h icle to det er m i ne the pr es ence of ei t herbl ood orgun s hotr es i due. T h u s , d e s p ite P e titio n e r’ s a rg u m e n t to th e c o n t r a ry, . . . Fer gus on does notappl y , her e, beca us e no evi dence w as ever tak e n f ro m th e c a r. T h u s, P e tit io n e r’s a rg u m e n t w ith re g a rd to th e c a r is w ith o u t m e rit. M or eover , Pet i t i oner ’ s cont ent i on t hatt he St at e mi s handl ed the P e tit io n e r’s sw e a te r , h a t, pa n ts, jac k e t, t -sh irt an d sh o e s is l i kew i s e w i t hout m er i t

. D es pi t e t es t i m onyt hatt hes e i t ems m ay h a v e b e e n in a d v e rte n tlyc o -m in g led , P e tit io n e r f a iled to demonst r at e the evi dence w as t ai nt ed byl aw enfor cement offi ci al s . T es t i ng of t he i t ems r eveal ed ther e w er e part i cl es cons i s t entw i t h guns hotr es i due on the ves tw or n byt he Pet i t i oner , b utnoton t he otheri t ems of cl ot hi ng. A gai n, t he Pet i t i oneri s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef mer el ybeca us e mi s handl i ng of evi dence “may ” have dest r oy ed evi dence favor abl e t o t he d e f e n s e . T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. T he D ue Pr oces s C laus e o f the Four t eenth A m endment t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tuti o n and A r t i cl e I , s ect i on 8 of t he Tennes s ee Const i tut i on aff or ds everycr i m i nal d ef en d an t th e righ t t o a f

air tri al. S ee Jo h n s o n v . S tat e, 38 S

. W

. 3 d 5 2 , 5 5 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 ). A cc o rdin g ly , the S tat e h as a co n sti tuti o n al du ty to f u rn ish a d ef

en d an t w ith ex cu lpato ry-63-

evi dence per t ai ni ng t o t he def endant ’ s gui l tori nnocenc e ort o t he pot ent i al puni s hm entfac ed bya def endant

. See B r ady , 373 U

. S. at87. I n St at e v. Fer gus on, 2 S. W

. 3d 912, 914 ( T enn. 1999) , our s upr eme c our taddr es s ed t he i s s ue of w hen a de fenda nti s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef w hen the s t at e has l os tordes t r oy ed evi dence that w as al l eged t o have be en exc ul pat or y . T he courtexpl ai ned thata r evi ew i ng cour tm us tfi r s tdet er m ine w h et hert he s t at e had a dut yt o pr es er ve the l os tordes t r oy ed e v id e n c e . Id . at 9 1 7 . O rd in a rily , “th e S tate h a s a d u tyto p r e s e r v e a ll ev id e n c e su b jec t to d isco v eryan d insp ec ti o n u n d er T en n . R

. C ri m . P

. 1 6 , o r oth er a p p li ca b le l aw . ” Id

. H o w ev er,

“ [ w ]h a tev e r d u tyth e C o n stitu tio n im p o se s o n th e S tate s to pr es er ve evi dence, t hatdut ym us tbe l i m i t ed t o evi dence t hat m igh t be e x p ec ted to p lay a sig n ifi ca n t r o le i n the s u sp ec t’ s d e f e n s e . T o m e e tt h i s s t a n d a r d o f c o n s t i tu t i o n a l m a t e r i a l i t y, ev i d e n c e mus tb o t h p o s s e s s a n e x c u l p a t o r yv a l u e t h a twas appar entbefor e the evi dence w as des t r oy ed, an d b e of suc h a n a tu re th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t w o u ld b e u n a b le to o b tain c o m p a ra b le evi dence byot herr eas onabl yavai l abl e means . ” Fer gus on, 2 S. W

. 3d at 917 ( quot i ng C al i for ni a v. T r om bet t a, 467 U

. S. 479, 488- 89 ( 1984) (fo o tno te an d cit ati o n o m itted)). Fer gus on al s o di r ect s t hat i f t he pr oof demonst r at es t he exi s t ence of a dutyt o pr es er ve t he evi dence and fur t hers how s t hatt he St at e has fai l ed i n that d u ty , a co ur tm us tpr ocee d w i t h a b al ancing an al y si s i nv olvi ng con si derat i on of the foll ow i ng fact ors:

1 . T h e d e g re e o f

n e g lig e n c e in v o lv e d ; 2 . T h e sig n if

ica n c e o f th e d e stro y e d e v id e n c e , co n sid e re d in l i ghtof t he pr obat i ve val u e an d r el i abi l i t yof s econda r yor s ubs t i tut e evi dence t hatr emai ns avai l abl e; and 3

. T h e su ff

ici en cyo f th e o ther ev iden ce u sed at t ri al t o su p p o rt th e c o n v ic tio n . I d. ( foot not e omi t t ed)

. I f t he court ’ s cons i der at i on of t hes e fac t or s r evea l s t hata tr i al w i t hout t he mi s s i ng evi dence w oul d lack f undament al fai r nes s , t he courtm aycons i ders ever al opt i ons s uch as di s m i s s i ng t he cha r ges orpr ovi di ng an appr opr i at e j ur yi ns t ruct i on. I d. T he Pet i t i onerfai l ed t o pr es entanypr oof att he post

- convi ct i on hear i ng t hatt he fai l ure t o p res erve t he ca r o r th e sk id m arks ort estt he sw eat er w as t he resul tof g ross n e g lig e n c e . M o re o v e r, th e e x iste n c e o f a n yp o ten tial e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e is b a se d so lely-64-

on s pecul at i on. T he Pet i t i onerhas fai l ed t o del i neat e w h at s o rt o f exc ul pat or yevi dence w oul d have be en re veal ed fr om a for ens i c eva l uat i on of t he Pet i t i oner ’ s vehi cl e. A s not ed by t he S t at e, t he abse nce of bul l ethol es i n t he vehi cl e w oul d notpr ecl ude an i nfer ence t hat O ffi cerL ee di d not s hoot at t he car . Si m i l ar l y , t he abs ence of guns hotr es i due on the s w eat er w oul d notnegat e the pr es ence of guns hotr es i due on the ves t

. H e i s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on th is c la im

. I I I . EX CL US I ON OF EY EW I TN ES S EX P ER T T h e Pe t i t i o n e r s t a t e s t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n o f h i s e y e wi t n e s s e x p e r t v i o l a t e d hi s due pr oces s r i ght s t o pr es enta defen se. H e mai nt ai ns t hatt he onl yevi dence pl aci ng t he Pet i t i oneratt he shoot i ng w as t he t es t i m onyof a w i t nes s w ho had s een hi m s hor t l ybefor e t he s hoot i ng, t he t es t i m onyof a w i t nes s w ho neverpos i t i vel yi dent i fi ed hi m , and part i cl es cons i s t entw i t h guns hotr es i due as l i kel y as t o have been t r ans ferr ed t o hi s cl ot hes t hr ough pol i ce mi s hand li n g o f ev i dence

. I n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m , t he Pet i t i onerr el i es upon our suprem e cou rt ’s ho l ding i n S t at e v. C op el and , recogn i zi ng tha tthe “ e xcl usi on of [ ey ew i t ness] expert t es t i m ony coul d vi ol at e [a defe ndant ’ s ] due pr oces s r i ghtt o a fa i rt r i al i f t he exc l uded evi dence w as cr i t i cal t o t he def ens e and w as r el i abl e. ” St at e v. C opel and, 226 S. W

. 3d 287, 2 9 7 (T e n n . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c itin g M c K in n e y , 7 4 S .W .3 d a t 2 9 1 ). I n t he di r ect appea l of t he Pet i t i oner ’ s cas e, our s upr eme c our t r ecogni zed t hatt he m aj ori t yop i nion of

t he co urtw as t hat expertt est i m o n y o n the i ssue of ey ew i t ness i dent i fi cat i ons i s pers e i nadmi s s i bl e underR ul e 702, T ennes s ee Rul es o f E v ide nce. See M c K i n n e y, 7 4 S

. W

. 3 d a t3 0 2 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v . C o l e y, 3 2 S

. W

. 3 d 8 3 1 ( T e n n . 2 0 0 0 ) )

. I n C o l e y, the o p inion reli ed u p o n b ythe M cK inn eyco u rt , the s u p rem e c o u rtrejected the a p p ell an t’ s ar gum entt hatt he tr i al cour t ’ s excl us i on o f the ey ew i t nes s expertdeni ed the appe l l antt he r i ghtt o pr es enta def

ens e. C ol ey , 32 S

. W

. 3 d at 8 38, n. 14. T he courthel d t hatw hen cons i der i ng a due pr oces s v iolati on t he r evi ew i ng cour tm us tcons i der : ( 1) w hethert he e x c lu d e d e v id e n c e w a s c ritica l to th e d e f e n se ; (2 ) w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e w a s s u f f icie n tly r el i abl e foradmi s s i on; and (3) w hether t he i nt er es ts uppor t i ng excl us i on of t he evi dence w as s ubs t ant i al l yi m por t ant

. I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T he courtconcl uded thatt he expe r tt es t i m ony o n e y e wi t n e s s i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n wa s n o tc r i t i c a l t o Co l e y ’ s d e f e n s e . I d

. S i mi l a r l y , t h e s u p r e me cour ti n t he Pet i t i oner ’ s di r ectappea l det er m i ned thatt he Pet i t i onerhad fa i l ed t o s how how th e e x p e rt te s tim o n yw a s c ri tic a l to h is d e f e n s e . M c K in n e y , 7 4 S .W .3 d a t 3 0 2

. Four y ear s aft ert he dec i s i on i n M cK i nney , t he s upr eme courtr evi s i t ed the i s s ue of exper t t e s t i mon y o n t h e i s s u e o f e y e wi t n e s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . I n St a t e v . Cop e l and, t he s upr eme cour tacknow l edged t hat i t s deci s i on i n C ol ey w as contr ary t o m odern t r ends

. See C opel and, 226 S. W

. 3d at 299. T he courtpr ocee ded t o overrul e i t s hol di ng i n C ol eyt hat“no one, r egar dl es s of cr edent i al s orexper i ence and no mat t erhow ques t i onabl e the evi dence ,-65-

can pr ovi de t es t i m ony on t he i s s ue of e y ew i t nes s i dent i fi cat i on. ” C opel and, 226 S. W

. 3d at 300- 01. I n s o hol di ng, t he courtnot ed:

I n ourvi ew , i ti s farm or e l i kel yfort he j ur yto accr edi tt he ey ew i t ness t han t he ex pert

. If ey ew itn e ss i den t i fi cat i on i s a c o rn e r sto n e o f

th e c rim in a l ju stic e sy ste m , the ju ryis its f o u n d a tio n . It i s a lso o u r v iew th a t th e tes t in M c D a n iel is s uffi ci entt o al l ow t he tr i al cour tt o p roper l yeval uat e the adm i ssi bil i t yof ex pertt est i m on yon t he rel i abil i t yof ey ew i t ness id e n tific a tio n . T o th e e x ten t th a t C o le yh o ld s o th e rw ise , itis overrul ed. T he es s ent i al r ol e of t he j udge, as t he neutr al arbi t er i n t he tr i al , i s t o govern t he admi s s i on of t he evi dence w i t hi n t he ru les , p e rm itt in g o n ly th a t e x p e rt tes tim o n yw h ich su b sta n tially as s i s t s t he j ur yi n i t s cons i der at i on of the i ssu e. T he M cD ani el tes t p ro v id e s th e trial ju d g e w ith th e n e c e ss a ryg u id e lin e s to pr oper l yexer ci s e hi s orherdi s cr et i on. C o p e la n d , 2 2 6 S .W .3 d a t 3 0 0

. In lig h t o f th e h o lding in C o p elan d , the P eti ti o n er c o n tend s tha t ey ew itn ess e x p ert t e s t i mon ywas c r i t i c a l t o h i s d e f e n s e a s i tc o u l d h a v e a s s i s t e d t h e j u r yi n d e t e r mi n i n g what w e ig h t to g iv e id e n tific a tio n s m a d e b y M r. L e e a n d M s. Je ltz. H e a rg u e s th a t an e x p e rt c o u ld have e xpl ai ned t o t he j ur yt hat , w hi l e O ffi cerL ee cl ai m ed t o have “ no doubt ” abouts eei ng t he Pet i t i oner , t her e w er e s ur r oundi ng ci r cumst ance s w hi ch i ndi cat ed t hat hi s i dent i fi cat i on coul d be vi ew ed w i t h s kept i ci s m . H e cl ai m s t hatabs entt he ey ew i t nes s expertevi dence , he w a s d e p riv e d o f th e o p p o rtu n ity to p ro v id e a n a p p ro p ria te, a d m iss ib le c o u n ter w e ig h t to th e ir ey ew it n ess t es t i m ony . T he Pet i t i onerfur t herar gues t hatw hethert he hol di ng i n C opel and i s r etr oact i ve i s notr el evant to w hethert he Pet i t i onerw as deni ed due pr oces s byt he e x c lu sio n o f

h is e y e w itn e ss e x p e rt. W e agr ee w e nee d notaddr es s t he i s s ue as t o w hetherr etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of C opel and i s r equi r ed. T he Pet i t i onerfai l ed t o pr es entanypr oof att he pos t

- co n v ict i on hear ing reg ardi ng expertey ew i t nes s t es t i m ony . W hen a Pet i t i onercont ends t hatcouns el fai l ed t o pr es entw i t nes s es i n s uppor tof a de fens e, t hes e w i t nes s es s houl d be pr es ent ed by t he Pet i t i oneratt he evi dent i aryhear i ng. See B l ack v. St at e, 794 S. W

. 2d 752, 757 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1990)

. T hus , t hi s cour t m us t r evi ew t he s ame f act s and ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed o n d ire c t ap p e a l. O n di r ectappea l , t hi s cou rtr evi ew ed the Pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m of err orr egar di ng t he excl us i on of an ey ew i t nes s expert

. See St at e v. T i m ot hy M cK i nney , N o. W 1 999- 00844--66-

C C A -R 3 -D D (T en n . C ri m . A p p . M ar. 28 , 2 0 0 1 ), af f’d b y7 4 S

. W

. 3 d 2 9 1 (T en n . 2 0 0 2 ). W h il e this co u rtap p li ed the h o lding in C o ley , stat ing that “C o ley c o n tr o ls th e e v iden ti ary i s s ue now befor e us , ” the cour t , nonethel es s , cont i nued t o anal y ze the cha l l enge a s t o w het her t he exc l us i on o f the ex p ert de ni ed the Pet i t i onert he r i ghtt o a fa i rt r i al , not i ng t hat“due p ro c e ss o f

law p re c lu d e s th e u se o f r u le s o f e v id e n c e to d e n ya c rim in a l d e f e n d a n t a f

a ir o p p o rtuni t y t o pr es ent a defe ns e. ” I d. s l i p op. at 7 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. A l t hough the c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t “th e R u les o f E v id e n c e a re su f

f ic ie n t to p ro tec t th e d e f e n d a n t’s in ter e st in a fa i r t r i al and hi s oppor tuni t y t o pr es enta def ens e, ” thi s cour tnot ed thateven a s s um i ng err or i n t he exc l usion o f t he evi dence , anyerr orw as har m l es s . T hi s cour tdet er m i ned thatt he excl uded evi dence w as notcr i t i cal t o t he Pet i t i oner ’ s defe ns e. T he courts t at ed:

T he convi ct i ng evi dence w as s tr ong, and al t hough i dent i t yw as an i s s ue, t he s t at e’ s cas e w as nott ot al l ydepende ntupon ey ew i t nes s i dent i fi cat i on t est im ony . T he j ur yw as s how n t hat M s . J el t z coul d notpos i t i vel yi denti fy the defe ndantas t he o ff en d er. O ff

icer L ee ’s ab il ityto ide n ti fythe o ff en d er in situ w as gr eat l yenhanc ed byt he fa ctt hathe knew t he def endant bas ed upon hi s r ece ntper s onal conver s at i ons w i t h hi m . T he oppor tuni t yform i s i dent i fi cat i on i n t hats i tuat i on i s notas gr eat as it w o u l d be i n a ca s e w her e the ey ew i t nes s obs er ves an o f f e n d e r w h o is a stra n g e r a n d th e n a ttem p ts to id e n tifyh im late r. F u rth e rm o re , the trial c o u rt g a v e th e D yle in stru c tio n to t he j ur y . See St at e v. D y l e, 899 S. W

. 2d 607, 612 ( T enn. 1995) ( pr es cr i bi ng i ns t ruct i ons , w hen i dent i t yi s a mat er i al i s s ue, t hat w oul d i nfor m t he j ur yaboutfac t or s t o us e i n ev aluat i ng ey ew i t nes s t es t i m onyand r emi ndi ng t hem of t he s t at e’ s bur den of p rovi ng i den t i t ybey on d a reasonab l e do ub t ). T hese ci r cumst ance s i n t h e p resentcas e bel i e anyconce r n t hatt he p ro p o s e d e v id e n c e w a s c ri tic a l. . . . I d. s l i p op at8. T he g eneral rul e i s that “quest i on s r egardi ng t he ad m i ssi bil i t y , qu al i fi cat i on s, re le v a n c y a n d c o m p e te n c yo f e x p e rt te s tim o n ya re le f t to th e d is c re tio n o f

th e tr ia l c o u rt .” C opel and, 226 S. W

. 3d at 301 ( ci t i ng M cD ani el v. C SX T r ans p. , I nc. , 955 S. W

. 2d 257, 263 ( T enn. 1997) ( ci t i ng St at e v. B al l ar d, 855 S. W

. 2d 557, 562 ( T enn. 1993) ) )

. A deci s i on byt he trial j u d g e to a d m it o r ex c lu d e e x p e rt tes tim o n y“ m a yo n lyb e o v e rtu rn e d if th e d isc re tio n is arbi t r ar i l yexer ci s ed or abus ed. ” M cD ani el , 955 S. W

. 2d at263- 64. Fur t her , t he admi s s i on o f e x p e r tp r o o f

i s g o v e r n e d b yT e n n e s s e e Ru l e s o f E v i d e n c e 7 0 2 a n d 7 0 3

. Br o wn v . Cr o wn E qu i p. C orp. , 18 1 S

. W

. 3d 26 8, 27 3 (T enn . 20 05 ). R ule 702 p rovi des as foll ow s:-67- If sc ien tific , tec h n ic a l, or o th e r sp e c ializ e d k n o w led g e w ill s ubs t ant i al l y as s i s t t he t r i er of fac t t o under s t and the evi dence or t o det er m i ne a f

acti n i s s ue, a w i t nes s qual i fi ed as an expertby know l edge, s ki l l , exper i ence , t r ai ni ng, oreduca t i on m ayt es t i fy i n t he form of an opi ni on orot herw i s e. T en n . R

. E v id. 70 2 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h is co u rtis w ith o u t th e b en ef ito f an y p roo f as t o the na ture of the pro p o sed ex p ert t es t i m onyand the nee d fors uch t es t i m onyi n t h e pr es entcas e. N ei t herw as s uch pr oof avai l abl e t o t he court s on di r ectappea l

. See M cK i nney , 74 S. W

. 3d at 302. A bs entpr oof by t he Pet i t i onerand cons i der i ng t he evi dence pr es ent ed at t r i al , w e conc l ude thatt her e w as no err ori n t he exc l us i on of t he t es t i m onyof an e xper ton ey ew it n ess i dent i fi cat i on. T he P e titio n e r i s n o t e n title d to re lie f o n th is c la im

. I V. DE AT H S EN TE NCE I S UNCONS TI TU TI ONAL T he Pet i t i onerr ai s es num er ous chal l enges t o t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof t he i m pos i t i on of t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . Th e St a t e r e s p o n d s t h a t t h e s e c h a l l e n g e s h a v e p r e v i o u s l y been c o n s id e re d a n d re

je c te d b yth e a p p e lla te c o u rt s o f th is s ta te

. A

. T ennes s ee D eath Penal t yR egi m e i s U ncons t i tut i onal T he Pet i t i oneras s er t s t hat t he deat h penal t yi s i m pos ed i n an arbi t r aryand ca pr i ci ous m annerr es ul t i ng i n t he vi ol at i on of t he Pet i t i oner ’ s r i ght s guar ant eed unde rbot h t he fe der al and s t at e cons t i tut i ons . Speci fi cal l y , he ar gues that the fai l ur e t o adoptanys t at ew i de gui del i nes orpr ocedur es forpr etr i al j udi ci al r evi ew of pr os ecut or i al di s cr et ion h as gi ven p rose cu tors u n fe tt ere d d iscreti o n in ch o o sing w h ethe r to see k a d ea th sen tenc e. In su p p o rt of hi s al l egat i on t he Pet i t i onerr el i es upon a re cent s tudy comm i s s i oned by t he A m er i can Bar A s s o c ia tio n D e a th P e n a lty M o ra to ri u m Im p le m e n ta tio n P roje c t. T h e P e tit io n e r’s c laim s th a t u n lim ited d is c re tio n is v e ste d in th e p ro se c u to r a s to w h ethe r o r n o t to s eek the dea t h penal t yand thatt he dea t h penal t yi s i m pos ed i n a di s cr i m i nat or ym an n er bas ed upon ec onom i cs , r ace , geogr aphy , and gende rhave be en r epea t edl yr ej ect ed byt he court s of t hi s s t at e. S ee S t at e v. H i nes , 919 S. W

. 2d 573, 582 ( T enn. 1995) ; St at e v. B r i m m er , 876 S. W

. 2d 75, 87 ( T enn. 1994) ; St at e v. C aze s , 875 S. W

. 2d 253, 268 ( T enn . 1 9 9 4 ); St at e v. Sm i t h, 857 S. W

. 2d 1, 23 ( T enn. 1993)

. A ddi t i onal l y , t he P e t i t i o n e rr a i s e d t h i s c l a i m o n d i r e c t a p p e a l

. S e e M c K i n n e y, 7 4 S

. W

. 3 d a t3 2 0

. A c c o r d i n g l y, t he cl ai m has been “pr evi ous l ydet er m i ned” pur s uantt o T ennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 4 0 -30 -10 6 (h).-68-

T h e P e tit io n e r a lso c o n ten d s th a t th e sta te o f T e n n e ss e e a p p lies a n u n c o n stitu tio n a lly h ig h b u rd e n o f p ro o f in in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l c laim s in v io latio n o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. S p e c if

ica lly , h e a r g u e s th a t th e c lea r a n d c o n v in c in g sta n d a rd a p p lied in T ennes s ee i s “di amet r i cal l y di ffe r ent ” t o t he s t andar d es t abl i s hed i n St r i ckl and v. W a s h in g to n . O urs upr eme cour t r ej ect ed thi s ar gum enti n i t s r ece ntdeci s i on i n D el l i ngerv. St at e, 279 S. W

. 3d 282 ( T enn. 2009)

. T he s t at e’ s s upr eme c our t hel d t hatt he r equi r ement t o pr ove al l egat i ons bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence , s ee Tennes s ee Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 40- 30- 1 1 0 (f), d o es n o t i m p li ca te t h e S tr icklan d inq u iry . D ell ing er, 2 7 9 S

. W

. 3 d at 29 3

. T h e c o u rt expl ai ned that , i f t he Pet i t i oner es t abl i s hed hi s al l egat i ons bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence , t hen the r evi ew i ng cour t m us t t hen ass es s under St r i ckl and w hethert haterr or“fe l l bel ow an o b jec tiv e sta n d a rd o f

re a so n a b len e ss ” a n d w h e th e r th e e rro r ra ise d “ a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty

. . . t he r es ul tof t he pr ocee di ngs w oul d have been di ffe r ent

. ” I d. at294 ( ci t i ng St r i ckl and, 466 U

. S. at687- 94)

. A ccor di ngl y , not hi ng i n s ect i on 40- 30- 110( f) obvi at es oradds t o t he tw o p ro n g s o f

d e f icie n c ya n d p re

ju d ice a s s e t f

o rth in S trick lan d . R a th e r, th e sta tu te m e re ly pr ovi des an evi dent i arys t andar d byw hi ch the Pet i t i onerm us tes t abl i s h t he exi s t ence of t he fac t s under l y i ng hi s al l egat i ons . T enne ssee adher es t o t he St r i ckl and fr amew or k. T he P e t i t i o n e ri s n o te n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f a s t o t h i s c l a i m. B

. T he Pet i t i oner ’ s Sent ence of D eath V i ol at es I nt ernat i onal L aw T he Pet i t i oner next cont ends t hatT ennes s ee’ s i m pos i t i on of a de ath penal t yvi ol at es t r eat i es of t he U n it ed S tat es and, hence , t he fe der al cons t i tut i on’ s Supr emacyC l aus e. T he Pet i t i onerconten d s that t he Supr emacyC l aus e w as vi ol at ed w hen hi s r i ght s undert r eat i es and cus t om aryi nt ernat i onal l aw t o w hi ch the U ni t ed St at es i s bound w er e di s r egar ded. A r gum ent s t hatt he dea t h penal t yi s uncons t i tut i onal underi nt ernat i onal l aw s and tr eat i es have s y s t emat i cal l ybeen r ej ect ed byt he court s . See St at e v. O d o m , 137 S. W

. 3d 572, 600 ( T enn. 2004) ; s ee a l s o M edel l i n v. T exas , 552 U

. S. ___, 129 S. C t

. 360 ( 2008) ( hol di ng t hat i nt ernat ion al t rea tyis no t bind ing d o m esti c law u n less C o n g ress e n ac ts st atutes im p le m ent i ng i torunl es s t he t r eaty i s s el f- exec ut i ng and t hat deci s i ons of t he Int ernat i onal C our tof J us t i ce ar e notbi ndi ng dom es t i c law ). W e di s cern no vi abl e r eas on t o r es ol ve thi s i s s ue i n a di ffe r entm anneri n t hi s cas e. T he Pet i t i oneri s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on thi s i s s ue. C

. L ethal I nj ect i on V i ol at es t he U ni t ed St at es and Tennes s ee Const i tut i ons and I nt ernat i onal L aw P e tit io n e r a ss e rts th a t ex e c u tio n b yth e m e a n s o f leth a l in jec tio n v io late s h is rig h ts to be fr ee f r om cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent

. T he Tennes s ee Supr eme C our thas cons i der ed th is c laim a n d d e ter m in e d th a t T e n n e ss e e ’s le th a l in jec tio n p ro to c o l is c o n sis ten t w ith-69-

cont empora r ys t andar ds of dec encyand w i t h t he overw hel m i ng m aj or i t y of l ethal i nj ect i on pr ot ocol s us ed by ot her s t at es and t he fede r al governm ent

. A bdur ’ R ahman v. B r edes en, 181 S. W

. 3d 292, 306- 07 ( T enn. 2005) , cert

. deni ed. O n A pr i l 16, 2008, t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our taff

i r m ed the u se o f t he thr ee- drug pr ot ocol us ed i n K entucky ’ s l ethal i nj ect i on pr ocedur e. B aze v. R ees , 553 U

. S. 35 ( 2008)

. T ennes s ee use s t he same pr ot ocol as K entucky

. I d. ( ci t i ng W or km an v. B r edes en, 486 F

. 3 d 8 9 6 , 9 0 2 ( 6t h C i r . 2007) ) ; s ee H arbi s on v. L i t t l e, 571 F

. 3 d 5 3 1 ( 6t h C i r . 2009) , cert

. deni ed, ___ U

. S. ___ ( 2010)

. T he Pet i t i oneri s notent i t l ed t o r el i ef on thi s i s s ue.

D

. T ennes s ee’ s Pr opor t i onal i t ySt atut e i s U ncons t i tut i onal T he Pet i t i oneras s er t s t hathi s due proc es s and equal pr ot ect i on r i ght s ar e j eopar di zed b y th e in v a lid a p p lica tio n o f T e n n e ss e e ’s sta tu te g o v e rn in g p ro p o rtio n a lityre v iew o f d e a th s ent ence s . T he Pet i t i oner ’ s ar gum ent s have be en r ej ect ed byt he court s of t hi s s t at e. See St at e v. V ann, 9 7 6 S. W

. 2d 93, 118- 19 ( T enn. 1998) ; C aze s , 875 S. W

. 2d at270- 71. M o reo v er, ou r sup rem e c o u rth as h eld th at, “[ w ]hil e im p o rt an t as an ad d it ion al saf eg u ard agai ns tarbi t r aryorcapr i ci ous s ent en cing , compar at i ve pr opor t i onal i t yr evi ew i s not c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y r e q u i r e d

. ” S t a t e v . B l a n d 9 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 1 , 6 6 3 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 7 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, th e P e titio n e r i s n o t e n title d to re lie f o n th is c la im

. E

. T he Indict m ent A gainstt he P et i t i on er Fai l ed to A l l ege a C apit al O ffen se T h e P e tit io n e r a ss e rts th a t h is s e n ten c e o f d e a th v io late s th e d u e p ro c e ss c lau se , artic le I , s e c t i o n 8 o f

t h e Te n n e s s e e Con s t i tu t i o n a n d t h e Fo u r t e e n t h Am e n d me n tt o t h e Uni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. R el y i ng upon A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 530 U

. S. 466 ( 2000) , he ar gues th at his i nd i ct m ent w as fl aw ed becau se t he aggravati ng ci rcum st ance w hich m a d e h im el i gi bl e fort he dea t h penal t yw as nots ubm i t t ed t o t he gr and j ur ynorr eturn ed in the in d ictm e n t. T h e P e tit io n e r’s a rg u m e n t is b a se d u p o n th e p re m ise th a t f irst d e g re e m u rd e r is n o t a capit al off

ense unl ess accom pan i ed by agg ravat i ng fact ors. T hu s, he al l eges th a t to sati sfy the re q u ir em en ts of A p p ren d i, the in d ict m en t m u st inc lud e lang u ag e o f th e statuto ry aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s t o el evat e t he offens e t o capi t al m ur der

. T hi s ar gum enthas been r ej ect ed byours upr eme cour t

. See St at e v. R ol l i ns , 188 S. W

. 3d 553 ( T enn. 2006) ; St at e v. H ol t on, 126 S. W

. 3d 845 (T en n . 2 0 04) ; s ee a l s o St at e v. B err y , 141 S. W

. 3d 549, 558- 62 ( Te n n . 2 0 0 4 )

. Th e P e t i t i o n e ri s n o te n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f o n t h i s c l a i m. F. O ffe rof a G ui l t yPl ea W as U ncons t i tut i onal B e f o re trial, th e S tate o f

f e re d th e P e tit io n e r a se n ten c e o f life w ith o u t th e p o ss ib ili ty of par ol e i n excha nge fora gui l t ypl ea. T he Pet i t i onernow as s er t s t hatt hi s at t empt byt he s t at e to circum ventt he Pet i t i oner ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s r ender s hi s death s ent ence-70-

u n c o n stitu tio n a l. S p e c if ica lly , h e a ss e rts th a t a d e f e n d a n t ca n n o t b e f

o rc e d to sa c rif

ice h is cons t i tut i onal r i ght s t o avoi d t he deat h penal t y . See U ni t ed St at es v. J acks on, 390 U

. S. 570, 581 n. 20 ( 1968)

. T hi s s ame i s s ue has been re j ect ed by ours upr eme cour ti n St at e v. M ann, 9 5 9 S

. W

. 2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 ( Te n n . 1 9 9 7 )

. Th e P e t i t i o n e ri s n o te n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f o n t h i s c l a i m. CO NC L US I ON C ouns el ’ s cons t i tut i on a l l yd e fi ci enci es t hr oughoutt he r epr es ent at i on of t he Pet i t i oner es t abl i s h cumul at i ve pre j udi ce of s uch m agni tude t hat w e concl ude thatt he Pet i t i oner ’ s r i ght to a f a ir p ro c e e d in g w a s p re

ju d ice d . T h e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tyth a t, ab se n t th e ir d e f icie n c ies , th e o u tco m e o f b o th th e g u ilt p h a se a n d th e se n ten c in g p h a se o f th e trial w o u ld h av e b ee n d iffe ren t. T h e n ature an d ex te n t o f c o u n sel’s de ficien cies ren d ere d the e n ti re p r o c e e d i n g f

u n d a me n t a l l yu n f

a i r . Ac c o r d i n g l y , u p o n r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e p re p o n d e ra tes a g a in st th e f in d in g s o f

th e p o st-c o n v ictio n c o u rt. C o n sid e rin g th e p re

ju d ice re su lti n g f

ro m c o u n se l’s d efi ci encies i n thei r r epre se n tatio n in b o th t he pr epar at i on and tr i al of t hi s cas e, w e r ever s e the j udgm entof t he low er courtdeny i ng p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f

f o r t h is o f f e n s e , a n d a n e w tr ia l is g ra n te d

.

_________

_ _ _ ________________________ J OSEPH M

. TI PTON , PRES I DING JUDGE