MAKE AN INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WAS A MATTER OF
NEGLIGENCE AND MONEY. NOT AMATTER OF STRATEGY. • A PROPER INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS BY COUNSEL WOULD HAVE
RESULTED TN A DEFENSE AT LEAST AKIN TO THE DEFENSE APPLICANT WAS
LEFT TO DISCOVER FOR HIMSELF. (COPE REPORT-EXHTBIT NINE) APPLICANT WAS HARMED BY COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY
INVESTIGATE THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS SHOWN BY THE GUILTY VERDTCT
AND MAXIMUM TIME ASSESSED BY THE .HJRY: BUT FOR THTS FAILURE OF
DUTY. THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. AS NO
REASONABLE OR RATIONAL JUROR WOULD HAVE CONVICTED APPLICANT.
FURTHER. APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY FAILED TO ASK FOR ANY KIND OF
HEARING TO EVALUATE THE TESTIMONY OF THE SHEREFF'S DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEE WHO WAS TO GIVE HIS OPINIONS REGARDING THE COLLISION.
THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT REVIEW THE OPINIONS OF THE
WITNESS BEFORE THEY WERE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. THERE WAS
NO TEST OF THE SOUNDNESS. BASIS. OR VALIDITY OF THE SO-TALL"
"SCIENTIFIC" OR "EXPERT" TESTIMONY TO BE PROFFERED BY THE STATE.
GROUND FOUR:
. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF CONSEL
(FAILURE TO ASSERT AN AVAn.ABT E DEFENSE)
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:
APPLICANT'S COUNSEL FAILED TO ASSERT AN AVAILABLE DEFENSE A DEFENSE WAS OUT THERE. WATTTNG. DISCOVERABLE BY COUNSEL HAD HE DECIDED TO OBTAIN TT FOR APPLICANT'S DEFENSE. COUNSEL WAS ILL-PREPARED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OR FOR ADVANCING A DEFENSE THE RECORD SHOWS TT WAS A MATTER OF NEGLIGENCE AND MONEY. NOT A MATTER OF STRATEGY. APPLICANT'S COUNSEL HAD BEEN ALLOWED FUNDS TO SECURF. AN EXPERT TO ANALYZE AND RECONSTRUCT THE MOTOR VEHICLE COT TTSTON IN ORDER TO COMBAT THE STATE'S VERSION OF THE COLLISION FIRST. HE WHOLLY FAILED TO USE THE FUNDS FOR THAT PURPOSE. SECONDLY. HE WHOLLY FAILED TO TRY TO OBTATN MORE FUNDS FOR THAT PURPOSE. THE NET RESULT OF THESE FAILINGS WAS THAT APPLICANT WAS DENIED HTS DEFENSE, A DEFENSE WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT THE DRIVER OF THE OTHER VEHICLE WAS AT FAULT. THEREBY CAUSING THE DEATH OF HER PASSENGER. SUCH EVIDENCE ESSENTIALLY NEGATING THE STATE'S VERSION OF THE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION. APPLICANT HAS SHOWN THAT A DEFENSE TO THE STATE'S VERSION OF THE COLLISION WAS AVAH ART jr., DISCOVERABLE BY COUNSEL. YET HE FAn.FD, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE- TO PRESENT IT FOR APPLICANT. NO REASONABLE OR RATIONAL HTROR WOULD HAVE CONVICTED APPLICANT HAD THE DEFENSE BEEN PRF.SF.NT~
GROUND FIVE:
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
(FAILURE TN PERFORMANCE)
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FIVE:
COUNSEL PRESSED APPLICANT TO TESTIFY AT PUNISHMENT PHASE OF
TRIAL. DISREGARDING HIS PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CONDITION. SHORTLY
BEFORE THE PUNISHMENT PHASE OF HIS TRIAL APPLICANT HAD TRUED TO
KILL HIMSELF. FAILING ONLY BECAUSE OF A BED CHECK THAT NIGHT.
OVER 100 STITCHES TAKEN IN HIS ARM. A FEW HOURS LATER HE WAS
TAKEN BACK TO THE COURTROOM FOR THE PUNISHMENT PHASE OF HIS
TRIAL. HE DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PAINFUL PROCESS OF
CHANGING BACK INTO HIS SUIT. BUT THE JUDGE SENT A DEPUTY TO
FORCIBLY MAKE HIM CHANGE FROM THE JAIL SUIT INTOHTS