Opinion ID: 1575754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mitigation Witnesses

Text: Lee next urges that Adams rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not present essential mitigation evidence. Lee specifically argues that Adams failed to call his mother, Stella Young, and his sister, Lynn Williams, to testify as mitigation witnesses; that he failed to prepare his uncle, Charles Booker, and his aunt, Shelby Smith, properly for their mitigation testimony; and that Adams failed to offer physical evidence in the penalty phase that might humanize him. He again relies on the ABA Guidelines, which were significantly revised in 2003, many years after his trial. Stella Young and Lynn Williams both testified at the August 2007 hearing that they were not asked to testify at the penalty phase of the second trial but would have been willing to do so. Stella Young testified further that Adams had not asked her for any photos or videos of Lee. Adams testified at the August 2007 hearing that he would now offer that sort of physical evidence in a death penalty case. He said that he do[es] a lot of things differently today in mitigation. With respect to Lee's argument that Adams should have called his mother, Stella Young, to testify as a mitigation witness, the record reflects that Adams was instructed by Lee not to do so. Regarding the other testimony and evidence that Lee argues should have been presented to the jury during the penalty phase, Lee fails to show how he was prejudiced by the lack of that evidence. In his brief before this court, Lee makes the conclusory statement that [a] heart-felt, moving plea from grieving family members might have caused some juror to spare Lee's life. Lee also contends that proper preparation could have perhaps  caused his aunt and uncle to give such testimony. However, the Strickland test required Lee to show that, but for the alleged error in Adams's representation, there was a reasonable probability that the jury would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death. 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The guarantee of effective assistance of counsel clearly encompasses the penalty phase of a criminal trial, and this court has recognized that the failure to present any testimony during the mitigation phase of the trial fails to pass constitutional muster. See, e.g., State v. Smith, 368 Ark. 620, 622-23, 249 S.W.3d 119, 121-22 (2007) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)). However, this court has further held that the decision not to offer certain mitigating evidence is a matter of trial strategy where the decision is made after a full investigation of the facts. See Wooten v. State, 351 Ark. 241, 245-46, 91 S.W.3d 63, 66 (2002). In the instant case, the circuit judge, following the Rule 37 hearing in 2007, noted that Adams called Lee's aunt and uncle, friends and acquaintances of Lee, and an expert witness during the penalty phase of the trial. These witnesses, according to the judge, gave testimony that Lee did not deserve to die, that he was not a violent person but one who never got into trouble growing up, that he was an excellent worker who was nice and got along with his fellow workers, and that he was born to an unwed teenage mother and did not have a father figure at home, among other things. Furthermore, the record reflects that Lee asked Adams not to call his mother in the penalty phase. Adams also testified that he hired a mitigation fact investigator who had experience with death penalty cases, and there were family members who gave mitigation evidence. Under these circumstances, we hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that Adams was not ineffective in his preparation and presentation of the penalty phase of the trial.