Opinion ID: 149617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Hearing on Motion for New Trial

Text: After trial, DeYoung received new counsel, Edwin Wilson, who had practiced law since 1977, had been a prosecutor, and had a general practice, including criminal defense. [11] Wilson spent 77 hours reading the trial transcript and probably read it more than once. Wilson stated that [t]he transcript looked pretty thorough to me. He reviewed DeYoung's trial counsel's files, which were nearly 12,000 pages. Wilson spoke with DeYoung and discerned potential issues from his transcript review. DeYoung was concerned counsel had not presented testimony from his co-workers. Wilson and DeYoung corresponded often, but DeYoung never mentioned any dysfunction within his family. Wilson spoke with attorneys Jones and O'Brien, the DeYoungs' minister, and DeYoung's grandmother. Wilson was familiar with presenting ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and he intended to raise everything that appeared to be possible error, including any trial counsel performance issues. Through Wilson, DeYoung filed a motion for new trial alleging, inter alia, that his trial counsel were ineffective because they: (1) failed to develop and present psychological evidence in the penalty phase; and (2) failed to develop and present other available mitigation evidence in the penalty phase. The state trial court held an evidentiary hearing. Trial counsel Jones and O'Brien testified about their mitigation investigation and strategy, which is already outlined above. DeYoung gave Jones and O'Brien a list of at least twenty potential mitigation witnesses, including Kathy Albright, Kim Earlywine, and Judy Stevens, and DeYoung later submitted affidavits from Albright, Diane Butler, and Beth Fisher. Albright, a fellow manager at Burger King, stated that DeYoung handled his authority well at Burger King and had no problems relating to fellow employees or customers. DeYoung was quiet, did not have a lot of friends, and made no real attempt to associate with the other employees. DeYoung often conveyed ... his desire to go beyond Burger King to what he perceived as something better. Overall, DeYoung was a good kid who seemed to know what he wanted out of life... [and] had the intelligence to achieve it. DeYoung appeared to have the potential to be a contributing and successful member of society. Butler, who attended DeYoung's church, stated that DeYoung had a brilliant mind but lacked simple social skills and had trouble relating to and interacting with others. Butler developed a friendship with DeYoung by visiting him in jail while he awaited trial. Fisher, another co-worker, stated that DeYoung handled his managerial position well, got along well with the crew and customers, and never posed any problems. DeYoung visited Fisher's house on several occasions and played with Fisher's children. Fisher trusted DeYoung and found him to be pleasant and a good kid. DeYoung often discussed plans to open his own Burger King or a teen club. DeYoung had intelligence and common sense and was a high achiever with a lot of potential. The state trial court denied DeYoung's motion for new trial. As to DeYoung's mitigation evidence claims, the state trial court found: (1) DeYoung was able to assist his attorneys in preparing for trial; (2) Dr. Messer did not see psychiatric factors as part of his defense; and (3) Dr. Shaffer's extensive testing and Dr. Messer's consultations produced no useable psychological evidence for the defense. The court found that the affidavits of Albright, Butler, and Fisher indicated their testimony would have been similar to that already presented by counsel in the penalty phase and would not have changed the outcome: A review of the affidavits of Diane Butler, Kathy Albright, and Beth Fisher, submitted to supplement the record, indicates their relationship as church members and/or as fellow workers of DeYoung and their observations of him as intelligent, a good worker, and pleasant to be around, and of his hopes to improve his position in life. Similar testimony was presented at trial through a former teacher, a former neighbor, and three of DeYoung's grandparents. In view of the strong evidence connecting DeYoung to the murders of his parents and his sister, it is unlikely this cumulative evidence, if presented, would have changed the outcome of the trial.