Opinion ID: 204733
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to develop and present evidence of Tibbetts' mental state

Text: Tibbetts argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient because he failed to call an expert in pharmacology during the penalty phase. At an evidentiary hearing before the district court, Tibbetts presented the testimony of Charles T. Kandiko, Ph.D., a pharmacologist, and Janice Ort, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist. At the hearing, Dr. Kandiko testified that he believed that Tibbetts was impaired the day of the murders, and that his aggressive actions were an effect of the combination of cocaine and alcohol. Dr. Kandiko also testified that it is possible that memory can be affected by ingesting various substances, and that there is evidence that someone could have an aggressive period while under the influence of cocaine, and then not have any memory of it later. Dr. Ort conducted additional psychiatric tests on Tibbetts, to test his mental state. She testified that a full understanding of Tibbetts' mental state would only have been possible with the input of an expert pharmacologist. Dr. Ort offered additional testimony regarding Tibbetts' mental state, based on the testimony offered by Dr. Kandiko and the additional tests she conducted. In White v. Mitchell, 431 F.3d 517 (6th Cir.2005), this court rejected a claim almost identical to the one brought here, [1] stating that we [did] not find a meaningful difference in the two diagnoses as they pertain to the legal considerations relevant here, and therefore, we find that [Petitioner] cannot show prejudice as a result of his trial counsel's performance. Id. at 529-30. Dr. Weaver's testimony covered each subject Petitioner claims was necessary for a constitutionally adequate defense, including that Tibbetts' use of drugs and alcohol was an explosion waiting to happen, and that Tibbetts was unable to control his rage response while intoxicated. Tibbetts argues, however, that Dr. Weaver could not have provided the detailed testimony needed because he was not a trained pharmacologist. For the purposes of the penalty phase of Tibbetts' trial, this is a distinction without a difference. See, e.g., Clark v. Mitchell, 425 F.3d 270, 285 (6th Cir.2005) (holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to retain a pharmacologist because a mental health expert testified at trial about the defendant's drug addiction). We cannot conclude that a habeas petitioner is entitled to the testimony of every qualified expert who might possess some specialized knowledge regarding the petitioner's case. Because there is no meaningful difference between the testimony of Dr. Weaver and the proposed testimony of Dr. Kandiko, at least as they pertain to the legal considerations before the trial court during the penalty phase, Tibbetts cannot show prejudice as a result of his trial counsel's performance. We therefore affirm the district court's denial of relief on this claim.