Opinion ID: 1770262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: The Court of Appeals held that the Fayette Circuit Court incorrectly found that Rather provided ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not have Appellant testify during the guilt and penalty phases of trial and because some potential mitigation evidence was not presented during the penalty phase of trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Fayette Circuit Court's ruling denying relief on Rather's decision not to investigate Bouchard's mental history. We will now analyze each of these holdings under the standards discussed above.
The trial court's order held that the only way to show that Appellant was innocent at the guilt phase was to have her testify and counter the testimony that Bouchard and Elizabeth presented against her. However, upon a thorough review of the record, Rather's advice to keep Appellant from testifying was not unreasonable and did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. In this analysis, we should not lose sight of the fact that this was a death penalty case. As an initial matter, we must review Rather's trial actions to see if they were deficient or unreasonable under prevailing professional standards. Rather's initial strategy in this case was to make a plea bargain with the Commonwealth for Appellant. After Appellant rejected the Commonwealth's offer, Rather chose a trial strategy which would show Appellant was either not guilty through a reasonable doubt defense in case the Commonwealth's case fell short of their burden of proof, or at the very minimum, show that she was not the leader or mastermind of the scheme to kill Michael in order to insulate her from the death penalty. As Rather stated at the evidentiary hearing, in a death penalty case  you don't try things that will make it worse.  In fact, most experienced criminal defense counsel would argue that when all you have in a death penalty case is a possible reasonable doubt defense, you must focus on avoiding or minimizing facts that could increase your defendant's chance of receiving the death penalty. That, in itself can be considered a victory. See Russell Stetler, Capital Cases: Mitigation Evidence in Death Penalty Cases, Champion, Jan.-Feb.1999 at 35 (The paradox of death penalty litigation is that no case is hopeless, but there is also no guarantee of success-that is, avoiding a death sentence  when a case enters a sentencing proceeding.) It is with this strategy in mind that Rather made the decision to advise Appellant not to testify. In making this decision, Rather was concerned with keeping the incriminating statements that Appellant made to the police suppressed as much as he could. Had Appellant testified, all these statements would have obviously been used for impeachment. Those statements included her admission that she had helped Bouchard gain entry into Michael's apartment fully-knowing his potential intent to kill Michael and that Appellant had even attempted to borrow a gun from a friend for Bouchard  not because her father was in town. Even Appellant, at the evidentiary hearing, admitted that she previously said this statement was full of lies and it was a major reason why she could not testify at trial. During the trial, Appellant obviously agreed with Rather's advice because she discussed her decision not to testify with the judge. She acknowledged it was her own voluntary decision not to testify and that she was not coerced by anyone in making that decision. She further acknowledged that she knew she had the right to testify, but was waiving it. In the evidentiary hearing, Appellant admitted that she was not honest with Rather about what happened the night of Michael's murder but claimed that at some time during the trial she had come clean and let him know her version of the facts. What Appellant initially told Rather was based in part on her desire to protect Elizabeth at the time. Thus, we cannot hold that Rather's strategy to keep Appellant from testifying was professionally unreasonable in light of the facts of the case. From the evidence at hand, it does not appear possible that Appellant could have been found not guilty if she had testified. Interestingly, Elizabeth did testify, yet received the same sentence as Appellant. The risk of the suppressed statement being used to impeach Appellant was too great. Moreover, the admittance of that statement could have increased the risk of the death penalty being imposed. Importantly, counsel's strategy may be influenced by what his client says. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. His actions are to be viewed in light of what was known at the time of trial and his acts are to be given great deference. Id. The trial court failed to give Rather's actions under the particular circumstances of this case the deference required, and thus, committed error. Additionally, the trial court held that Appellant's testimony may have provided the evidentiary grounds for the trial court to give a renunciation jury instruction. KRS § 506.020 (it is a defense that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal purpose, the defendant abandoned his effort to commit the crime and, if mere abandonment was insufficient to avoid the commission of the crime, took the necessary affirmative steps to prevent its commission.) However, all of the evidence presented at the time of trial indicated that Appellant's declaration I can't go through with it, occurred after the attack on Michael had begun. Appellant's behavior after her statement was also not indicative of someone who took steps to prevent the commission of a criminal act. The slim chance that a jury would buy a renunciation defense was obviously too low for Rather to risk Appellant's suppressed statement being admitted. Thus, Rather's actions did not constitute deficient or unreasonable professional conduct under the circumstances and evidence he faced at the time. Therefore, the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that Rather did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by not allowing Appellant to testify at the guilt phase of trial.
The trial court also held that it was ineffective assistance of counsel for Rather to keep Appellant from testifying at the penalty phase of trial. We therefore must review this holding first, to see if the advice was deficient or unreasonable under the prevailing professional standards. The same basic concerns that Rather had about Appellant testifying during the guilt phase also applied during the sentencing phase. And he had good reason to keep Appellant from what could have been potentially as damaging a cross-examination as was Elizabeth's. Rather's main focus at this point, and rightfully so, was to ensure that Appellant was not sentenced to death. His strategy was successful. Hindsight may lead one to guess that it would have been better for Appellant to testify to attempt to gain sympathy from the jury. That is an easy thing to say when you are not gambling with a death sentence. It is a little more intimidating, when you are. Thus, Rather's advice not to testify was not deficient or unreasonable considering the facts of the case. Giving Rather's decision the proper deference, Rather did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by advising Appellant not to testify during the penalty phase of trial.
Appellant argues that Rather did not present or attempt to present enough mitigation witnesses during the penalty phase. Rather, however, did present Donna Brown, Appellant's only sister, Bruce Johnson, Appellant's middle school principal; and Billie Randolph, a family friend for whom Appellant occasionally baby sat. All three testified that Appellant was an intelligent, capable, and well-liked individual. However, all three also testified that Appellant was not a leader and was more apt to follow the crowd. This was consistent with the image and strategy that Rather was trying to create for Appellant  that by her nature she could not have planned or masterminded Michael's death. She was under the control of others. Rather testified at the evidentiary hearing that he was aware of several other witnesses he could have called during the penalty phase. However, he did not call them because they would have indicated that Appellant was a leader. Additionally, Rather did not call Appellant's mother to testify because she indicated to Rather that she could not physically handle the strain. Thus, Rather's actions regarding who he called as a witness during the penalty phase were not deficient or unreasonable when compared to prevailing professional standards under similar circumstances. He chose a lesser culpability strategy designed to make Appellant look less culpable for Michael's death. Therefore, he chose witnesses who would further that strategy, instead of harm it. Also, by keeping certain family members from testifying, Rather was attempting to prevent the jury from hearing about Appellant's strange family life, some of which they did anyway. Yet, his actions were designed to minimize such evidence as much as he could. Thus, his actions certainly fell within reasonable professional standards and he did not, by that standard, provide ineffective assistance of counsel.
Appellant finally argues that Rather's failure to investigate Bouchard's potential mental illness constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant argues that if Rather had investigated and discovered the severe depression Bouchard was apparently suffering from, he could have used that in cross examination to discredit Bouchard's testimony. Dr. Wagner at the evidentiary hearing testified that the type of depression he believed Bouchard suffered from could cause him to misperceive events and circumstances and to distort both current and past events. However, the trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected this argument and so do we. Before trial Rather had access to an examination of Bouchard performed by Dr. Blouse. Dr. Blouse concluded that Bouchard had no mental illnesses and that Bouchard was faking his problems. Rather decided not to investigate Bouchard's mental state any further because he wanted Bouchard to be seen as capable of being the leader of the murder plot. He feared that if Bouchard were believed to be incompetent, the blame would fall solely on Appellant, since she was the only other person present at the murder. In this regard, Rather gave his best effort to strongly cross-examine Bouchard in an attempt to bolster his client's defense. Considering all of the facts in play  including Appellant telling Rather facts that were not terribly inconsistent with those testified to by Bouchard  we cannot say that Rather's strategy was deficient or fell below the prevailing professional standards. The trial court and Court of Appeals correctly gave Rather's trial strategy the deference it deserved and on this issue we concur.