Opinion ID: 1435226
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Morales's Claim of Ineffective Assistance During the Guilt Phase

Text: Morales argues that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by presenting Politzer's testimony during the guilt phase of the trial despite knowing that Politzer did not believe that Morales had a viable voluntary-intoxication defense. Morales contends that Politzer harmed his case when, during cross-examination, she gave the following testimony: Q: All right. And during that period of time that you were so under the wing of Dr. Resnick as it were, do you agree with his position that voluntary intoxication does not serve as a basis for the insanity defense?     A: Yes, I generally agree with the position. J.A. at 913-14 (Trial Tr. at 1549-50). It is unclear whether Morales presented this precise issue to the state courts; the last reasoned state-court opinion on the issuethat of the Ohio Court of Appeals characterized the argument as alleging ineffective pretrial assistance on the ground that trial counsel would not have pursued the not guilty by reason of insanity defense had he conferred with his own expert, Dr. Rita Politzer. J.A. at 500 (Sep. 29, 1993 State Post-Conviction Op. at A34). In rejecting this contention, however, the Ohio appellate court also addressed the argument that Morales makes here, by holding that Politzer's testimony supported the insanity defense by setting forth her clearly expressed . . . opinion that, due to a mental illness, appellant did not know that his conduct which resulted in the death of Mario Trevino was wrong. J.A. at 501 (Journal Entry at A35). The district court denied habeas relief on this ground, adopting the reasoning of the state court. Morales, 98 F.Supp.2d at 868. On appeal, Morales argues that he has satisfied the Strickland standard with respect to this claim. The state contends that the claim is procedurally defaulted and, in any event, that the claim is not meritorious.
As a threshold matter, the state argues that we are precluded from considering Morales's guilt-phase IAC claim, because Morales procedurally defaulted that claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal from his conviction. [7] Morales responds by pointing out that the claim relies on evidence outside of the trial record, including Politzer's post-trial affidavit, which states that Politzer informed Morales's counsel before trial that she did not believe that Morales had a viable insanity defense, as well as the affidavits of neuropharmacologist Jonathan J. Lipman, Ph.D. (Lipman) and forensic psychologist James R. Eisenberg, Ph.D. (Eisenberg), both of whom expressed the opinion that evidence available at the time of Morales's trial should have led Morales's defense team to have Morales tested for organic impairment and extreme susceptibility to alcohol. J.A. at 361-64 (Lipman Aff.), 654-65 (Eisenberg Aff.), 718-19 (Politzer Aff.). Morales further contends that, even if he did default the claim, that default was excused by the Ohio appellate court, which addressed the claim on the merits. In determining whether a claim is procedurally defaulted, we engage in a four-part inquiry, asking whether: (1) a state procedural rule exists that applies to the petitioner's claim, (2) the petitioner failed to comply with the rule, (3) the state court actually applied the state rule in rejecting the petitioner's claim, and (4) the state procedural rule is an adequate and independent ground upon which the state can rely to deny relief. Frazier v. Huffman, 343 F.3d 780, 790 (6th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1095, 124 S.Ct. 2815, 159 L.Ed.2d 261 (2004). Furthermore, a procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on habeas corpus review unless the last state court rendering a reasoned opinion in the case clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar. Id. at 791 (internal quotation marks omitted). Morales is correct on both counts. First, while the state points out that the trial record itself sufficed to demonstrate or disprove Morales's claim that Politzer's testimony actually harmed his case, the post-trial affidavits provide the only evidentiary support for Morales's contention that his counsel knew of Politzer's negative opinion of Morales's insanity defense and that other expert testimony or medical evidence might have been procured that would have proven more helpful to Morales at the guilt stage of his trial. Accordingly, Morales's guilt-phase IAC claim relies on evidence outside of the trial record and therefore was not defaulted when he failed to raise it on direct appeal. White v. Mitchell, 431 F.3d 517, 527 (6th Cir.2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 578, 166 L.Ed.2d 457 (2006), and ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 581, 166 L.Ed.2d 434 (2006). Moreover, the Ohio appellate court did address the claim on the merits and did not provide any procedural reason for denying it, thereby waiving any default that might have occurred. J.A. at 500-01 (Ct. App. Journal Entry re Murnahan application at 34-35). We therefore reach the merits of the claim.
Morales contends that his defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the guilt phase by presenting the testimony of Politzer, which, he claims, undermined rather than supported the defense's theory that Morales was not guilty by reason of insanity because he was incapable of forming the intent to murder. In support of this theory, he cites our opinion in Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1035, 121 S.Ct. 623, 148 L.Ed.2d 533 (2000). In Combs, the defense's only expert witness testified on cross-examination, during the guilt phase of the trial, that, although intoxicated, Combs acted purposefully and intentionally. Id. at 287. We held that defense counsel was objectively unreasonable (and thus ineffective) in presenting the witness without conducting a pretrial investigation adequate to reveal this damaging opinion, in light of the fact that involuntary intoxication is a defense, under Ohio law, only to the extent that it impairs the ability to form intent. Id. at 288. This case is distinguishable from Combs, however, in several crucial respects. First, unlike Combs's counsel, Morales's trial attorney fully ascertained his expert witness's opinion before trial. J.A. at 718 (Politzer Aff. at 1 ¶ 3) (When I talked to Mr. Damiani, I told him my findings were more suited to a diminished capacity defense rather than [a] not guilty by reason of insanity defense. . . . [I]n my opinion . . ., he would not be successful on a not guilty by reason of insanity defense.). Second, the bulk of Politzer's testimony was helpful to the defense. Unlike the expert in Combs, who undermined the defense in that case by testifying that the defendant was capabledespite his intoxicationof forming the requisite intent, Politzer testified that Morales's personality disorder, combined with his alcohol dependency and abuse, deprived him of the ability to refrain from or understand the wrongfulness of his actions. J.A. at 898-99 (Trial Tr. at 1534-35). Finally, although Politzer did concede, during cross-examination, that voluntary intoxication alone is not a basis for the insanity defense, J.A. at 913-14 (Trial Tr. at 1549-50), she also testified that voluntary intoxication was not the only contributing factor in the murder of Mario Trevino, J.A. at 951-53 (Trial Tr. at 1587-89). More to the point, Politzer was presented as a psychological, not a legal, expert, and thus her response to the question on cross-examination as to the legal efficacy of a voluntary-intoxication defense was neither relevant nor admissible. In fact, defense counsel objected to the question, but the trial court overruled that objection and allowed Politzer to answer. J.A. at 913-14 (Trial Tr. at 1549-50). Accordingly, because the substance of Politzer's testimony supported the defense theory, and because her one unhelpful comment was improperly admitted over defense counsel's objection, we decline to hold that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in presenting Politzer's testimony. Morales also argues that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to conduct an adequate investigation of Morales's medical records, which would have revealed clear indications of underlying problems including possible neurological impairment. Morales Br. at 41 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting J.A. at 659 (Eisenberg Aff. at 6)). According to Morales, a review of these records would have permitted Politzer to provide more helpful testimony. In support of this contention, he points to Politzer's testimony, on cross-examination, that psychological testing of Morales had revealed no signs of mental illness or organic brain impairment. Morales Br. at 40-41 (citing J.A. at 936 (Trial Tr. at 1572)). It is true that medical records that were available but undiscovered at the time of Morales's trial indicated that he may have suffered from neurological deficits. When Morales was in kindergarten, his school psychologist determined that he had an `immature neurological system' which accounted for his behavior control problems. J.A. at 712 (Ruffin Aff. at 18). The psychologist prescribed Morales an unspecified medication for this condition but believed that Morales would outgrow the problem. J.A. at 712-13 (Ruffin Aff. at 18-19). Additional evidence indicated that Morales suffered two head injuries in 1983, only two years before the killing, and a possible drug overdose less than a month before Mario Trevino's murder. J.A. at 714 (Ruffin Aff. at 20). Even assuming, however, that trial counsel was deficient in failing to review these records or to present them to Politzer, our precedents preclude a grant of relief on this ground, as Morales has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. We recently denied a claim nearly identical to Morales's on the ground that [t]rial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective, since even at this late date, there is no medical proof of a mental condition. Carter v. Mitchell, 443 F.3d 517, 529 (6th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 955, 166 L.Ed.2d 730 (2007); see also Smith v. Mitchell, 348 F.3d 177, 202 (6th Cir.2003) (Dr. Smith never states that Smith suffers from organic brain damage. The closest thing to organic brain damage in Dr. Smith's statement is that Smith was dependent on alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine, and that each of these chemicals affects the central nervous system.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 841, 125 S.Ct. 278, 160 L.Ed.2d 65 (2004); Martin v. Mitchell, 280 F.3d 594, 613 (6th Cir.) (Martin's initial brief completely fails to point to what mitigating evidence further action on the part of his counsel would have uncovered.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1004, 123 S.Ct. 515, 154 L.Ed.2d 401 (2002); Campbell v. Coyle, 260 F.3d 531, 555 (6th Cir.2001) (denying a habeas claim of ineffective assistance because the petitioner had provided no evidence that he suffered from the claimed disorder), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 975, 122 S.Ct. 1448, 152 L.Ed.2d 390 (2002). Under these precedents, Morales's new evidence, whichat bestindicates that he might suffer from some unidentified and unproven organic brain dysfunction, is insufficient to demonstrate that his trial counsel's allegedly deficient performance prejudiced his case. Moreover, his contention that access to the new evidence would have rendered Politzer's testimony dramatically different, Morales Br. at 41, is at least an exaggeration of the truth. By testifying that Morales had been unable to comprehend the wrongfulness of his actions or to refrain from taking those actions on the night of the murder, Politzer provided evidence supporting the defense's central contention, and that evidence was not significantly undermined by her statement that she had not detected any evidence of organic disease. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in denying habeas relief on this ground.