Opinion ID: 776169
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Explain Importance of Evidence to His Client

Text: 96 Mr. Freeman also admits that if Mr. Bryan was organically brain damaged and mentally ill at the time of trial, he might not have received the death penalty. See id. at 110. Given Mr. Freeman's unsound investigation which, in turn, hampered his ability to make strategic choices regarding the second-stage proceedings and competently advise his client regarding those proceedings, Battenfield, 236 F.3d at 1234, I believe there was no informed decision by counsel or client in this case. The OCCA held that defense counsel conducted a reasonable investigation but concluded that the failure to present the psychiatric mitigating evidence was tactical. If so, it was tactical surrender. I believe this was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. See Williams, 120 S. Ct. at 1522. 97 The OCCA relied upon Mr. Freeman's purported residual doubt strategy: to present the evidence might focus the jury on future dangerousness rather than moral culpability. There is no question that [t]he guilt phase may . . . provide the opportunity to sow the seeds of 'residual' doubt concerning the defendant's guilt, enhancing the chances of a life sentence. James M. Doyle, The Lawyer's Act: Representation in Capital Cases, 8 Yale J.L. & Human. 417, 449 (1996). Counsel may further attempt to stir up any lingering doubt concerning the guilt of the defendant during the sentencing phase hoping to cause the jury to decide against the imposition of the death penalty. However, to read such a strategy into Mr. Freeman's actions is not reasonable. There was no testimony regarding Mr. Bryan's potential innocence. Mr. Freeman's closing argument, rather than suggesting that the circumstantial evidence may not point to his client, stated Leroy should not have killed, Vol. VII, at 1753 (trial tr.), and asked the jury not to impose the death penalty here because the underlying crime did not warrant the penalty. See id. at 1748-1754. 98 In contrast to the majority, I would hold that Mr. Freeman's failure first to understand the purpose of such mitigating evidence and second to persuade his client to let him present the only evidence that could help him at the sentencing phase was deficient under Strickland. 2 I believe that presentation of the overwhelming evidence of Mr. Bryan's mental defects would have rebutted evidence that Mr. Bryan might commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. Okla. Stat. tit. 21, 701.12.