Opinion ID: 1705889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Conduct Factual Investigation.

Text: ¶ 25. Next, Spicer contends that his attorneys failed to performed any factual investigation in preparation for trial. Spicer specifically relies on the affidavit provided by his attorneys. The two affidavits are identical, save the, names, and each states: Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(c)(4)(ii), I located my records related to Mr. Spicer's trial. My records include only publicly available pleadings and court records. My records do not now, nor did they ever include any notes, draft pleadings, correspondence, investigatory reports, attorney work-product, or other nonpublic information (collectively, `Nonpublic Records'). ¶ 26. Spicer asserts that the affidavits amount to an admission from each of his trial counsel that they performed no investigation at all. It is difficult to arrive at such a conclusion. Rule 22(c)(4)(ii) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure requires Spicer's trial and appellate counsel to make available their complete files relating to the conviction and sentence. Paragraph 4 of each affidavit states: If, in the future, I locate Nonpublic Records related to Mr. Spicer's Trial, I will immediately turn such records over to Mr. Spicer's post-conviction counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate[,] Meagher & Flom[,] LLP, consistent with Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 and the rules of professional conduct. It is a stretch to assume, let alone conclude, that Spicer's counsel did not investigate the alleged crime based solely on the aforementioned affidavits. 27. Further, the transcript reveals that counsel were fully prepared for cross-examination of the State's witnesses, and were able to question the witnesses about details not brought out on direct examination. This claim is without merit.
¶ 28. This sub-claim contends that counsel were ineffective in not obtaining independent pathology and DNA experts to testify on Spicer's behalf. In support of this claim, Spicer provides the affidavit of Dr. O'Brian C. Smith, M.D., a pathologist from Tennessee, to support Spicer's claim that the sword was not the murder weapon. Dr. Smith went into great detail about wound patterns that he would have expected to find in an autopsy examination of the victim that he asserts were not present. Dr. Smith also admitted that he saw only pictures and drawings of the sword, not the sword itself. ¶ 29. At trial, the State's expert, Dr. Steven Hayne, testified as follows: Q. Have you had an ample opportunity to feel the weight of that particular sword? A. [Dr. Hayne]: Yes, sir. Q. And have you had an opportunity to notice the differences between the edges of that sword? A. Yes, Sir. Q. In reference to your testimony, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, would any part of that sword be consistent with the injuries that you saw to facial area of Edmond Hebert? A. Yes, sir. Q. And would you describe to the ladies and gentlemen the injuries in Exhibit 27 and how they relate to Exhibit 4 [the sword]. A. A weapon such as this delivered with force, striking the decedent on the non-sharpened edge, would produce injury such as that seen on the forehead of the decedent. Q. And is that entirely consistent with that edge? A. It would be consistent with the blunt end. But not consistent with the sharp edge. Q. The blunt edge of Exhibit 4? A. Yes, sir. ¶ 30. Dr. Smith stated in his affidavit that no indicia of sharp force injuries were present. He also stated that Hebert's death indisputably resulted from blunt force trauma to the head, particularly a large abraded laceration. Dr. Smith did not refute Dr. Hayne's testimony. Spicer has not made a showing that his counsel was deficient. ¶ 31. Spicer further contends that his counsel was ineffective in failing to rebut DNA evidence offered by the State. He contends that by consulting with an independent expert or even by interviewing the State's witness, Amrita Lal, counsel would have discovered exculpatory evidence. The State's expert testified that the swabs taken from the blood on the sword were a mixture of more than one person's blood, but the victim's blood was included in that mixture. Spicer relies on Dr. Smith's affidavit, whereby Dr. Smith stated that blood of an unidentified third party is exculpatory evidence because that third party could have put the sword in the truck prior to Spicer driving the truck. First, the record does not indicate that the blood was from a third party. The expert testified only that there was a mixture of blood and Hebert's was included. Second, we fail to see how consulting an independent DNA expert would have helped Spicer, because he claimed self-defense. Spicer's counsel had no questions for the State's DNA expert, which we find is consistent with a self-defense strategy. This issue is without merit.
¶ 32. Spicer next contends that counsel were ineffective in failing to interview the prosecution's witnesses prior to trial. This claim appears to be an extension of Spicer's previous claim that his counsel failed to conduct a factual investigation. Spicer provided no affidavits from the officers who testified for the State, stating that they were not contacted or questioned by the defense. Also, as stated earlier, the record clearly shows that counsel was prepared for the witnesses during cross-examination. This issue is without merit.
¶ 33. Spicer claims that his counsel failed to investigate sources to impeach two of the State's witnesses. Spicer specifically refers to witnesses Michael Chubby Jones and Angel Hinger. Spicer asserts that counsel should have impeached their characters for veracity because they were convicted felons. The record clearly shows that defense counsel brought the witnesses' convictions to the jury's attention. In both instances, counsel questioned the witnesses about the prison clothes they were wearing, and the jury was informed that they were in prison on felony charges. In closing, Hurt repeatedly called the jury's attention to the veracity of the two witnesses. Hurt argued: And they haven't proved he stole the truck. They brought two convicts in here. Two convicts. Now I don't know how reliable they are. I don't know, and you don't either, what they have been promised, if anything, to come up here and testify. But there's got to be some reason to haul one convict all the way from Pearl, Mississippi, and bring another one from Greene County down here. There's got to be some reason. Are they reliable witnesses? Can we convict somebody of capital murder on people like that's testimony? Jailbirds? Are they credible? Is that the best witness they could come up with? Looking further, Barnett's closing included the following argument: Michael Jones. Boy he was a good witness for the State, wasn't he? A convict. Put him on the stand to use his testimony and they're going to put a man to death. Put him to death with a convict's testimony. You could look at him and tell the truth wasn't in him. He said they hadn't nobody talked to him until this morning. Maybe the DA's Office didn't talk to him, but I'll bet youhow did he know to come up here? Did he just volunteer on his own to come up here? I'll leave that to your thoughts. I'll leave thatI mean, y'all might have been born at night, but I don't believe you was born last night. Okay? Spicer's claim that these witnesses were not properly impeached is without merit.
¶ 34. Spicer again questions trial counsel's investigation of the case and asserts that they did not have an appropriate strategy. It has already been mentioned that the defense strategy of self-defense is apparent from the record. Further, the defense strategy included attacking the underlying offense of robbery. This issue is without merit.