Opinion ID: 2757661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ineffectiveness Regarding Expert Witnesses

Text: Blake argues that the postconviction court erred in denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an expert about false confessions and a mental health expert to support the defense’s argument that Blake was susceptible to coercion and, as a result, his videotaped statement to law enforcement was false. The postconviction court concluded that trial counsel was not deficient for failing to hire an expert on false confessions because the postconviction court agreed with attorney Colon’s conclusion that he did not need an expert to argue that Blake’s recorded statement was unworthy of belief. Regarding a mental health expert, the postconviction court concluded that Blake failed to establish prejudice. We agree that Blake did not satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland. - 33 - At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, the defense called Dr. Richard Ofshe, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who specializes in the study of influence and decision-making. Dr. Ofshe testified generally about interrogation tactics that he considers psychologically coercive and then testified about Blake’s statement specifically. Based primarily on Blake’s account of the interrogation, Dr. Ofshe identified several features—such as use of evidence ploys, promises of leniency in exchange for a confession, and threats of the death penalty if Blake refused to confess—that caused him to believe that the interrogation was one “that would be capable of eliciting a false confession.” Dr. Ofshe next explained that Blake’s statement may have been contaminated by the law enforcement officers giving Blake information about the crime before they began to record his statement. Dr. Ofshe also testified that Blake’s statement was partially inconsistent with the events that could be seen in the surveillance video from the crime scene. When reenacting his approach to the door of the convenience store during his taped statement, Blake walked slowly and held an imaginary gun down to his side, whereas the surveillance tape showed a man moving quickly with a gun held at shoulder height. Similarly, Dr. Ofshe testified that Blake could not remember details about the crime that the perpetrator would likely have known, such as how many doors there were and through which one he shot. These discrepancies prompted Dr. Ofshe to opine that the statement - 34 - given by Blake “appears not to be based on his actual knowledge of what happened between the shooter and the victim.” Overall, Dr. Ofshe testified that he would have been available to consult on this case at the time of the defense’s trial preparation but declined to offer an opinion regarding whether Blake’s statement was in fact false. Dr. Ofshe explained: “[I]t’s not for me to ever draw conclusions as to whether it’s a true or false confession. I’m simply pointing out these are indicia that should be looked at and considered.” Dr. Barry M. Crown, a psychologist specializing in clinical and forensic psychology and neuropsychology, testified at the evidentiary hearing about how Blake’s mental health likely affected him during his interrogation. Dr. Crown diagnosed Blake as having a neuropsychological impairment—organic brain damage primarily in the left frontal temporal area of the brain. Dr. Crown estimated that Blake functions at a fourth-grade level and described him as emotionally immature. Dr. Crown explained that Blake’s difficulty with comprehension and his low verbal abilities would come into play during an interrogation. Specifically, Dr. Crown opined that Blake would be susceptible to coercive tactics because “[h]e’s easily led and directed based on his lack of intellectual efficiency.” Dr. Crown agreed that Blake would be the type of subject who “would just endorse” what law enforcement told him and respond “in a way - 35 - that his inquisitors wished him to respond.” Based on Blake’s description of the interrogation, Dr. Crown stated that he “thought that there was a strong possibility that the investigating officers, the inquisitors[,] were leading” Blake. Dr. Crown “felt that [Blake’s] responses were being shaped,” and expressed concern about times when, according to Blake, Blake was asked the same question repeatedly and told that he was being inaccurate until he gave a new answer. The defense also called Dr. Shaun Agharkar, a psychiatrist, who primarily testified about Blake’s mental health as possible mitigation. Dr. Agharkar diagnosed Blake as suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and panic disorder. Dr. Agharkar opined that due to Blake’s trauma and suspected brain damage, Blake “might . . . be more likely to agree with things” and to be led during an interrogation. Dr. Agharkar further opined that Blake would be likely to believe a promise, even when, in the same circumstance, a reasonable person would not believe that promise. Dr. Agharkar admitted, however, that he did not see any moments in the videotaped statement or in the police reports that appeared to him to be instances of the law enforcement officers attempting to lead Blake to give certain responses. These experts may have cast doubt on the reliability of Blake’s videotaped statement, but they do not undermine confidence in his first-degree murder conviction. A defendant is guilty of first-degree felony murder if a person is killed - 36 - when the defendant is “engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate” a robbery. § 782.04(1)(a)(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2002). A defendant is guilty of an offense as a principal if he “aids, abets, counsels, hires, or otherwise procures such offense to be committed, and such offense is committed or is attempted to be committed.” § 777.011, Fla. Stat. (2002). Blake does not dispute that an attempted armed robbery occurred and that Patel was killed in the course of that attempted robbery. Blake admitted that one of the men from the car in which he was riding approached the convenience store with the intent to rob the owner and that the man shot the owner. Blake’s claim is that because he was not the shooter and he did not know that an attempted robbery was going to occur, he should not be considered a principal to the felony murder. But given the totality of the evidence, Blake’s claim is patently unreasonable. Demetrius testified that on the morning of August 12, 2002, Blake, Green, and Key discussed committing robberies—albeit not convenience store robberies—and had two guns in the car with them. The revolver was in Green’s sweater, but the 9 mm handgun was visible on the car’s front seat. The State presented evidence establishing that Blake’s shoes contained glass fragments that were consistent with the glass from the broken window of the stolen vehicle used in the attempted robbery and that a fingerprint from Blake was found on the vehicle. - 37 - At trial, Blake conceded that he stole a car with the intention that he, Green, and Key would use the car to transport property they intended to steal later that morning. Blake also admitted that the group had discussed committing robberies. Blake testified that after driving around, the group stopped in a parking lot and Green briefly got out of the car. Blake stated that he had a “feeling” that the group had “already planned” that they were going to rob the store, although once they arrived at the store, Blake claimed he thought the stop was for the purpose of buying cigarettes. In addition, Donovan Steverson, who lived in an apartment complex next to the convenience store, gave testimony that tended to prove that the group cased the store from the apartment complex’s parking lot before later driving into the parking lot of the store. Steverson testified that at around 5:30 a.m., he saw a man “walking through the grass to a car that was in our parking lot,” and then a few minutes later, he heard a gunshot from the store and saw the same man run to the same car he had spotted earlier. Given this evidence, any doubt about the veracity of Blake’s recorded statement does not undermine confidence in the jury’s conclusion that Blake either shot Patel or was a principal to felony murder.