Opinion ID: 6109557
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to call Dr. Draper to testify regarding childhood

Text: Mr. McFadden also argues defense counsel were ineffective in failing to call Dr. Draper, whom they utilized as an expert during the penalty phase of both trials involving the murder of Mr. Franklin  and the first trial involving the murder of Leslie. Dr. Draper testified at the postconviction hearing that Mr. McFadden suffered from an attachment disorder that arose in reaction to the insufficient structure and bullying of his childhood. Defense counsel testified that while Dr. Draper's opinions were helpful, their usefulness was outweighed by her weakness as a witness. In all three penalty phases in which she testified and at the postconviction hearing, Dr. Draper gave damaging opinions that Mr. McFadden knew the difference between right and wrong, his attachment disorder did not make him a murderer, and he used his free will to choose to murder. Moreover, Dr. Draper had testified really badly in the third trial-that is, in Mr. McFadden's second penalty phase trial for Mr. Franklin's murder, including revealing Mr. McFadden had threatened his mother with a shotgun. She further was badly impeached in that trial, which made it just look as if she just says whatever [defendants] want, if it helps them. Baumruk v. State, 364 S.W.3d 518 , 536 (Mo. banc 2012) , found no clear error in choosing not to present expert testimony regarding movant's brain limitation when it had been presented in Baumruk's first trial to no avail and, therefore, it was a reasonable strategic decision for Baumruk's counsel to present different mitigating evidence during Baumruk's second trial. Similarly here, it was not clear error for the motion court to find defense counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to call Dr. Draper and instead to rely on lay witnesses who performed better in front of the jury. This decision was not based on inadequate investigation or unreasonable trial strategy but due to concerns Dr. Draper's previous damaging cross-examinations would be used to impeach her in this trial. 7 Counsel will not be found ineffective for choosing to pursue one reasonable trial strategy to the exclusion of another. Davis, 486 S.W.3d at 912 .