Opinion ID: 51486
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Prepare Witnesses

Text: Bower alleges that Buckner did not adequately prepare witnesses for the punishment phase and did not speak to some witnesses at all. Buckner testified at the evidentiary hearing that he began preparing for the punishment phase before jury selection by developing a list of witnesses and researching background information about Bower. Buckner testified that he focused on specific instances from Bower's background where he had been a hero and done really great things for people, giving specific instances of really outstanding human kindness and thoughtful behavior. Additionally, Buckner testified that he did not put anybody on the stand without talking to them or knowing what they were going to say. Based on this testimony, which the district court found credible, Buckner did in fact prepare witnesses for the punishment phase. Bower argues that Buckner's questioning of Jo Werford, Bower's mother-in-law, demonstrates that Buckner did not prepare for the punishment phase. Jo Werford admitted under cross-examination by the state that a gun [8] she had reported missing from her home was later found at Bower's home. Bower argues that Buckner would not have called Jo Werford if he had adequately prepared for the punishment phase because he would have known she would give damaging testimony. See Fisher v. Gibson, 282 F.3d 1283, 1296 (10th Cir.2002) (Where an attorney accidentally brings out testimony that is damaging because he has failed to prepare, his conduct cannot be called a strategic choice. . . .). However, Buckner spoke to each mitigation witness before he or she testified. Accordingly, Bower's reliance on Fisher is misplaced because that case faulted counsel's performance where counsel had no strategy and had undertaken no preparation. Id. Because Buckner conducted a reasonable investigation in preparation for the penalty phase, we affirm and find no deficiency.