Opinion ID: 1439931
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: failure to investigate and present diminished capacity

Text: Clayton's attorney was not ineffective in his investigation and presentation of the diminished capacity defense. It is not ineffective assistance of counsel for an attorney to pursue one reasonable trial strategy to the exclusion of another, even if the latter would also be a reasonable strategy. State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 508 (Mo. banc 2000). In this case, even though using a diminished capacity defense by itself might have been a reasonable trial strategy, it was also reasonable, as demonstrated above, to argue that a reasonable doubt of guilt existed. The fact that the diminished capacity defense did not get as much emphasis as it might have by itself cannot be an independent basis for an ineffective assistance claim. This was part of the attorney's overall strategic choice, and was not ineffective assistance. Clayton also claims that his attorney was ineffective for failing to introduce certain specific items of evidence and for failing to call two particular witnesses in support of the diminished capacity defense. Clayton is incorrect on both counts. First, the selection of witnesses and evidence are matters of trial strategy, virtually unchallengeable in an ineffective assistance claim. Leisure v. State, 828 S.W.2d 872, 875 (Mo. banc 1992). By deciding to use both defenses, the attorney also decided not to use all of the witnesses and evidence he might have used had he raised diminished capacity alone. Clayton's attorney also had legitimate strategic reasons for not introducing Clayton's school records, Nevada State Hospital records, and Social Security Disability file, as Clayton now claims a reasonable attorney would have done. He argues that these records would have provided the jury with a better picture of his mental capacity and his history of multiple head injuries. From his pre-trial investigation and his own experience with Clayton in the past, the trial attorney knew Clayton's history of head injuries. He knew that while the records might give the jury insight into that history, their introduction also ran the risk of the defense getting mired in a paper war with the prosecution, deluging the jury with hundreds of pages of documents and confusing them. Clayton's attorney wanted to keep the picture he painted for the jury simple; that of a man forever changed by a sawmill accident in 1972. The records Clayton now complains about would have complicated that picture and shown the jury that Clayton was also a violent man with a criminal record even before his accident occurred. Also, some of the evidence cast a cloud of doubt over claims about Clayton's mental incapacity. Thus, the attorney's decision was consistent with his trial strategy and was not ineffective assistance. The attorney was not ineffective for failing to call Les Paul, a minister, to testify about Clayton's diminished capacity and religious faith. When the attorney contacted Paul prior to trial about testifying about Clayton's good traits, Paul told him that he couldn't help him. An attorney is not ineffective for failing to further investigate or call a witness to testify who is unwilling to do so and who cannot be counted on to give testimony favorable to his client. State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 686 (Mo. banc 1998). Here, Paul's statement gave the attorney reason to believe that he did not want to testify and that he might offer testimony harmful to Clayton's case. The fact that Paul now claims he only told Clayton's attorney he could not help him because he distrusted the attorney is immaterial. At the time the attorney made the decision not to call him, he was acting reasonably based on Paul's statements to him. An attorney is not required to be omniscient and see the true reasons why a witness does not want to talk to him or testify. Similarly, Clayton's attorney was not ineffective for failing to call Carolyn Dorsey. While Dorsey could have testified about the change in Clayton's personality after the sawmill accident, the attorney presented other witness who testified about the same thing. An attorney is not ineffective for failing to offer cumulative testimony. Skillicorn v. State, 22 S.W.3d 678, 683 (Mo. banc 2000). Also, Dorsey would have provided the prosecution on cross-examination with the opportunity to show that Clayton had a violent temper even before his accident, undercutting Clayton's diminished capacity defense. It is not ineffective assistance for an attorney not to call a witness that might undermine the whole theory of trial. See State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301, 328 (Mo. banc 1996).