Opinion ID: 174527
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Investigate and Present Evidence of Brain Damage

Text: In Claim 9(a) of his habeas petition, Middlebrooks claims that his attorneys failed to investigate and present evidence of Middlebrooks's brain damage and related seizure disorder and mental illness that would have enhanced his mitigation case. The core of his argument is that counsel should have arranged for an MRI or PET scan of Middlebrooks's brain. In support of his claim, Middlebrooks presents an MRI and a PET scan paid for by his habeas attorneys and affidavits from several neuroscientists stating that those scans reveal abnormalities in the areas of Middlebrooks's brain responsible for emotions, behavior control, and social judgment. As a threshold matter, the State argues that this claim is procedurally defaulted. Contrary to the district court's opinion, Middlebrooks did present this claim to the state courts, pleading in his petition for postconviction relief counsel's failure to move for expert assistance of a neurologist who could have conducted necessary testing and provided expert testimony regarding the issue of brain damage and its effect upon Petitioner. J.A. at 1165. Problematically, however, Middlebrooks failed to offer any authority in support of this claim on postconviction appeal, in contravention of state-court procedural rules. We consider the Maupin factors to determine whether those state-court rules now bar our review. Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b) provides that [i]ssues which are not supported by argument, citation to authorities, or appropriate references to the record will be treated as waived in this court. Rule 27(a)(7) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an appellant's brief must contain [a]n argument . . . including the reasons why the contentions require appellate relief, with citations to the authorities and appropriate references to the record, and Rule 27(g) requires attorneys to cite specific pages when citing the record. Middlebrooks failed to comply with these court rules when he merely listed his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim among several others in an addendum to his appellate brief in an effort to preserve these issues as much as is possible. J.A. at 1284-85. The state appeals court actually enforced the procedural rules when it held that all claims listed in the addendum are waived because Middlebrooks failed to reference the record, cite any authority, or present any argument regarding these issues. See Middlebrooks, 2003 WL 61244, at  (citing Tenn. Ct.Crim.App. R. 10(b) and Tenn. R.App. P. 27(a)(7), (g)). Finally, a review of Tennessee cases indicates that these appellate court rules are firmly established, and Middlebrooks does not argue otherwise. See State v. McCary, 119 S.W.3d 226, 243 (Tenn.Crim.App.2003); State v. Thompson, 36 S.W.3d 102, 108 (Tenn.Crim.App.2000); State v. Schaller, 975 S.W.2d 313, 318 (Tenn.Crim.App.1997); see also Lewis v. Tennessee, 279 Fed.Appx. 323, 326 (6th Cir.2008) (unpublished opinion) (finding procedural default based on state court's application of Tenn. Ct.Crim. App. R. 10(b) and Tenn. R.App. P. 27(a)); Killebrew v. Bernhardt, No. 94-6567, 1995 WL 712761, at  (6th Cir. Dec. 1, 1995) (unpublished opinion) (same). Accordingly, Claim 9(a) is procedurally defaulted unless Middlebrooks can demonstrate cause and prejudice or that a miscarriage of justice will result. Middlebrooks relies on the former exception, offering as cause the state postconviction court's denial of his request for funding to hire a neuroscientist who could perform MRI and PET scans. As the State points out, in support of his argument Middlebrooks cites only cases holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) does not prevent the district court from holding an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner's failure to develop the record in state court resulted from the state courts' denial of funds. These cases can help Middlebrooks put his new evidence before a federal habeas court, but they do not help him establish cause for procedural default. Notwithstanding the citation of inapposite cases, however, Middlebrooks's argument is properly directed at procedural default. He argues in his reply brief that he failed to present evidence relating to brain damage . . . because he was denied funding to develop that evidence. Reply Br. at 10. In essence, he argues that he failed to brief the claim on postconviction appeal because he had no new evidence to support it, and he had no new evidence because the trial court denied him funding. The new evidence of brain damage came to light only when Middlebrooks's habeas attorneys drew on their own funds to conduct MRI and PET scans. Though Middlebrooks's argument is not without force, we ultimately cannot conclude that the trial court's denial of funds excuses Middlebrooks's failure to comply with the Tennessee court's briefing rules in presenting his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on postconviction appeal. Middlebrooks could have argued deficient performance by providing evidence that it was standard practice among capital defense attorneys in the mid-1990s in Tennessee to obtain an MRI or PET scan when there are indications of brain damage. Alternatively, he could have argued, as he does now, that Dr. Smalldon's observations should have led counsel to seek a brain scan. Regarding prejudice, we acknowledge that Middlebrooks would have had more difficulty without the scans than with them in convincing the state court that the jury might have sentenced him to life. Nonetheless, Middlebrooks at least could have argued that a brain scan confirming Dr. Smalldon's suspicion of organic brain damage would have made a stronger impression on the jury. Thus, although the trial court's denial of funds certainly explains why Middlebrooks could not make his argument as forcefully as he could have with the brain scans, it does not explain his failure to make any argument at all. Accordingly, Middlebrooks has not demonstrated cause, and his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel by failure to investigate and present further evidence of brain damage is procedurally defaulted.