Opinion ID: 2792988
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: fasd

Text: As regards FASD specifically, defense counsel presented substantial evidence at trial that Gonzales’s mother abused alcohol, marijuana, and inhalants while pregnant with Gonzales, which was known to trial counsel and Dr. Milam, the neuropsychologist that defense counsel secured. Nevertheless, based on her evaluation of Gonzales and her extensive record review, Dr. Milam concluded that “[t]here was no brain damage; none whatsoever,” that Gonzales started out with a normal brain despite school records showing that he was developmentally delayed, and that “[h]is IQ is within normal limits; his brain is within normal limits, in spite of all the drugs.” Now, Gonzales argues that his trial counsel were ineffective because the tests that Dr. Milam conducted were “suboptimal” and the scope of her inquiry was “less than adequate,” and therefore counsel should have secured an FASD expert. Gonzales’s habeas counsel obtained an FASD expert who preliminarily concluded that “FASD should be HIGHLY SUSPECTED and that a thorough diagnostic evaluation to address this should be undertaken.” Importantly, Gonzales does not present evidence that he actually suffers from FASD. Instead, he presents an expert declaration concluding that “there is basis for further evaluation to determine definitively whether FASD is present or not” and argues that several additional tests should be conducted. The district and state courts denied Gonzales’s various requests for funding to have those additional tests run, and so Gonzales is left only with an affidavit indicating that he may have FASD. “To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim based upon uncalled witnesses, an applicant must name the witness, demonstrate that the witness would have testified, set out the content of the witness’s proposed testimony, 9 Case: 14-70006 Document: 00513000966 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/10/2015 No. 14-70006 and show that the testimony would have been favorable.” Gregory v. Thaler, 601 F.3d 347, 352 (5th Cir. 2010). A petitioner “who alleges a failure to investigate on the part of his counsel must allege with specificity what the investigation would have revealed and how it would have altered the outcome of the trial.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Since there is insufficient persuasive evidence that Gonzales actually suffers from FASD, his argument is that he has made a substantial showing of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his trial attorneys did not seek out an expert who would have testified that Gonzales may have FASD. Inconclusive new evidence that a petitioner may or may not suffer from some sort of cognitive dysfunction does not generally establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Smith v. Quarterman, 515 F.3d 392, 405 (5th Cir. 2008). Trial counsel chose to offer the testimony of a qualified neuropsychologist who, after extensive testing, concluded that Gonzales had no brain damage but exhibited some schizotypal and antisocial personality features and suffered from reactive attachment disorder. There is no evidence that trial counsel’s reliance on Dr. Milam was unreasonable. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 107 (2011) (“Counsel was entitled to formulate a strategy that was reasonable at the time and to balance limited resources in accord with effective trial tactics and strategies.”); Couch v. Booker, 632 F.3d 241, 246 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Trial counsel may rely on an expert’s opinion on a matter within his expertise when counsel is formulating a trial strategy.”). Gonzales has not made a substantial showing that his counsel were ineffective for failing to secure an FASD expert.