Opinion ID: 612544
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Interview Karpawich

Text: Counsel's failure to interview Karpawich about his investigation and findings was also deficient performance. In death penalty cases, Karpawich usually talk[s] with the attorneys (and frequently the mitigation specialist) before the trial begins so that [he] can share [his] findings and obtain a full understanding of the case in preparation of [his] testimony at mitigation. App'x Vol. 3 at 1202 (Karpawich Aff. ¶ 8). Those meetings, according to Karpawich, are crucial to determine how the information [he] obtained and analyzed can be used at the client's trial and mitigation. Id. In this case, however, Karpawich had  no discussion with the attorneys about Kelly Foust prior to [Karpawich's] testimony. Id. (emphasis added). Karpawich's affidavit makes clear that he was willing to meet with counsel up to and including the day before the mitigation hearing. Id. ¶ 18. By neither interviewing Karpawich about his investigation nor conducting any independent investigation, Foust's attorneys in effect delegated to Karpawich, who is not an attorney, the strategic decisionmaking about how to present Foust's mitigation defense. Counsel's conduct thereby differs from the types of representation of which the Supreme Court has approved. See Van Hook, 130 S.Ct. at 18 (holding that attorneys did not perform deficiently because they contacted their lay witnesses early and often, were in touch with one expert witness more than a month before trial, and ... met with the other for two hours a week before the trial court reached its verdict). By abrogating decisionmaking responsibility, Foust's attorneys were not in a position to make... reasonable strategic choice[s]. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 536, 123 S.Ct. 2527. Counsel's performance fell short of prevailing professional norms and the minimum representation that the Sixth Amendment guarantees. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052.