Opinion ID: 2508188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 32

Heading: failure to articulate a theory of defense

Text: ISSUE (13). Whether Petitioner's right to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution was violated when the alternative theories of defense advanced by his attorneys were that reasonable doubt existed as to whether Petitioner was guilty of premeditated murder or that Petitioner was guilty only of first degree felony murder. Petitioner claims his attorneys did not develop a coherent theory of defense and that, even if they did, it was inadequately advanced before the jury. During her closing argument to the jury, Ms. Lindstrom stated: If, after you have weighed all of that evidence, you decide that you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Davis is the person that did it, that he's guilty of going into the Couch's house and some way responsible for her death, then you have to decide what level of culpability he has, and you have three options in this case. You have the option of the premeditated aggravated murder. And you have the option of the second degree murder. .... There are several degrees and different punishments that are imposed, depending on how the crime is committed. The main difference between the two, the premeditated murder with aggravating circumstances, and the felony murder ... is that the felony  excuse me, the premeditated murder was deliberate and the felony murder, all that's required is a showing that in the process of committing one of these felonies Mrs. Couch died. What you have to decide was did Mr. Davis premeditatedly  did he premeditate, did he intentionally cause the death of Mrs. Couch? [ [301] ] Both defense attorneys acknowledged in their declarations that Petitioner maintained his innocence and that he instructed them not to pursue any defense requiring an admission he killed Ms. Couch. In his declaration, Mr. Alton also stated he knew that the State's case was very strong, but it was [his] intent to contest the defendant's guilt and [he] tried to do so. [302] In order to make the adversarial process meaningful, defense counsel has a duty to investigate all reasonable lines of defense. [303] Even if no viable defense theory is available, the Sixth Amendment still requires counsel to hold the prosecution to its heavy burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. [304] Petitioner argues that defense counsel could reasonably have argued ... there was reasonable doubt as to whether Petitioner was guilty of premeditated murder and that he was guilty only of the alternative crime of first-degree felony murder. [305] Counsel advanced two plausible alternative theories of defense. The first was that reasonable doubt existed. Considering the strength of the State's case, counsel focused on casting doubt in the mind of the jurors concerning Petitioner's guilt. Defense counsel conducted the trial in a manner consistent with this theory of defense and its presentation did not result in constitutional error. [306] The alternative theory of defense was that if the jury believed Petitioner was guilty, the killing was not premeditated, but instead occurred during commission of a felony. Some evidence on the felony murder defense theory was presented to the jury. Defense counsel requested and was given a jury instruction concerning first degree felony murder. [307] Generally, choosing a particular defense is a strategic decision for which there is no correct answer, but only second guesses. [308] Defense counsel made the best tactical choices available to them under the extraordinary circumstances with which they were faced  a brutal murder and no plausible defense. The State's evidence connecting Petitioner to the killing of Ms. Couch was overwhelming. There were few, if any, weaknesses in the evidence that counsel could capitalize upon.