Opinion ID: 2968314
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lack of parental involvement.

Text: J.A. 302. Following his conviction and death sentence, Buckner submitted a motion for appropriate relief (MAR) before the state postconviction court (MAR court). In support of his motion, Buckner proffered affidavits from Childers; Cynthia Neagle Maxwell, a mitigation expert; Claudia R. Coleman, Ph.D., a psychologist specializing in forensic psychology, neuropsychology, and psychological assessments; and Dr. Nathan Strahl, a board-certified psychiatrist specializing in forensic psychiatry. First, Childers attested that while preparing for trial, he became consumed with his personal financial difficulties. As a result, he was not able, despite [his] desire and best effort, to spend the time on Mr. Buckner’s case necessary in order to develop an adequate defense at sentencing. J.A. 288. He felt that he was not able to develop and present effective mitigating evidence on Mr. Buckner’s behalf, which evidence may have dissuaded a jury from sentencing Mr. Buckner to death. Id. Stunningly, Childers was unaware that both mitigation specialists and neuropsychologists were available to be used for the sentencing phase: I should have engaged a mitigation specialist and a neuropsychologist to examine and interview Mr. [B]uckner so that their findings could be presented to the jury. . . . [I] was unaware at the time I was representing Mr. Buckner, that both of these two types of experts were and are available to present facts and opinions to juries in the sentencing phase of death penalty cases. Id.2 2 At the MAR hearing, Bell adhered to his position that presenting psychological evidence would have undermined the sentencing strategy for two reasons. First, Bell opined that the mitigation strategy piggybacked BUCKNER v. POLK 27 Second, based on her reviews of Buckner’s school, medical, and prison records and interviews with his family and friends, Maxwell determined that Buckner’s home life as a child was severely dysfunctional. J.A. 307. Specifically, Maxwell noted that Buckner clearly remembered watching his father attempt to save Bobby during the fire. For an unknown reason, the fire was more traumatic for [Buckner] than for his [twin] brother, to the extent that Buckner developed a sleepwalking disorder. J.A. 308. The family never resolved the cause of the fire, and at one point, Buckner and Carl were believed to have accidentally started it. Moreover, Buckner’s father became prone to intensified drinking spells on the anniversary of the fire and abused Buckner’s mother, who had a personal history of childhood abuse. Ultimately, Maxwell concluded that Buckner suffered severe psychological trauma from the fire and his father’s alcoholism, and later developed post-traumatic stress disorder from these and other tragic circumstances prior to his involvement in the murder. J.A. 311-13. Third, Dr. Coleman made the same findings concerning the traumatic events in Buckner’s childhood that Maxwell did after interviewing and testing Buckner on three separate occasions, and reviewing Maxwell’s notes. Coleman Aff. ¶ 3. In addition, Dr. Coleman determined that Buckner’s father’s alcoholism caused him to be inattentive to [Buckner] and caused significant emotional distress. Id. According to Dr. Coleman, Buckner vividly remembered the the guilt/innocence strategy by showing that Buckner was an extremely smart individual who was working with the police. J.A. 255. Second, Bell opined that psychological evidence would have undermined their strategy of portraying Buckner as a brave, upstanding, and moral citizen: And if I had tried to introduce psychologicals that stated that he was—had some psychological impairment, it would have clashed with the image we were trying to present of the kid who taught weight-lifting, who went to Boy’s and Girl’s Clubs, who did cross-country, who did graduate, who did go to the Marines. And we would have just been at a cross-purposes in the sense of impeaching ourselves in front of the jury. J.A. 244. Bell conceded, however, that having low emotional maturity would not be inconsistent with being an informant. J.A. 256. 28 BUCKNER v. POLK intensity of his father’s mood when drinking. Id. Dr. Coleman also noted that when Buckner became a confidential informant, he strongly desired to perceive himself as an undercover agent, thus likening his position to that of his older step-brother who was a policeman and whom [Buckner] admired. Id. Based on her findings, Dr. Coleman ultimately concluded that the traumatic events of Buckner’s youth contributed to his dependent, naive, immature, histrionic, and impulsive personality, which, in turn, led to his involvement in the capital offense with which he was charged and of which he was later convicted. Id. Fourth, Dr. Strahl, who interviewed Buckner in October and December of 1997, and reviewed Maxwell’s evaluation, concluded: I estimate that Cale Buckner’s emotional maturity at the time of the crime for which he was most recently convicted corresponded to a child of 12 years. Historically, Cale Buckner demonstrated traits which, at the time of the victim’s murder, revealed his need for acceptance, lack of ability to rationalize in a mature way, lack of ability to make mature decisions, and that he was easily influenced by others. In my opinion, Cale Buckner’s lack of emotional maturity contributed materially to his involvement or participation in any of the crimes for which he has been convicted. J.A. 292-93. Dr. Strahl further opined that with time and with appropriate treatment, Buckner could become a constructive citizen. J.A. 293.