Opinion ID: 2511886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the magistrate judge enters a report and recommends denial of mr. gardner's petition for habeas corpus

Text: ¶ 24 After the evidentiary hearings partially outlined above, briefing by both parties, and oral argument, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on August 13, 2003. [99] In determining the issue of whether Mr. Gardner's counsel was ineffective for failing to prepare and present adequate mitigation evidence, the magistrate judge reviewed Mr. Gardner's conviction to determine whether the Utah court had deprived Mr. Gardner of his fundamental constitutional rights. [100] State court findings of fact were given a presumption of correctness, while mixed questions of fact and law were reviewed de novo. [101] The magistrate judge considered each of the ineffective assistance claim's elementsdeficient performance and prejudiceseparately. First, the magistrate judge held that Mr. Gardner's trial counsel's performance was deficient: [H]aving carefully reviewed the record, this court cannot say that counsels' decision not to more thoroughly investigate and present evidence of [Mr. Gardner's] disturbing background and possible organic brain damage can be justified as strategic; instead counsels' failure to carefully investigate and present such evidence was the result of lack of investigation and preparation. Trial counsel's investigation of [Mr. Gardner's] background and possible brain damage was haphazard at best. [102] ¶ 25 But the magistrate judge was not convinced that Mr. Gardner was prejudiced by his trial counsel's deficient performance. The magistrate judge noted that prejudice required showing a reasonable probability that, had Dr. Heinbecker been given adequate time to prepare, the jury would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death. [103] Specifically, the magistrate judge considered the strength of the State's case, the aggravating circumstances the jury found, the mitigating evidence defense counsel did present, and the additional mitigating evidence the defense might have presented. [104] The magistrate judge first noted that the State's case for guilt was very strongit was never disputed that Mr. Gardner shot and killed Mr. Burdell, rather the defense tried to argue that the shooting was not intentional. [105] But the State presented eyewitness testimony that Mr. Gardner aimed at Mr. Burdell, paused for a second or more, and then fired the gun. [106] Additionally, there was strong evidence that during his escape, Mr. Gardner was willing to and did kidnap and shoot other people. [107] Finally, the State presented the testimony of an officer who claimed Mr. Gardner admitted to him that he intended to kill Mr. Burdell and would have killed anyone else who tried to stop him from escaping. [108] The magistrate judge concluded that the State had a strong case that Mr. Gardner intended to kill Mr. Burdell. [109] ¶ 26 The magistrate judge then considered the strength of the aggravating evidence the jury had seen at trial. The magistrate judge considered the testimony of each of the twelve witnesses who testified about Mr. Gardner's criminal behavior since becoming incarcerated. [110] The magistrate judge concluded that the State presented strong evidence during the sentencing phase that [Mr. Gardner] posed a continuing threat even while incarcerated and that previous attempts to deter [Mr. Gardner's] criminal behavior had failed. [111] ¶ 27 The magistrate judge then analyzed the evidence that Mr. Gardner's trial counsel presented in mitigation. Here the magistrate judge recalled the testimony of the witnesses who detailed the difficulty of Mr. Gardner's childhood, Mr. Fuchs's testimony regarding the amount of time convicted first degree murderers actually serve, and Dr. Heinbecker's testimony regarding evidence that Mr. Gardner had suffered organic brain damage. [112] ¶ 28 Finally, the magistrate judge considered what evidence might have been presented had Dr. Heinbecker been given adequate time to prepare. The magistrate judge considered here the testimony of Drs. Gummow, Logan, and Haney. [113] He concluded that given adequate time to prepare, a defense expert might have been able to present evidence of Mr. Gardner's troubled life, including evidence of the difficult family and economic circumstances into which [Mr. Gardner] was born, of the neglect and abuse he endured from a young age, of the difficulties he experienced in school, of the various state placements he was sent to during most of his childhood, and of the startling lack of supervision and appropriate discipline he received from his parents, which resulted in such behaviors as drug use from a very young age. [114] ¶ 29 The magistrate judge credited this information as focusing on lowering [Mr. Gardner's] culpability by presenting evidence that factors beyond [his] control, such as brain damage, genetics, and a childhood involving neglect and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, greatly contributed to [Mr. Gardner's] behavior. [115] ¶ 30 Using these considerations to guide his decision, the magistrate judge concluded that the State had a very strong case that Mr. Gardner was a continuing danger to others and ... a prisoner who [was] eager to escape and willing to commit more violent crimes. [116] The magistrate judge then concluded that some of the testimony Mr. Gardner's experts presented at the evidentiary hearing would not have helpedand indeed would have hurtMr. Gardner's case for mitigation. Specifically, Dr. Gummow testified that Mr. Gardner was dangerous, that it was difficult to assess whether Mr. Gardner could not control his impulses or whether he chose not to, that Mr. Gardner created his own stressful situation when he tried to escape, and that Mr. Gardner admitted that all he thought about [while he was trying to escape] was getting out and getting back to doing cocaine. [117] Dr. Logan admitted that, even if Mr. Gardner had brain damage, he still bore some responsibility for his crimes, that not all of his criminal activities were a result of brain damage, that Mr. Gardner created his own stressful situation when he tried to escape, that Mr. Gardner was still a danger to society, that Mr. Gardner can sometimes control his behavior and not hurt others, and even that some of the evidence he presented could cut both ways, meaning it was also aggravating evidence of future dangerousness. [118] Dr. Haney also admitted that Mr. Gardner's disadvantaged background might cut both ways and that apart from the facts of the crime itself, a defendant's future dangerousness and the need to stop the defendant from killing again tends to be the most discussed topic[] during jury deliberation. [119] These double-edged sword admissions by the defense experts were consistent with the testimony of the State's rebuttal witnesses. [120] ¶ 31 The magistrate judge also considered that the jury would have heard negative aspects of Mr. Gardner's background that had not originally been presented if the experts who testified at the federal habeas corpus hearings had testified at trial. [121] While the magistrate judge considered the defense expert testimony, on its own, a double-edged sword, the magistrate judge also reasoned that the State would have further weakened its mitigating value by putting on rebuttal witnesses like Drs. Gardner and Golding, who opined that Mr. Gardner had antisocial personality disorder and not brain damage. [122] After a review of relevant case law, the magistrate judge ultimately concluded that [i]n light of the State's strong case, including its aggravating evidence, no reasonable probability exists that, had trial counsel presented the additional mitigating evidence presented in this proceeding, and had trial counsel provided Dr. Heinbecker sufficient time to prepare to testify, the jury would have imposed a sentence less than death. The court therefore concludes that no prejudice under Strickland resulted from counsels' failure to present this mitigating evidence and therefore rejects [Mr. Gardner's] claim. [123] ¶ 32 After considering the other issues before the federal court, the magistrate judge recommended that Mr. Gardner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. [124]