Opinion ID: 1652318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Witness Claims

Text: Johnson also argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call witnesses to support the defense of lack of deliberation, to attack the credibility of his codefendants' testimony, and to attack the testimony of the State's hair analysis expert who testified that hair consistent with Johnson's hair was found on one of the stocking caps that Antwane Grant hid in a park at Johnson's direction. Johnson has waived these claims by his failure to include them in his pro se 29.15 motion or the amended motion filed by appointed counsel. [40] C. Failure to Perform Neurological Testing Johnson contends that McKerrow's failure to arrange for him to undergo neurological testing fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. At the motion hearing, Johnson presented testimony of Dr. Dennis Cowan, a neuropsychologist who had examined Johnson posttrial. He concluded that Johnson's brain functioning was within the brain damaged range at the mild degree of impairment, as a result of congenital abnormalities, multiple head injuries, and polysubstance abuse. Dr. Cowan explained that this impairment manifested itself in Johnson's everyday life in slow-thinking, a short attention span, problems with verbal comprehension, a poor memory, and difficulty in responding to complex situations. The motion court denied relief. We find no clear error. The burden is on Johnson to prove that such experts existed at the time of trial, that they could have been located through reasonable investigation, and that the testimony of these witnesses would have benefited movant's defense. [41] Not only did Johnson fail to present evidence to the motion court concerning Dr. Cowan's availability, or the availability of any neurologist who would have been willing to testify on Johnson's behalf, Dr. Cowan's testimony did not address whether or not Johnson's impairment amounted to the defense of mental disease or defect. The motion court did have before it Dr. Parwatikar's testimony that he found no evidence of mental disease, defect, cognitive deficit or any objective neurological finding to warrant neuropsychological testing. We affirm the motion court's denial of relief on this point. D. Closing Argument Johnson alleges in his brief before this Courtthe first time the issue has been raised in any pleadingthat his counsel did not adequately present the defense of lack of deliberation to the jury in her closing argument. Johnson's tardiness has waived the point. [42] This Court affirms all three convictions for murder in the first degree, as well as the denial of postconviction relief regarding the guilt phase.