Opinion ID: 1381947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Ineffective Assistance for failing to investigate and present evidence of Edwards' mental problems

Text: Edwards' seventh point is that trial counsel failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, which resulted in the trial experts not properly diagnosing Edwards' mental condition, specifically Asperger's Disorder. As discussed above, trial counsel conducted a sufficient investigation and prepared an adequate social history. The fact that none of the experts asked for more records or a more detailed social history indicates that they did not believe that such information was necessary to a diagnosis. To show that his counsel was ineffective, Edwards must demonstrate, first, that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Second, Edwards must show that this deficiency prejudiced him, meaning that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. Counsel's performance is presumed to be reasonable. Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. [C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. Id. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In a death penalty case, counsel are expected to discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 524, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). Besides incomplete social history, Edwards' main complaint is that his birth and medical records and Mildred's medical records were not given to the pretrial experts, thus preventing them from making the proper diagnosis. However, the only evidence was that the records were not provided to Dr. Cross, not that they were not provided to the other trial experts. Penalty phase counsel testified that she discussed information contained in those records with both Drs. Stacey and Rabun. These experts apparently did not find this evidence significant. None of the experts requested additional information, despite being encouraged to do so if necessary. All of the evidence before the pretrial experts  including school records showing no referrals for psychological services and no significant academic problems, work records showing normal difficulties but also the ability to maintain long-term employment, and significant psychological and intelligence testing and interviews conducted by the experts  did not point to Asperger's or any other significant mental condition that could provide a defense or mitigation. It was reasonable for trial counsel to abandon any possibility of a mental disease defense or mitigation evidence under these circumstances. See Winfield v. State, 93 S.W.3d 732, 740-41 (Mo. banc 2002) (counsel did an adequate investigation into Winfield's mental state when the experts opined that he did not have a mental disease or defect); State v. Mease, 842 S.W.2d 98, 114 (Mo. banc 1992) (trial counsel satisfied his obligation to investigate mental state when he obtained two expert opinions, of which he had no reason to impugn; the fact that a post-conviction expert gave a different diagnosis does not make trial counsel ineffective).