Opinion ID: 166193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defense Counsel's Communications with Dr. Hemphill

Text: 13 Mr. Richie's claims center almost exclusively on Dr. Hemphill's testimony. According to the testimony of defense counsel and the deposition of Dr. Hemphill received at the evidentiary hearing, the two met prior to trial to discuss Mr. Richie's case. III Aplt.App. at 610, 882. While counsel's and Dr. Hemphill's accounts of the meeting differ, counsel evidently left the meeting under the impression that the medical examiner viewed the state's theory of death as improbable, while viewing the defense's theory as plausible. Id. at 610; but see id. at 886-88 (providing Dr. Hemphill's recollection). Proceeding on the assumption that Dr. Hemphill was a defense witness, Mr. Richie's counsel chose not to prepare another expert witness for trial. Id. at 612. In recalling this decision, defense counsel noted that the alternate witness was in basic agreement with Dr. Hemphill's conclusions. Id. 14 During trial, but prior to testifying, Dr. Hemphill pulled defense counsel aside and informed her that, after considering a statement made by Mr. Richie's co-defendant, Danny Waller, he did not want to blind-side her, so-to-speak and intended to testify that the state's theory of the manner of death was consistent with the evidence. 2 Id. at 613, 890-93. Again, accounts of the conversation differ. While Dr. Hemphill minimized the significance of the conversation by explaining that this testimony would be responsive to those questions posed by the state, whatever they might be, id. at 891-95, defense counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that the conversation left her devastated. 3 Id. at 614.