Opinion ID: 805977
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to call Pat Prater as a witness

Text: Mr. Hooks alleges that counsel performed deficiently when she failed to secure Pat Prater as a witness after seeing the memorandum from Ms. High. (As earlier discussed, the memorandum summarized a conversation between Ms. High and Ms. Prater regarding the latter’s observations of and interactions with Mr. Hooks.) Mr. Hooks believes that “Ms. Prater would have provided objective evidence of Petitioner’s significant adaptive deficits and an opinion he was mentally retarded.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 68. The OCCA resolved this claim on prejudice grounds, concluding that “there is not a reasonable probability that, with this evidence, jurors would have found Hooks was mentally retarded.” Hooks Atkins Collateral, slip op. at 14. We resolve this issue de novo under the first prong of Strickland. Trial counsel does not act unreasonably in failing to call every conceivable witness that might testify on a defendant’s behalf. See Crittenden v. Ayers, 624 F.3d 943, 967 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Trial counsel’s duty to investigate . . . does not necessarily require that every conceivable witness be interviewed.” (omission in original) (quoting Douglas v. -65- Woodford, 316 F.3d 1079, 1088 (9th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Rompilla, 545 U.S. at 383 (“[T]he duty to investigate does not force defense lawyers to scour the globe on the off chance something will turn up.”). The information in the memorandum received by Mr. Hooks’s counsel pointed to a lay witness, Ms. Prater, who could testify that her observations of Mr. Hooks, particularly his conversational abilities, indicate that he is mentally retarded. This was not novel information. Mr. Hooks called two expert witnesses who related substantially the same information to the jury. See 3 M.R. at 191–94 (Test. of Dr. Gelbort); 4 M.R. at 74–78, 81–82, 101–02, 116 (Test. of Dr. Cowardin). Counsel must be allowed leeway in prioritizing the evidence and witnesses she puts on. See Rompilla, 545 U.S. at 383 (“[R]easonably diligent counsel may draw a line when they have good reason to think further investigation would be a waste.”). In light of the fact that the legal definition of mental retardation tracks the clinical definition, we may fairly view counsel here as making a reasonable, strategic decision to focus on expert rather than lay witnesses, and she reasonably could have believed that Ms. Prater’s testimony would have been duplicative or unhelpful. See Matthews, 577 F.3d at 1192–93 (holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call witnesses whose testimony “would have been largely cumulative of evidence the jury did hear”). We therefore conclude that counsel’s performance was not unreasonable under Strickland. f. Failure to uncover evidence to impeach Shanna Dinh Mr. Hooks claims that counsel was ineffective because she failed to contact Shanna Dinh’s ex-husband, Cuc Van Dinh, who could have testified that he and Ms. Dinh -66- lived together during the time that she claimed to have been living with Mr. Hooks. The OCCA resolved the claim on prejudice grounds, concluding that “[w]hether Dinh lived with Hooks for months or years, her testimony went to her observations of his behavior and mental ability.” Hooks Atkins Collateral, slip op. at 15. We resolve this issue de novo under the first prong of Strickland. It is worth noting that Ms. Dinh’s story appears to be so convoluted that unraveling the truth is impossible on the record before us. Ms. Dinh claimed at the Atkins trial that she lived with Mr. Hooks “90 percent of the time” between 1984 and 1987. 4 M.R. Tr. at 198. In 1989, during the murder trial, she claimed to have lived with him for “a couple of months” during that period. 2 Trial Tr. at 413 (Test. of Ms. Dinh). Meanwhile, Mr. Hooks’s counsel was aware of a presentence investigation report indicating that Ms. Dinh was in foster care during that same time period. See 4 M.R. Tr. at 218 (statement of Ms. Werneke to the court). To muddy the waters further, the affidavit of Cuc Van Dinh states that Ms. Dinh was living with him during that time period and not “with anyone else.” R., Vol. 1, pt. 2 at 477 (Aff. of Cuc Van Dinh, dated Jan. 19, 2005). Finally, on direct appeal from Mr. Hooks’s Atkins trial, the OCCA stated that “[s]ubsequent investigation indicates that [Ms.] Dinh’s husband had [later] filed for divorce, claiming abandonment.” Hooks Atkins Appeal, 126 P.3d at 643 n.21. Abandonment would cast doubt on Mr. Dinh’s claims that he and Ms. Dinh were living together during the period in question. No doubt, counsel for Mr. Hooks was as confused as we are. We note, however, that she did not neglect to impeach Ms. Dinh. On cross-examination, she sought to -67- highlight one of these discrepancies in Ms. Dinh’s story, asking twice whether Ms. Dinh was in foster care at the time she claimed to have been living with Mr. Hooks. See 4 M.R. Tr. at 217, 220–21. Ms. Dinh denied the allegation both times. Counsel was not unreasonable for choosing to focus on only one of the discrepancies in Ms. Dinh’s story. Indeed, counsel could have reasonably believed that bringing Cuc Van Dinh’s putative testimony to light would have undermined her own strategy. Specifically, if counsel had suggested that Ms. Dinh was both in foster care and living with her husband during the relevant period, the jury may have perceived the conflict. Moreover, if counsel was aware that Cuc Van Dinh had claimed abandonment in his divorce proceedings, she reasonably could have concluded that Mr. Dinh was likely susceptible to strong impeachment by the State, which would have further weakened Mr. Hooks’s case. Because there is good reason to believe that counsel made a reasonable, strategic decision not to seek the testimony of Cuc Van Dinh, we conclude that her performance was not unreasonable under Strickland. g. Failure to comply with a discovery order Mr. Hooks alleges that counsel was constitutionally deficient because her failure to comply with a discovery order disabled her from introducing evidence that Dr. Murphy had been professionally disciplined, a fact bearing on the reliability of his IQ testing of Mr. Hooks; his test resulted in a score of 80. The OCCA resolved the issue on prejudice grounds, noting that the score obtained by Dr. Murphy “was one of a range of test scores, that the information about this test was sparse, that no expert relied on it in forming their -68- opinion of Hooks’s abilities, and that evidence discrediting Murphy could not have affected the jury’s determination.” Hooks Atkins Collateral, slip op. at 16. We resolve this issue, like the OCCA, on prejudice grounds, and we defer to the OCCA’s determination under AEDPA. To show prejudice under the second prong of Strickland, Mr. Hooks must establish “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel’s error, ‘the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Challoner, 583 F.3d at 749 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). “‘[R]easonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome’ of the trial.” Byrd, 645 F.3d at 1168 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). Mr. Hooks has not carried his burden here. As the OCCA found on direct appeal and in collateral proceedings, no expert (for the State or Mr. Hooks) relied on Dr. Murphy’s test score in forming an opinion regarding Mr. Hooks’s mental abilities. Hooks Atkins Appeal, 126 P.3d at 643; Hooks Atkins Collateral, slip op. at 16. Moreover, the OCCA found that “[t]he expert witnesses agreed that the most reliable scores were those obtained by Dr. Gelbort and Dr. Cowardin, with results of 72 and 76.” Hooks Atkins Appeal, 126 P.3d at 640. Mr. Hooks contends only that “there is no assurance” that the jury did not rely on Dr. Murphy’s score. Aplt. Opening Br. at 70. That is simply not enough to establish a “reasonable probability” of a different result, particularly when the other evidence of Mr. Hooks’s intellectual and functional abilities is considered. Consequently, Mr. Hooks has failed to show that the OCCA’s adjudication of this claim resulted in an unreasonable application of Strickland. -69- h. Failure to seek redaction of crime facts from the State’s exhibits Mr. Hooks asserts ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to redact “crime facts” from letters written by Mr. Hooks and admitted at trial. Aplt. Opening Br. at 71. Specifically, he claims that “[t]he letters contained references to Petitioner’s victim and the fact she was no longer ‘out there’ to care for her daughter.” Id. The OCCA did not review the letters because Mr. Hooks did not attach them as exhibits to his habeas application. See Hooks Atkins Collateral, slip op. at 16. However, relying on a portion of a letter that Mr. Hooks quoted in his postconviction application, the OCCA found that there were “no references to the facts of murder of which Hooks was convicted.” Id. Accordingly, the OCCA concluded that “[n]othing properly before this Court suggests that the jury was informed of the facts of the crime,” and that it would “not find counsel was ineffective for failing to . . . redact information in the letters.”22 Id. at 17. The letters are available in the record before us. Only two of the six letters mention Ms. Blaine. Those letters were the focus of Mr. Hooks’s arguments before the OCCA. Like the OCCA, we resolve this issue under the first prong of Strickland, according AEDPA deference to the OCCA’s decision. In doing so, we recognize that there is a significant question regarding whether we are authorized under AEDPA and, 22 Mr. Hooks asserts that “[t]rial counsel admitted she did not review the letters prior to trial.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 71. Actually, counsel has stated that she did review the letters prior to trial, just not immediately prior. See R., Vol. 1, pt. 2 at 462 (“At the time of the evidentiary hearing, I had read [the letters] thoroughly. However, I failed to review them again before the trial.”). -70- more specifically, the Supreme Court’s holding in Pinholster, to review the full text of the two letters. We recall that, in Pinholster, the Court observed that § 2254 (d)(1) employs “backward-looking language” indicating that “the record under review is limited to the record in existence at th[e] same time [the state-court decision is made] i.e., the record before the state court.” 131 S. Ct. at 1398. Although this clear and unequivocal language would seemingly foreclose any review under § 2254(d)(1) of any materials that were not before the state court rendering the adverse decision, the circumstances of this case are somewhat unique: the two letters were presented to the state trial court and the jury in the metal-retardation proceeding, were referred to by Mr. Hooks in his briefing before the OCCA (although inexplicably omitted from the exhibits submitted to the OCCA), and were addressed on the merits to a significant degree by the OCCA in ruling against Mr. Hooks. It may be questionable (perhaps even doubtful) whether even these circumstances would be enough for Mr. Hooks to escape Pinholster’s holding, but we need not definitively determine the matter because, even if we review the full text of the two letters, Mr. Hooks cannot prevail on this claim of error.23 Cf. id. at 1399 (“It would be contrary to that purpose [of requiring state-court exhaustion of remedies] to allow a petitioner to overcome an adverse state-court decision with new evidence introduced in a 23 In its pre-Pinholster decision, the district court did consider all of the letters. However, it found that “the letter set out here and at the OCCA by Petitioner is the only one with any allegedly questionable language referring to the murder,” Hooks Habeas II, 693 F. Supp. 2d at 1322 (emphasis added), and concluded that the OCCA did not unreasonably apply Strickland in ruling that Mr. Hooks’s counsel was not constitutionally deficient for failing to redact that language. -71- federal habeas court and reviewed by that court in the first instance effectively de novo.” (emphasis added)). In the first letter, Mr. Hooks scolded his daughter for some trouble she had found herself in, and he stated, “I know for a fact if Shalimein was out there she would of kickyo-ass all the way to the berry house. Cause she love you and don’t want nothing bad to happen to you Shalimar. You already know if I was out there you wouldn’t be caught-up in no shit like that none.” State’s Ex. 2 to M.R. In the second letter, Mr. Hooks states that a particular look from his daughter would tear-at-my-heart cause your “mom” would look at me the same way. “LORD” know’s I done everything I could do to protect [and] “save her.” Shalimar if I had a choice she would be with you now. “I love you all that way.” I wish I hadn’t loved her. Maybe she would still be out there, I don’t know. State’s Ex. 6 to M.R. The two letters contain no reference to the murder of Ms. Blaine. Both letters referred to Ms. Blaine as not being “out there,” although in the first letter, Mr. Hooks also referred to himself as not being “out there.” A juror could infer that Mr. Hooks was talking about the death of Ms. Blaine in these references (as opposed to, for example, talking about her being in prison like Mr. Hooks). Even so, it would require a further inferential leap to conclude that Mr. Hooks was responsible for her death, especially since he pledged that he had “done everything [he] could to protect [and] save” Ms. Blaine and that “if [he] had a choice, she would be with [his daughter] now.” State’s Ex. 6 to M.R. (internal quotation marks omitted). Counsel for Mr. Hooks has averred that she read the -72- letters “thoroughly” prior to trial. R., Vol. 1, pt. 2 at 462. In light of the vague and contradictory nature of the letters, counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to seek redaction, nor did the OCCA unreasonably apply Strickland in reaching the same conclusion.