Opinion ID: 78401
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Conduct of Jefferson's Trial Counsel

Text: Because the performance of Jefferson's counsel during the penalty phase of his trial is the primary focus of this appeal, we turn to the facts presented at the state collateral hearing concerning Jefferson's representation by his attorneys Stephen Schuster and Mark Cella. Schuster began his career as an assistant solicitor in Cobb County, and after two years, became an assistant district attorney in Cobb County, prosecuting all varieties of felony cases including burglaries, rapes, sex crimes and seven murder cases, and assisting in some death penalty cases. Ex. 39 at 158-60. Two years later, in 1980, Schuster entered into private practice, continuing to practice criminal law, working on about ten or eleven active felony cases a year, including murder cases, trying five or six a year, and assisting his partner in one death penalty case. Ex. 39 at 159-61. Petitioner's case was Schuster's first death penalty case as lead counsel. Ex. 39 at 161. Cella likewise started as an assistant solicitor in Cobb County, participating in approximately fifty jury trials, which included driving under the influence, misdemeanor shoplifting, child abandonment and simple battery cases. Ex. 39 at 35-36. After about three years there, in 1984, Cella entered private practice as a criminal defense attorney. Ex. 39 at 35, 60. Schuster was appointed as lead counsel to represent Jefferson in May 1985, and Cella was appointed to assist him in July 1985. Trial Record at 8-10. Schuster and Cella made a decision early on to do as much investigation as [they] could [them]selves. Ex. 39 at 166. In the process, they met with Jefferson fairly frequently, independently of each other. Ex. 39 at 162. Jefferson maintained to both Cella and Schuster that he and Taulbee had a long relationship and were friends, they fished together, the victim loaned him money, and he had gone fishing with Taulbee at Lake Allatoona on the day of the murder but that he was innocent, although his story changed a bit. Ex. 39 at 164. Jefferson first told Cella that he had seen two white people attack Taulbee, then he said he had seen two black people attack him. Ex. 39 at 72. He first told Schuster that he had hidden while Taulbee was attacked and came back later; then he said that he had assisted Taulbee while he was down, but later went back home. Ex. 39 at 164. According to Schuster, [t]here were some changes in it but that was the basic theme of what happened, that two people had approached Ed and attacked him. Ex. 39 at 164. Regardless of the version of the story Jefferson told, he adamantly and consistently maintained to his counsel that he did not kill Taulbee. Ex. 39 at 72, 162-63. Jefferson's counsel conducted an extensive investigation into his claims of innocence. Ex. 39 at 162-63. They visited the crime lab, the medical examiner's office, and Jefferson's apartment complex, and interviewed the detectives on the case, Stewart, the Glades, and the employer for Glade and Mitchell. Ex. 39 at 62-64, 166-70. They sought information from the trust company regarding Taulbee's bank account and how the ATM worked. Ex. 39 at 169. They went to the campground to find witnesses, and spoke to the beat officer on duty the night of the crime and to the people who ran the campground. Ex. 39 at 177-78. Although they failed to uncover any helpful information at the crime scene, they recognized that the area was highly transient. Ex. 39 at 177-78. Ultimately, they learned that there was no physical or scientific evidence against Jefferson. Ex. 39 at 64. Based on their investigation and Jefferson's adamant assertion that he did not do it, Jefferson's counsel decided to argue at trial that the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had murdered Taulbee. Ex. 39 at 62-63, 81, 171, 182. Schuster believed that we had a good shot at winning [since] ... there were a number of ambiguities.... Ex. 39 at 171. Schuster further thought they could show that Taulbee was worth more to Lawrence [Jefferson] alive than dead, since Taulbee lent Jefferson money, drove him around, and helped him on the job. Ex. 39 at 171. According to Schuster, Lawrence [Jefferson] did not do it and that was the strategy all the way through. It wasn't one he wavered from. Ex. 39 at 182. While investigating Jefferson's claim of innocence, his counsel also sought information about his life history. They asked him to write down a biography, in which he listed his family members and discussed his upbringing, discharge from the Navy, schooling, and jobs. Ex. 26 at Def.'s Ex. 16; Ex. 39 at 207. Jefferson did not mention a head injury in the biography. Ex. 26 at Def.'s Ex. 16. At some point during their investigation, however, Jefferson's counsel learned that he had suffered a head injury at the age of two. Ex. 39 at 43-44. To flesh out his life history, Jefferson's counsel obtained court funds to travel to his hometown of Louisville, Kentucky. Ex. 39 at 82-83, 169, 178; Ex. 40 at 457. They asked Jefferson for possible witnesses who could provide mitigating evidence, and then met with Jefferson's mother and the family members she had gathered, securing a history from each of them. Ex. 39 at 83-85, 178-79, 181. They were able to meet with most of the people Jefferson recommended. Ex. 39 at 84-85, 201-02. While in Kentucky, Jefferson's counsel also visited the gas station where he allegedly had committed a prior robbery, the courthouse for his prior records, and his probation officer. Ex. 39 at 178, 181, 199-200. Jefferson's counsel additionally moved for the appointment of a mental health specialist to evaluate Jefferson. Ex. 39 at 66, 173. [4] Schuster explained that [w]e didn't want to use the State Psychologist, Georgia Forensic Psychologist, and we needed somebody who could testify for us at the sentencing phase if need be. Ex. 39 at 172. After winning this motion, Schuster and Cella conferred with other attorneys who had extensive experience with death penalty litigation, including George Kendall of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Southern Poverty Law Center in Alabama, Bruce Harvey, and Jimmy Berry. Ex. 39 at 165-66. In November 1985, Cella received three names from the ACLU of suggested psychologists, one of whom was Dr. Gary E. Dudley. Ex. 39 at 67, 173. Dr. Dudley had received his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Miami in 1975, and, among other things, had been the Chief Clinical Psychologist in the Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, a consultant/instructor in Criminal Justice at Nova University, and a member of the American Association of Correctional Psychologists. Ex. 37 at 268-69. Cella selected and contacted Dr. Dudley to conduct a mental examination of Jefferson. Ex. 39 at 66. Dr. Dudley met with Jefferson four times during December 1985. Ex. 37 at 224. Following his examinations, Dr. Dudley submitted a written report to Jefferson's counsel stating that Jefferson's test results were consistent with attention-deficit disorder, and that the magnitude of his deficiencies is quite mild, and in no way impair[s] his judgment or decision-making capacity. Ex. 37 at 225. Dr. Dudley further opined: [T]his is an individual of average intelligence, apparently from a family environment that was involved in some violence (father reportedly killed in an argument) and whose adulthood has included participation in a robbery at gunpoint. His psychologic status at the time of my evaluation is non-psychotic, but he does present with very immature ego functions and tenuous ego integration. His major personality deficits seem centered around identity issues and the failure to achieve a coherent sense of self. This, in conjunction with great immaturity of ego functions generally, renders him prone to various forms of acting out, with very little mitigating personality structures and dynamics. There is no evidence in the test record to suggest that he has experienced a previous level of psychotic impairment. One possibility that could not be explored because of his incarceration has to do with the sequelae to head injury experienced during childhood. In my opinion, it would be worthwhile to conduct neuropsychological evaluation of this individual to rule out an organic etiology. Because he denies the alleged crime, exploration of explosive personality disorder is not pursued. However, he denies a history involving significant amounts of violence. Ex. 37 at 225-26. Cella and Schuster spoke with Dr. Dudley about his findings, and whether he would help or hurt us on the stand and whether we should call him to help our case. Ex. 39 at 77, 173-74. Cella determined that Dr. Dudley's report conclude[d] and he suggested that he would hurt us more than help us if we did call him, and additionally, that Dr. Dudley did not have anything to say that would help our defense ... [b]ecause of his conclusion that Lawrence's mental deficiencies did not prevent him from understanding right from wrong, did not impair his judgment or his decision-making capabilities, and that he was non psychotic. Ex. 39 at 73, 78. Cella further believed that a neuropsychological evaluation was unnecessary because they were proceeding on the defense that Lawrence gave us, which was that he was an eyewitness to this incident. Ex. 39 at 78-79. Counsel Schuster reached essentially the same conclusions about Dr. Dudley's assistance. Dr. Dudley basically told him that [t]here is nothing I could testify to that would help you, if you get to the sentencing phase in Lawrence's case. Ex. 39 at 174. Dr. Dudley said that he had worked in prison psychology in Florida and that Lawrence was just a criminal. Ex. 39 at 174-75. Schuster specifically asked Dr. Dudley about his recommendation for neuropsychological testing, and Dr. Dudley basically said it may be a waste of time because the rest of the report ... said that he was non psychotic, that he was intelligent, he had a fairly high I.Q., and ... `[b]ecause he denies the alleged crime.' Ex. 39 at 175-76. According to Schuster, Dr. Dudley didn't pursue it and we saw no reason to further pursue it. Ex. 39 at 176. In the course of the state court habeas proceedings, Dr. Dudley submitted affidavits that contradicted Schuster's and Cella's recollections of their interactions with him. Specifically, Dr. Dudley denied suggesting to Jefferson's counsel that a neuropsychological evaluation would not be necessary or that it would not be worthwhile. Ex. 40 at 440. Dr. Dudley claimed that he understood that the testing was not requested because funds were not available for it. Ex. 40 at 441. Dr. Dudley also denied telling Schuster that Jefferson was just a criminal, and that he could not help them at trial. Ex. 40 at 440. In any event, both Schuster and Cella testified at the state habeas hearing that they did not pursue further testing based on Dr. Dudley's report and their conversations with him, Ex. 39 at 78-79, 174-76, as well as on their interactions with Jefferson. Cella noted that he never had any problems communicating with Jefferson, Jefferson had a good vocabulary, understood his questions, and even paid child support. Ex. 39 at 79-80. Indeed, Cella said that he never saw any evidence that Lawrence was brain damaged and saw no reason to pursue a mental health defense further. Ex. 39 at 80. Cella said that he didn't think [Dr. Dudley] had anything to say that would help our defense. Ex. 39 at 78. Cella also believed that, even assuming a brain damage defense existed, it would have been inconsistent with Jefferson's claim that he did not commit the crime. Ex. 39 at 79. Schuster likewise testified that Jefferson never showed any evidence of brain injury: he had a good record in the Navy during his three and a half years of service; had a pretty good work history that we used, which included Jefferson's job at a scale company where he was certified in making sure the scales were fixed and weighed properly; was always very calm and always extremely helpful; put together a biography for them that pretty much listed everything; kept good notes; helped coordinate interviews with his family and co-workers; gave them information about Mitchell and the Glades; and was very workable within the sense that he helped us in any way he could to prepare the defense. Ex. 39 at 176-77, 179-80. Schuster continued: We had no indication, through our dealings with him, that there were any problems with explosive personality or anything like that.... I mean, there was nothing in our day-to-day relationship with Lawrence that would lead us to go further with [the mental health investigation]. We didn't have any problem. He kept good notes and helped us out. If there was something, I must have missed it. Ex. 39 at 177. In light of their investigation into the murder and Jefferson's life history, Jefferson's counsel decided to approach the penalty phase of the trial by minimizing Jefferson's past offenses and emphasizing his good qualities, including the relationships he had with his family. Ex. 39 at 96-97. And in addition to offering Jefferson's character as a mitigating factor at the penalty phase, they also presented a residual doubt defense. As Cella described it, Jefferson's counsel sought, in an indirect way, to point out to the jury that they were taking the word of three fairly unreliable witnesses and coming to the conclusion that he was guilty in the first place. Ex. 39 at 97. In doing so, Jefferson's counsel emphasized during the closing argument of the penalty phase that there were no eye witnesses to the crime, no guilty plea, and no evidence of any consciousness of guilt. Ex. 25 at 1380.