Opinion ID: 1268223
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Penalty Phase Investigation

Text: What little investigation Hamilton's counsel did for the penalty phase was revealed at the evidentiary hearing held before the district court in December 2003. Hamilton testified and presented testimony from his defense counsel and Philip Cherney, an expert on ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The State presented the testimony of the defense investigator, Danny Wells. Defense counsel testified that Hamilton's case was the first capital case on which he had worked. However, counsel did not retain anyone other than Wells to assist with the penalty phase preparations. In fact, he never even thought about retaining a mitigation expert or a mental health expert. Moreover, he did not have the benefit of a more experienced attorney's advice, as he did not associate co-counsel for Hamilton's case. [6] Wells had never previously worked with Hamilton's counsel. At the time, Wells did not have any training in conducting an investigation for the penalty phase of a capital case. He could not specifically recall whether he had worked on any death penalty cases before Hamilton's. Defense counsel testified that he began working on the penalty phase while preparing for the guilt phase. He acknowledged that Wells did the majority of the investigation for the guilt and penalty phases. Both defense counsel and Wells testified that the case file appeared to be incomplete, but neither could state definitively which, if any, documents were missing. Defense counsel explained that after the trial ended, he provided the entire case file to Hamilton's first appellate attorney, Betty Dawson. Neither defense counsel nor anyone in his office made copies of any of the documents before turning them over to Dawson. [10] According to the documents that were included in the file, the investigation consisted of at most five interviews: (1) Vicki (Hamilton's sister); (2) Marvin Hamilton (Hamilton's uncle); (3) Patti Ketchum (the foster sister of Hamilton's sister Carolyn); (4) Ron Stafford (Carolyn's then-boyfriend); and (5) John Stevens (an acquaintance of Carolyn's). The interviews took place shortly before jury selection began. Wells conducted all of the interviews on his own, except Vicki's. Defense counsel participated in Vicki's interview, during which he and Wells questioned her about Hamilton's past including his childhood, according to Wells's notes. However, the notes from Vicki's interview in fact do not mention anything about Hamilton's childhood. Nor does Vicki's declaration in support of Hamilton's habeas petition clarify whether she was asked about his childhood during her interview. In light of Wells's evidentiary hearing testimony that if Vicki had relayed information about Hamilton's childhood, he would have included it in his notes, the district court's finding that defense counsel and Wells obtained such information about Hamilton's childhood from Vicki is clearly erroneous. As we discuss below, Vicki could have provided countless details about the physical and mental abuse Hamilton suffered as a child. Counsel thus acted deficiently in failing to interview this key witness about Hamilton's childhood background. [11] That defense counsel did not adequately investigate the available mitigating evidence is even more apparent in his response to Well's interview with Marvin Hamilton, as documented. As noted above, in 1967 Hamilton was placed with Marvin after Carolyn disclosed to a relative that her father had been sexually abusing her for years and that her mother had acquiesced in the abuse. Wells's interview notes demonstrate that Marvin was well aware of the abuse: [Marvin] said that [Hamilton's father, Bob,] was molesting Carolyn and he went to jail for it and so did thier [sic] mother because she knew about it and did nothing about it. Marvin also mentioned that Hamilton had mov[ed] from one military base to another throughout his childhood. Defense counsel specifically recalled that he reviewed Wells's report, but that he did not ask Wells to investigate further into the alleged abuse or Bob's military records. Counsel acted deficiently in failing to pursue such classic mitigating evidence. See Lambright, 490 F.3d at 1117 ([W]hen tantalizing indications in the record suggest that certain mitigating evidence may be available, those leads must be pursued. (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 525 ([A]ny reasonably competent attorney would have realized that pursuing . . . leads [regarding the petitioner's traumatic childhood] was necessary to making an informed choice among possible defenses, particularly given the apparent absence of any aggravating factors in petitioner's background.). The other three interviews unearthed no information about Hamilton's background, which is not surprising, given that each of them lasted only one to two minutes. Defense counsel likely never intended to obtain information from these witnesses for purposes of the penalty phase defense, as they barely knew Hamilton. They were involved in the case only because of their knowledge of events that occurred shortly before and after the crime. [12] Most of the available witnesses who could have provided vital information about Hamilton's background were never contacted by anyone working on Hamilton's behalf at the time of trial. The district court thus clearly erred in finding that either defense counsel or Wells did interview the available witnesses, and no better, available witness about Hamilton's background and social history other than his mother was uncovered. Counsel's failure to contact persons who might have had more detailed information about [Hamilton's] past, when the initial investigation put counsel on notice that Hamilton had a particularly difficult childhood, renders his performance deficient. Douglas v. Woodford, 316 F.3d 1079, 1088 (9th Cir. 2003). [13] There was also available documentary evidence at the time of trial that could and should have been investigated as part of the penalty phase investigation. Many of these documents were in fact in defense counsel's possession, but he never reviewed them. The existence of these documents came to light after the 2003 evidentiary hearing, when Hamilton's habeas counsel filed over two hundred pages of newly discovered documents that she had found in a file labeled Hamilton Prior Record. The file contained the following:  March 1967 Kern County Juvenile Court Petition (alleges that Hamilton's home was unfit due to abuse and incest)  April 1967 Kern County Juvenile Department Report of Probation Officer (describes in detail the abuse and incest; recommends that Hamilton be declared a dependant child of the court)  April 1967 Kern County Juvenile Department Supplemental Report of Probation Officer (describes arrests of Hamilton's father and mother for incest and contributing to the delinquency of a minor; notes that Hamilton's father was committed to Atascadero State Hospital and his mother was sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment and three years' probation)  April 1967 Kern County Juvenile Court Hearing (adjudges Hamilton a dependant child of the court)  April 1967 Kern County Juvenile Court Findings and Order of Referee (places Hamilton in the care of the Kern County Probation Department)  May 1967 Kern County Juvenile Court Home Placement Order (places Hamilton in Marvin's home)  April 1968 Kern County Juvenile Court Home Placement Order (places Hamilton in the care of the Kern County Welfare Department)  May 1968 Kern County Juvenile Court Medical Court Order (authorizes the undersigned doctor to perform surgery on Hamilton's fractured clavicle)  January 1969 Kern County Juvenile Court Findings and Order of Referee (declares Hamilton a ward of the court and places him in the care of the Kern County Probation Department)  February 1969 Kern County Juvenile Court Home Placement Order (places Hamilton in the home of foster parent Ruby Carter)  June 1969 Kern County Juvenile Court Home Placement Order (places Hamilton in his mother's home but leaves unchanged his status as a ward of the court)  October 1969 Kern County Juvenile Court Order Granting Consent to Marry (grants Hamilton's petition to marry Christine Grealish)  December 1969 Kern County Juvenile Court Request and Order for Dismissal of Juvenile Court Case (based on Hamilton turning eighteen and complying with probation requirements)  1966-1970 Kern County Union High School District Permanent Record (lists Hamilton's classes and grades at Bakersfield High School and Foothill High School)  Kern County Criminal Record (includes juvenile and adult records for various offenses committed by Hamilton, including grand theft, burglary, and passing bad checks)  FBI Criminal Record (lists various offenses committed by Hamilton between 1970 and 1972, including grand theft, deserting the U.S. Army, a hold for going AWOL, failure to appear, and burglary) [7] It is undisputed that Wells obtained these documents prior to the penalty phase. Intermingled with the other documents was a two-page investigative report written by Wells on October 8, 1982, two days after the trial began. In the report, Wells notes that, on October 7, 1982, he went to the Bakersfield Welfare Department, Juvenile Probation Department, and Adult Probation Department to search for records, but was told that Hamilton's records had been destroyed. He was more successful at the Kern County Clerk's Office, where he obtained a certified copy of Hamilton's juvenile record. He also visited Bakersfield High School and Foothill High School, where he obtained all school records for Hamilton that had not already been destroyed. Wells's report is corroborated by the records themselves, most of which bear a certification stamp dated October 7, 1982. [8] Yet, some of the records were not sent to Wells until November 16, 1982, [9] two days before Hamilton was sentenced to death. Defense counsel testified at the 2003 evidentiary hearing that he vaguely recalled asking Wells to obtain Hamilton's juvenile dependency records and other relevant documents. He admitted, however, that he never knew what the outcome was of [Wells's search]. He believed that no records had been available, yet acknowledged that he had not used the subpoena power of the court to try to obtain them. In light of this testimony, the district court's finding that counsel did obtain and review[ ] the records which were available is clearly erroneous. Given the limited information about Hamilton's background that counsel already knew from Marvin's interview, he acted deficiently in not reviewing the records that Wells obtained or attempting to pursue other avenues of investigation. See Correll, 539 F.3d at 943. [14] Counsel also failed to investigate Hamilton's mental health history and mental state at the time of trial. See Summerlin, 427 F.3d at 630 (We have long recognized an attorney's duty to investigate and present mitigating evidence of mental impairment. This includes examination of mental health records. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1043 (Evidence of mental problems may be offered to show mitigating factors in the penalty phase, even though it is insufficient to establish a legal defense to conviction in the guilt phase. (citing Cal. Penal Code § 190.3(d), (h)). As we discuss below, then available documentary evidence revealed that Hamilton had suffered from serious mental illnesses throughout most of his life. Moreover, counsel was aware that Hamilton tried to commit suicide in prison shortly after his wife's death, and that he was taking antidepressant medication at the time of trial. Defense counsel thus should have retained a mental health expert and provided the expert with the information needed to form an accurate profile of Hamilton's mental health. See Caro v. Woodford, 280 F.3d 1247, 1254-55 (9th Cir. 2002); Mayfield, 270 F.3d at 927. We have found ineffective assistance under similar circumstances. See, e.g., Evans v. Lewis, 855 F.2d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that counsel was ineffective where he conducted no investigation to ascertain the extent of any possible mental impairment even though documents available to counsel prior to the sentencing hearing plainly indicated that the defendant had a history of mental problems and had even attempted suicide while in prison); see also Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1043 ([W]here counsel is on notice that his client may be mentally impaired, counsel's failure to investigate his client's mental condition as a mitigating factor in a penalty phase hearing, without a supporting strategic reason, constitutes deficient performance.). Although the district court did not think it dispositive or even make a finding on the issue, the State places much reliance on Hamilton's asserted lack of cooperation. The State contends that further efforts by defense counsel would have been unavailing because there is no indication that Hamilton would have cooperated with the investigation. The extent to which Hamilton refused to assist in the investigation was disputed at the evidentiary hearing. Defense counsel testified that Hamilton refused to answer questions or provide relevant sources of information, which Wells confirmed. Yet, this testimony was undermined by defense counsel's admission that he did not even ask Hamilton to complete a basic biographical information form at the outset of his investigation. In fact, defense counsel could not recall which specific information he asked Hamilton to provide. Further, Hamilton testified that he supplied counsel with an extraordinary amount of information. He admitted being antagonistic at times, but claimed that, overall, he had been more than cooperative. Counsel also testified that Hamilton insisted on receiving the death penalty if he were found guilty. The State suggests that this testimony is corroborated by the statement Hamilton tried to read to the jury at the outset of the penalty phase. [10] Most fairly read, however, this statement reveals only Hamilton's insistence on his innocence and his belief that presenting mitigating evidence would be tantamount to admitting guilt. [15] Even if we accept defense counsel's version of the events, we would nevertheless find his investigation deficient. A defendant's lack of cooperation does not eliminate counsel's duty to investigate. See 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4-4.1 (2d ed. 1980) (The duty to investigate exists regardless of the accused's admissions or statements to the lawyer of facts constituting guilt or the accused's stated desire to plead guilty.). On the contrary, if a client forecloses certain avenues of investigation, it arguably becomes even more incumbent upon trial counsel to seek out and find alternative sources of information and evidence, especially in the context of a capital murder trial. Silva, 279 F.3d at 847; see, e.g., Karis v. Calderon, 283 F.3d 1117, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002) (determining that the defendant's lack of cooperation did not excuse counsel from further investigating mitigating evidence, especially given that counsel was aware [that the defendant suffered] childhood abuse and there was essentially no other significant mitigating evidence to present to the jury). We recognize that both the Supreme Court and we have found that a defendant's refusal to cooperate in the penalty phase may render counsel's limited investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence reasonable under the circumstances. See, e.g., Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 475-77 (2007); Jeffries v. Blodgett, 5 F.3d 1180, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 1993). These cases, however, are readily distinguishable. In Landrigan, a post-AEDPA case, the defendant actively obstructed counsel's investigation and outright refused to allow counsel to present any mitigating evidence. 550 U.S. at 468-70. For example, the defendant explicitly instructed his mother and ex-wife not to testify. Id. at 469. Counsel tried to make a proffer of the witnesses' testimony, but the defendant repeatedly interrupted his presentation to the court to reiterate that he did not want mitigating evidence presented. Id. at 470. When the judge asked the defendant if he wanted to make a statement at the conclusion of the penalty phase, he responded: I think if you want to give me the death penalty, just bring it right on. I'm ready for it. Id. Similarly, the defendant in Jeffries refused to allow his counsel to present any mitigating evidence other than his brother's brief testimony regarding his artistic abilities. 5 F.3d at 1197. The defendant made his decision not to present a mitigation defense after a weekend of discussions with his brother and with counsel. Id. After the defendant explained the various reasons underlying his decision to the trial court, counsel told the court he believed that the defendant made [his decision] knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently after a weekend of soul searching. Id. [16] By contrast, even if we credit counsel's testimony here, at most Hamilton refused to assist in his defense; he did not impede the many other avenues of mitigating evidence available to counsel. That counsel somehow learned of five people to interview and his investigator managed to obtain over two hundred pages of relevant documents undermines the State's argument that Hamilton obstructed the investigation. Moreover, unlike the defendant in Landrigan, Hamilton did not threaten to obstruct the presentation of any mitigating evidence that counsel found. Instead, after the trial court denied his request to read a statement to the jury, Hamilton allowed the penalty phase to proceed uninterrupted. Last, unlike the defendant in Jeffries, he did not make a knowing and informed decision not to present mitigating evidence. In any event, because counsel disregarded any alleged instructions to the contrary and presented a mitigation defense, albeit an insufficient one, we need not analyze the effect of Hamilton's alleged refusal to cooperate. See Douglas, 316 F.3d at 1089.