Opinion ID: 78553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Background Regarding the Performance of Boyd's Counsel

Text: Boyd was represented at trial by Stephen Levinson and Grant Paris; Mannon Bankston, Jr. assisted. Only Levinson testified as a witness at Boyd's state habeas court evidentiary hearing (the Rule 32 hearing). According to Levinson, none of Boyd's lawyers had previously handled a capital case. Levinson had practiced for eight years before he represented Boyd, and had handled about six felony jury trials. Levinson felt that he had the primary responsibility for pretrial preparation, although added that he would not be surprised if Grant Paris felt that it evolved to him. Vol. 16 at 109. Boyd would not initially speak with Levinson, but they eventually communicated some fifteen to twenty times before trial. As for witnesses, Boyd's counsel spoke with Boyd's mother, his sister, his brother, his brother-in-law, and his stepfather. Counsel learned that Boyd's father left the home when Boyd was about two years old. However, counsel did not talk to any family members about the possibility of neglect or deprivation, and did not obtain any official records about Boyd or his family. Levinson also possibly contacted Sharon Johnson, and unsuccessfully tried to contact Kenny Surrett, who feared he would be charged as an accessory if he did not testify against Boyd, since he had taken money from Boyd after the murders. Id. at 110, 118. Co-counsel Paris contacted the pastor. Counsel also hired an independent psychologist, Dr. Alan Krichev, to evaluate Boyd, because they did not want Boyd sent to Taylor Harden Secure Medical Facility, a state-run mental health hospital. [2] Dr. Krichev prepared a report concluding that Boyd had not suffered from any mental illness and was competent. The report further opined that [t]here were no indications of major psychopathy, and that Boyd showed a lack of emotional content but otherwise w[as] not pathological in nature. Vol. 16 at 157-58. Levinson decided that he would not call Dr. Krichev as a witness, since he didn't know how [the report] would help Glenn. Id. at 116. Levinson admitted that he lacked an understanding of the tests Dr. Krichev performed, which was probably due to my inability to either understand or ask. Id. at 156. Levinson suggested that there was some dissension between the attorneys about how we should handle the case, who should do what, and what essentially our strategy or theory of defense was. Id. at 105. We didn't really have a defense strategy other than . . . to dispute what Robert Milstead was saying as best we could with what we had. Id. at 126. Although Levinson thought it important to impeach Milstead, Milstead's attorney would not let Boyd's counsel speak with him before trial, and Levinson did not talk to any of Milstead's family or neighbors. Nor did Levinson consult with an independent pathologist or with the State's pathologist in preparation for trial. Levinson offered that he was possibly in charge of the penalty hearing before the jury, and guess[ed] he did the preparation for it. Id. at 129. Levinson did not expect to have to start the penalty phase right after the guilt phase, but rather hoped to get an overnight continuance. In approaching the penalty phase, there was an assumption that if there was a conviction, we would try to mitigate the effect of the conviction through a family member's testimony; humanize the defendant, so to speak. Id. at 132. Accordingly, Levinson asked Boyd's sister Cindy to write a story about her brother, essentially ask[ing] her to tell me some positive things about Glenn's life as she grew up with him and as she knew him: to humanize him. Id. at 131-32, 153-54. Levinson [e]ssentially asked Boyd's mother to do the same thing, give us something to let the jurors see what type of person Glenn is in terms of his positive aspects, his good side, his bright side. Id. at 153-54. Levinson said that he met with Cindy and Boyd's mother more than five times. He conceded that he would have welcomed evidence that Boyd grew up in a violent, abusive, or alcoholic home for a mitigation case, but that he did not investigate any of these possibilities. He also admitted that a penalty phase investigation might have been helpful. Cindy, Boyd's sister, testified at the Rule 32 hearing that she met with Levinson about five times. Levinson asked Cindy about three months before trial to write a story about Boyd's life, but she did not really know the purpose of writing the story. In a meeting some two days before trial, Levinson told Cindy that she would be called as a witness. Cindy said that Levinson met with her mother only on that one occasion. Cindy did not know what she would be testifying to until the day she testified, when Levinson called her into the hall and told her to read to the jury the account she had written. Cindy offered that the lawyers had not asked her about the violence, neglect, abuse, or alcoholism in their home, but that she would have been willing to testify about these issues. Levinson added that no one was in charge of the sentencing hearing before the judge that followed the jury's verdict, and that they did not present additional evidence at that time because [w]e stupidly thought that the judge would accept the jury's recommendation. Id. at 129-30, 145. Levinson also represented Boyd on appeal. He considered raising on appeal whether the State had presented false or misleading testimony through Milstead, but said that while he thought Milstead was a liar, he did not think the State had anything to do with that, since he did not think the state would have knowingly put on perjured testimony. Id. at 137.