Opinion ID: 787859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: additional mitigating evidence claim

Text: 1 WITNESSES NOT CALLED Defense counsel or their sentencing consultants interviewed fifteen mitigation witnesses in addition to those witnesses actually called during the sentencing phase. Davis argues that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call some of the additional witnesses who had been interviewed, and he points to notes from interviews with those witnesses as evidence of what the witnesses would have testified to if called. The interview notes on which Davis relies indicate that three of the additional witnesses would have given positive, non-cumulative testimony. First, Davis's sister, Sherri Davis, told an interviewer that Davis's mother mentally and physically abused the kids and that, in Sherri's opinion, David got hit by his mom one too many times. No witness actually called by the defense testified that Davis had been physically abused as a child. 5 Instead, Davis's mother and sister, Terri Reynolds, testified that although other children in the family had been physically abused, Davis was spared. The state's attorney emphasized this issue in closing argument: [Davis's mother is] described as cold and unloving and, according to Dr. Vicary, physically abusive to the defendant. Well, ... he doesn't have any support for that.... [B]oth of the daughters who testified ... never saw her physically abuse [Davis] but she did physically abuse at least one of the daughters. Second, Davis's aunt Olivia Guerrero told an interviewer that when she visited Davis's family, she noticed that Davis and one of his sisters were singled out for negative treatment: During her visits to California, [Guerrero] saw differences in the way Sandra treated her kids. Her gut feeling was that [Davis] was treated differently (not favorably), because he was a boy. She also felt that Tracy was treated differently than the others, even though she was a girl. [Guerrero] points out that what's interesting is that those two, [Davis] and Tracy, turned out to be the two problem children. [Guerrero] says she wasn't around Sandra and her family enough to see what was really going on. But in the brief time she did spend in the home, there seemed to be differences. It seemed to her that if all the kids were disciplined for an identical misbehavior, [Davis] got more discipline, and more severe disciplin[e] than the others. The others were allowed to slide sometimes, [Davis] wasn't. [Davis] seemed to get the brunt of Sandra's anger. Also, to [Guerrero], [Davis] and his behavior, seemed the same as the other kids. In other words, she could never see a reason for Sandra to be harder on [Davis]. In contrast to Guerrero's account, Davis's sister Terri Reynolds testified during the sentencing phase that the boys were rarely disciplined. Guerrero's testimony would thus have been significant because it would have explained why Davis had more problems as an adult than his siblings did and would have undermined Terri Reynolds's account that Davis had been favored by his mother. The state's attorney emphasized Terri Reynolds's account during closing argument: [B]oth of the daughters who testified... said that it really made them mad that [Davis's mother] favored the defendant and his brother, Chris.... Third, Davis's second wife, Leticia Hernandez, told an interviewer that Davis was a good father and husband and that he had never been violent toward her. Hernandez attributed Davis's occasional strange look or behavior to something in his past. Hernandez also confirmed the defense's story that Davis and Hernandez had had a fight before the murder because Davis did not want Hernandez smoking while pregnant: [Hernandez] says she and David had a fight the night before the murder.... They fought because David wouldn't give her any money for cigarettes. She says she wasn't supposed to be smoking because she was pregnant, but she wanted her cigarettes anyway. She told David to get out of her house, or she would call the police. Although other witnesses testified that they did not believe Davis was a violent person, only Hernandez could have countered the state's significant aggravating evidence that Davis had a recent tendency toward spousal abuse and, more generally, abuse of women. The state's attorney summarized this point in his closing argument: He's gotten worse. Over the last five to ten years, his life shows an increasing pattern of misbehavior and violence towards both men and women but especially women. In fact, the state's attorney emphasized that the defense had failed to call Davis's second wife. He argued that Hernandez's absence undermined other witnesses' positive testimony about Davis. [W]e heard some witnesses about what the defendant was like at various times. And when did these witnesses know him? In almost all cases, these are witnesses out of the past. ... So ... doesn't it sound to you like they're really digging in the bottom of the barrel to come up with something mitigating about his background? ... Well, think about who they called. Mostly people out of the past. And then think about this: Who didn't they call? ... They didn't call his second wife, Leticia Hernandez, although Dr. Vicary had bad things to say about her like he did just about everybody else.... Why not call her to find out what the defendant's been like since she's known him? She married him even after he was arrested for this, so she can't be totally disloyal. So they didn't call people who have known him most recently and primarily they called people who knew him back 8, 10, 12 years ago. The state's attorney also challenged the truth of the defense's story about why Davis and Hernandez fought before the murder. In addition to countering that point, Hernandez's testimony that she attributed Davis's behavior to something in his past would also have provided support for the defense's argument that Davis's behavior was the result, at least in part, of a traumatic childhood or of mental illness. 2 DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE To perform effectively in the penalty phase of a capital case, counsel must conduct sufficient investigation and engage in sufficient preparation to be able to `present[ ] and explain[] the significance of all the available [mitigating] evidence.' Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3d 915, 927 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (emphasis added) (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 399, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); alterations in Mayfield ). The Supreme Court recently emphasized this point in Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). In Wiggins, the Court noted that the ABA Guidelines for capital defense work provide that effective assistance should comprise efforts to discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence and evidence to rebut any aggravating evidence that may be introduced by the prosecutor. Id. at 2537 (emphasis in Wiggins ); see also Allen v. Woodford, 366 F.3d 823, 845 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting this text from Wiggins ). In this case, Davis's defense attorneys failed in their duty to present all available, non-cumulative mitigating evidence. I find no suggestion in the record of a strategic reason to explain defense counsel's failure to call Sherri Davis, Olivia Guerrero and Leticia Hernandez; the interview notes do not refer to any significant negative testimony that would have outweighed the positive testimony the witnesses apparently would have given. Absent a sound strategic explanation, defense counsel's failure to call witnesses who would have provided significant mitigating testimony fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Wiggins, 123 S.Ct. at 2535 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052). 3 PREJUDICE The test for prejudice is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer ... would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Mayfield, 270 F.3d at 928-29 (applying this standard and reversing death sentence because en banc panel could not conclude with confidence that the jury would unanimously have sentenced [the petitioner] to death if[defense counsel] had presented and explained all of the available mitigating evidence). Mayfield provides support for a prejudice finding in this case. The aggravating evidence against Davis is no stronger than in Mayfield. Mayfield killed two people after threatening them with a gun for fifteen minutes; he then lay in wait, armed with a knife, for a third person. Id. at 920-21, 929. Mayfield had a criminal and violent past: he had pled guilty to auto theft; he had fired a gun into the home of one ex-girlfriend; and he had physically abused another former girlfriend. Id. at 920, 929. The en banc panel described the aggravating evidence against Mayfield as strong. Id. at 929. Mayfield's defense lawyer did put on some compelling mitigation evidence similar to that presented in Davis's case. See id. (describing the mitigating evidence presented by the defense as substantial). The defense put on evidence that Mayfield had suffered from depression as a child; that he was addicted to PCP; that he had had an increasingly tense relationship with his mother as he grew up; that he suffered from diabetes; that he had expressed remorse for his actions in different ways at different times; and that the violent crime was out of character. Id. at 929-30. The defense failed to put on additional evidence about Mayfield's traumatic childhood struggle with diabetes, his substance abuse, as well as character evidence about Mayfield's positive relationships with friends and with children. Id. at 930-32. The Mayfield panel held — notwithstanding the strong aggravating evidence and the compelling mitigating evidence the defense did present — that there was a reasonable probability that the omitted evidence would have changed the conclusion that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and, hence, the sentence imposed. Id. at 932 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700, 104 S.Ct. 2052). Here, as in Mayfield, defense counsel failed to put on evidence of a traumatic childhood experience — here with physical abuse, as opposed to diabetes in Mayfield. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that evidence of a traumatic background is significant at the penalty phase: Evidence regarding social background and mental health is significant, as there is a belief, long held by this society, that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to a disadvantaged background or to emotional and mental problems, may be less culpable than defendants who have no such excuse. Douglas v. Woodford, 316 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th Cir.) (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 382, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 49, 157 L.Ed.2d 23 (2003); see also Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032, 1044 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that the failure to present evidence of physical and psychological abuse was prejudicial). Leticia Hernandez's testimony, like the testimony of friends and family in Mayfield, would have provided an important humanizing account of a positive recent relationship and of Davis's self-control. Mayfield, 270 F.3d at 932. Given the testimony of Davis's first wife and the state's closing argument, Hernandez's testimony also would have rebutted a key element of the state's case in aggravation. 4 THE MAJORITY'S ANALYSIS The majority gives three reasons for rejecting Davis's claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to put on additional mitigation witnesses: (1) conclusory allegations; (2) cumulative or negative testimony; and (3) failure to exhaust. Given the interview notes Davis submitted, I do not agree that he presented only conclusory allegations. 6 I also do not agree, for the reasons given above, that all of Davis's additional witnesses would have given only negative or cumulative testimony. Finally, Davis makes a compelling argument rebutting the failure-to-exhaust rationale. Judge Letts twice found Davis's claims exhausted, and Judge Tevrizian reversed those rulings without notice. In light of Judge Letts's rulings, Judge Tevrizian at least should have given Davis the opportunity either to dismiss and return to state court or to stay his federal petition pending another round of state habeas filings. Judge Tevrizian's order also overturned the law of the case. See United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874 (9th Cir.1997) (reversing district court for improperly overruling decision made by district court judge to whom case had originally been assigned). The inconsistency between Judge Letts's and Judge Tevrizian's orders prejudiced Davis: Davis reasonably relied on Judge Letts's ruling as to which of his claims were unexhausted when he returned to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims. In any event, only the claim regarding Sherri Davis is affected by the exhaustion requirement. The district court did not question exhaustion of the Guerrero and Hernandez claims. Even if the majority persists in relying on a failure-to-exhaust rationale with respect to Sherri Davis's testimony, Davis should be granted an evidentiary hearing as to incompetence of counsel based on failure to call Guerrero and Hernandez.