Opinion ID: 2508188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: failure to effectively cross-examine ms. diana rodriguez

Text: ISSUE (7). Whether Petitioner's right to counsel under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution was violated when his counsel did not cross-examine the Couches' daughter concerning a statement she had made to police authorities prior to their execution of a search warrant. Petitioner next claims his counsel's cross-examination of Ms. Diana Rodriguez, the Couches' daughter, was deficient. He argues that his counsel did not effectively question Ms. Rodriguez about her mother's missing wedding ring. On January 25, 1997, the day of Ms. Couch's death, Petitioner offered to sell a gold wedding band to his mother for $10. [215] She declined and returned it to him. Ms. Lisa Hubley, Petitioner's niece, observed him wearing a gold wedding band on his pinky finger. Four days later, police officers executed a search warrant at Petitioner's residence. Although they recovered several items linking Petitioner to the killing of Ms. Couch, they did not recover a gold wedding band. In the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant of Petitioner's residence, Detective Tom Davidson, Tacoma Police Department, described an interview between Ms. Rodriguez and Detective John Pike. Referring to that interview, he stated: During a conversation with Diana Rodriguez, Detective Pike learned that victim Yoshiko had purchased some Budweiser beer and cola soft drinks for her home during the holidays. Diana Rodriguez also indicated that her mother had lost her wedding band several years ago and had obtained another one and this one was now in Diana's possession, but she did not know if her mother had found the one that had been lost and she could not rule out the possibility that another wedding band exists.[ [216] ] While cross-examining Detective Davidson at trial, defense counsel asked a question which was answered as follows: Q: Did you, based on your investigation and your discussions with various witnesses, indicate in that affidavit to the court that although Mrs. Couch had a wedding ring, Ms. Rodriguez now had that in her possession? A: It was information I had obtained from Detective Pike. I did not talk with Ms. Rodriguez. Ms. Lindstrom: Okay. Thank you. I'll ask Detective Pike about it. I don't have any other questions of the detective, Your Honor.[ [217] ] The State introduced a photograph developed in June 1996 which depicted Ms. Couch wearing a gold wedding band on her left ring finger. [218] During closing argument, the prosecutor referred to the missing ring and to testimony that Petitioner was seen with a gold wedding band the same day Ms. Couch was killed. In her declaration filed with this petition, defense counsel Ms. Julia Lindstrom stated: Prior to trial, I did not interview the victim's daughter, Diana Rodriguez, nor did I interview Detective John Pike. To the best of my knowledge, neither did my co-counsel Lloyde Alton. I cannot recall if there was a tactical reason for our decision not to interview Detective Pike. I recall discussing with Mr. Alton whether we should interview Ms. Rodriguez. We decided not to interview her because we knew if Mr. Davis were convicted she would be called to testify in the penalty phase. We did not want to create any hostility or antagonism if there was a possibility that she, in spite of the death of her mother, might not want to see Mr. Davis executed. .... At trial I did not cross examine Ms. Rodriguez concerning the statement she made to the police that her mother's wedding ring had been lost several years prior to the murder and that Ms. Rodriguez had the replacement ring in her possession. This statement is referred to in Detective Davidson's affidavit for search warrant of Cecil Davis' mother's house, a copy of which was in my possession prior to the time that Ms. Rodriguez took the stand, Detective Davidson incorporated the information about the victim's ring being in Ms. Rodriguez's possession from Detective Pike, who had interviewed her about the ring. The reason I did not cross-examine her concerning this statement is that, despite the numerous times I had read the affidavit, I simply did not see the statement. I have no explanation how I could have missed it or its significance but I did. After Ms. Rodriguez had finished testifying and I realized my error, I attempted to bring this statement out in the cross examination of Detective Davidson but the trial court would not permit me to do so, sustaining the State's hearsay objection but ruling that I could recall Ms. Rodriguez. Mr. Alton and I discussed recalling Ms. Rodriguez to ask her about the rings but decided against it. She had been very emotional when she testified for the State and we were concerned she would become so again. We did not want that to be the last thing the jury saw and heard before they began deliberations. I now believe that it was a mistake not to recall Ms. Rodriguez. [ [219] ] Courts generally entrust cross-examination techniques, like other matters of trial strategy, to the professional discretion of counsel. In assessing Petitioner's claim that his counsel did not effectively cross-examine a witness, we need not determine why trial counsel did not cross examine if that approach falls within the range of reasonable representation. In retrospect we might speculate as to whether another attorney could have more efficiently attacked the credibility of ... witnesses.... The extent of cross-examination is something a lawyer must decide quickly and in the heat of the conflict. This ... is a matter of judgment and strategy. [220] Even assuming defense counsel was deficient in not cross-examining Ms. Rodriguez concerning her statement to police authorities, Petitioner cannot establish the reasonable probability that, but for this probable error, the outcome of his trial would have been different. In order to establish prejudice, Petitioner would have to demonstrate how Ms. Rodriguez' testimony on cross-examination could have overcome the overwhelming evidence against him. Besides, the record indicates the jury heard that a wedding ring belonging to Ms. Couch was in her daughter's possession. [221] Petitioner's next five claims of ineffective assistance of counsel focus on his counsel's alleged failure to conduct a reasonable investigation. Although there is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance [222] and [j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential, [223] a defense attorney has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. [224] Not conducting a reasonable investigation is especially egregious when a defense attorney fails to consider potentially exculpatory evidence. [225] Defense counsel must, at a minimum, conduct a reasonable investigation enabling [counsel] to make informed decisions about how best to represent [the] client.'  [226] This includes investigating all reasonable lines of defense, [227] especially the defendant's `most important defense.' [228] Counsel's failure to consider alternate defenses constitutes deficient performance when the defense attorney `neither conduct[s] a reasonable investigation nor ma[kes] a showing of strategic reasons for failing to do so.'  [229] Once counsel reasonably selects a defense, however, it is not deficient performance to fail to pursue alternative defenses. [230] An attorney's action or inaction must be examined according to what was known and reasonable at the time the attorney made his choices [231] and ineffective assistance claims based on a duty to investigate must be considered in light of the strength of the government's case. [232]