Opinion ID: 1057707
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Call Amanda Davis

Text: We have determined that trial counsel could have put on proof at trial that Ms. Davis incriminated herself in the victim's death. In order to do so, however, trial counsel had to elicit Ms. Davis' testimony at trial or demonstrate that she was unavailable. As set forth above, Petitioner would not have been able to put Ms. Defosio, Ms. Jackson, Mrs. Wilson, Mr. Harris, Mr. Pylant, and Ms. Mills on the stand at trial unless and until Ms. Davis denied having made the inculpatory statements or was unavailable to testify. At the post-conviction hearing, lead trial counsel testified that he had wanted to call Ms. Davis to testify at trial because he had a wealth of cross-examination information about her and prior bad acts. [28] Instead of relying on his professional judgment, however, lead trial counsel put the decision of whether to call Ms. Davis to a vote among himself, co-counselwho had no previous jury trial experienceand Petitioner. When co-counsel and Petitioner voted not to call Ms. Davis to the witness stand, lead trial counsel acquiesced. Contrary to what lead counsel stated, Petitioner testified that he wanted Ms. Davis put on the witness stand at trial. Significantly, the post-conviction court did not make a credibility finding on this crucial issue. Moreover, the State did not call trial co-counsel to testify at the post-conviction hearing. Therefore, the reasons why trial co-counsel desired not to call Ms. Davis are unknown. Generally, [w]hen counsel, retained or appointed, is challenged as ineffective and a [post-conviction] hearing is held, the state should present the attacked counsel to show what occurred. Garrett v. State, 530 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tenn.Crim.App.1975). With respect to placing the determination of whether to call a key witness to a vote in which the defendant has an equal say, we emphasize that, [s]trategic and tactical decisions should be made by defense counsel after consultation with the client. . . . Such decisions include what witnesses to call, whether and how to conduct cross-examination, . . . and what evidence should be introduced. A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice § 4-5.2(b) (3d ed.1993); see id. § 4-5.2 cmt. (stating that [b]ecause these decisions require the skill, training, and experience of the advocate, the power of decision on them should rest with the lawyer and that the lawyer should maintain the ultimate choice and responsibility for the strategic and tactical decisions in the case); see also Baxter, 523 S.W.2d at 936 (stating that [t]rial courts and defense counsel should look to and be guided by the American Bar Association's Standards relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice in general, and specifically to those portions of the Standards which relate to the Defense Function [chapter 4]). We therefore question the extent to which lead trial counsel's determination to not call Ms. Davis can be characterized as strategic or tactical. [29] In any event, by making this decision, trial counsel foreclosed the possibility of calling Ms. Defosio, Ms. Jackson, Mrs. Wilson, Mr. Harris, Mr. Pylant, and Ms. Mills to testify about incriminating statements they heard Ms. Davis make. Thus, in not calling Ms. Davis to the witness stand, trial counsel disabled Petitioner from adducing material and admissible evidence in favor of his defense at trial. As we have often repeated, this Court will not second-guess trial counsel's informed tactical and strategic decisions. Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 579 (Tenn.1997). On this point, however, we agree with Judge Witt's dissent below: [G]iven that counsel admitted in the post-conviction hearing that the defense theory at trial was that Ms. Davis killed the victim, trial counsel's failure to subpoena and utilize an available Ms. Davis at trial or, alternatively, to establish that she was unavailable to testify at trial, strongly suggests that counsel's performance was not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. . . . Lead trial counsel testified at the post-conviction hearing that he did not call Ms. Davis as a witness at trial because he was out-voted by co-counsel and [Petitioner]. I would reject outright this explanation as a basis for an informed tactical and strategic decision. Pylant, 2007 WL 1890178, at  (Witt, J., dissenting). Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has established that lead trial counsel performed deficiently in his method of deciding not to call Ms. Davis to the stand at trial.