Opinion ID: 223075
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substance abuse expert

Text: Otte argues that his counsel were ineffective for failing to retain a substance abuse expert who could testify as to Otte's alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine dependence. In the state's post-conviction evidentiary hearing, Otte presented the testimony of Dr. Smith, who was just such an expert. Dr. Smith testified that people under the influence are more likely to be impulsive and make bad decisions. Otte claims that someone like Dr. Smith could have put these uncharacteristic acts into context and given the sentencing panel some explanation for the offenses. Appellant's Br. 57. As a general matter, counsel's failure to make a reasonable investigation of a defendant's history and present this evidence at mitigation can constitute ineffective assistance. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 522-23, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). Otte points to no case, however, in which the failure to retain a substance abuse expert has been grounds for granting habeas relief. As the Wiggins court noted,  Strickland does not require counsel to investigate every conceivable line of mitigating evidence no matter how unlikely the effort would be to assist the defendant at sentencing. Id. at 533, 123 S.Ct. 2527. After reviewing Dr. Smith's testimony, the Ohio Court of Appeals held that Otte was not prejudiced by the lack of a substance abuse expert because evidence of his long history of drug abuse was introduced by Dr. McPherson and Ohio law gives little weight to alcoholism and drug addiction in sentencing. We have rejected many claims of this type before. In Clark v. Mitchell, 425 F.3d 270 (6th Cir.2005), the petitioner's counsel called an expert at mitigation who testified that Clark was a drug addict and his need for drug money had a contributing effect to Clark's crimes. 425 F.3d at 275. Before this court, Clark argued that his counsel should have retained a pharmacologist who could have testified in greater detail as to the effects of his drug addiction. We refused to find the state court's decision unreasonable because the expert actually called at mitigation addressed Clark's drug addiction and its effect on his criminal conduct. Id. at 285. In White v. Mitchell, 431 F.3d 517, 530 (6th Cir.2005), we rejected an ineffective assistance claim de novo that was premised on counsel's failure to retain experts to explain the effect of intoxication on White at the time of the crime. In that case, we held that the evidence would have been cumulative because the jury was aware that White had been drinking and another expert testified about the effects of alcohol on White's mood and behavior. Most recently, in Tibbetts, 633 F.3d at 443, we rejected the petitioner's argument of ineffective assistance for failure to present a pharmacologist because the expert who actually testified mentioned that Tibbetts' use of drugs and alcohol was an explosion waiting to happen, and that Tibbetts was unable to control his rage response while intoxicated. Otte's case is not meaningfully distinguishable from these. During the penalty phase, Dr. McPherson testified as to Otte's drug and alcohol dependence from a young age, as well as the effects that drug and alcohol use might have had on him. She stated that Otte's life was primarily related around the use of drugs and alcohol.... Periodically people support themselves in this kind of situation, not only by acts of theft or anti-social behavior, but they also sell drugs to get money. She also testified that Otte had a pretty heavy crack cocaine habit, which are [sic] not only expensive, but also extremely damaging as to how they [a]ffect psychological functioning. She testified that the first thing that the alcohol drugs [sic] knock out is the control system. She also gave her opinion that the drugs and alcohol made Otte more likely to commit crimes. (If he is clean, sober, he is not likely to do this.). It was very well established that Otte had been drinking and consuming drugs around the time of the murders. Considering the entirety of Dr. McPherson's testimony, then, we do not see how a substance abuse expert could have affected the panel's decision to impose a death sentence. Because such testimony would have been largely cumulative, Otte cannot establish that he was prejudiced, and this claim fails.