Opinion ID: 617145
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Counsel's failure to cross-examine Donna Edwards

Text: The district court's opinion also properly disposes of Sowell's argument that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to cross-examine Donna Edwards, a key prosecution witness and eyewitness to the shooting. Sowell maintains that the testimony of Edwardsthe only individual present in the apartment who was not shot by Sowellwas inconsistent in several respects with Billups's testimony, and that counsel should have brought out these inconsistencies on cross-examination. But once again, Sowell has not established that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to do this. With respect to counsel's performance, the district court explained: Although Edwards was a witness to the actual shooting, she had little to offer regarding petitioner's interaction with Billups in the days immediately preceding the shooting. Billups, on the other hand, was subject to lengthy cross-examination by counsel, as counsel attempted to establish that the shootings were prefaced by a heated, passionate, and emotional exchange between Mr. Sowell and Ms. Billups. Petitioner's case was not won or lost by whether counsel could exonerate him as the shooter; rather, counsel's theory of the case was that petitioner did not act with prior calculation and design, and [t]he disputed issue centered on what precipitated the shooting. To that end, counsel delivered an opening statement setting forth a cohesive defense, cross-examined Billups regarding the alleged theft that was at the center of the dispute, and called petitioner to testify regarding the events in question, his relationship with Billups in the days leading up to the shooting, and his mental state at the time of the offense. Sowell, 557 F.Supp.2d at 886-87 (citations omitted). The district court also properly reasoned that there was no prejudice in this regard: Even if counsel would have highlighted the inconsistencies between Edwards' testimony and that of Billups, those inconsistencies concerned somewhat collateral matters. What remains consistent with respect to the testimony of the two women is that petitioner threatened to shoot Billups, left the apartment to retrieve a gun from his own apartment down the hall, enlisted the assistance of Lenora Waugh to regain entry into the apartment, entered the apartment with force, shot Graham twiceincluding a fatal close range shot to his head, then went to where Billups was hiding in a closet and fired three shots into her body at close range, stopping only when he ran out of ammunition. With respect to these essential facts, the testimony of Edwards and Billups was consistent, and petitioner cannot meet the prejudice prong of Strickland. Id. at 887.