Opinion ID: 1401004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Counsel Allowed Sufficient Time to Prepare

Text: Wilson contends counsel's mental health investigation was unreasonable because counsel did not contact Dr. Reynolds until three weeks before trial and did not meet with Dr. Reynolds until two days before he testified. No particular set of detailed rules for counsel's conduct can satisfactorily take account of the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel or the range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688-89, 104 S.Ct. 2052. As a court of appeals, we are in no position to micromanage defense counsel's representation by establishing investigation deadlines. To be sure, insufficient preparation of the mitigation case can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 395, 120 S.Ct. 1495; Anderson, 476 F.3d at 1143-44. But this is so only if the investigation actually fails to uncover evidence due to time limitations, not simply because of the amount of time allotted. In Williams, the Supreme Court noted the mitigation investigation began only a week before trial, and in Anderson, this court noted the mitigation investigation was undertaken only in the month before trial. Timing was only part of the problem, though. The investigations in those cases were unreasonable not simply because they had been undertaken late, but because they failed to uncover significant mitigating evidence. See id. The cases from the Ninth Circuit relied upon by the majority also reveal that counsel's inadequate timing must result in detriment to the client to constitute ineffective assistance. See Bloom v. Calderon, 132 F.3d 1267, 1277 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032, 1038 (9th Cir.1995)). The complete lack of effort by [defendant's] trial counsel to obtain a psychiatric expert until days before trial, combined with counsel's failure to adequately prepare his expert and then present him as a trial witness, was constitutionally deficient performance. Id. (emphasis added). Although the majority would read out the causality implied by the phrase combined with, this causality is essential to the constitutional analysis. See id. (Because counsel did not acquire the services of this key witness until days before trial, a hurried and inaccurate report resulted.); see also Wallace v. Stewart, 184 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding that had [medical] experts known the details of [defendant's] family background, the substance and tone of the sentencing hearings would have been significantly different). Counsel cannot be deemed deficient based on the timing of counsel's investigation alone. The record in this case does not indicate counsel allowed insufficient time to conduct his investigation. The majority suggests three weeks is insufficient to complete an adequate expert investigation. [12] Yet in this very case, Dr. Reynolds had sufficient time to meet with Wilson multiple times, review life history files, conduct multiple tests, and interview Wilson's mother. Nor do I see a reason why meeting with an expert two days before his testimony should in all cases be unreasonable. See Rompilla, 545 U.S. at 381, 125 S.Ct. 2456 (A standard of reasonableness applied as if one stood in counsel's shoes spawns few hard-edged rules....). In this case, if Dr. Reynolds's findings required action on counsel's part, two days provided counsel sufficient time to adjust strategy, ask for a continuance, or otherwise respond accordingly. The record gives no indication that the time counsel allowed for investigating Wilson's mental health in any way limited the development or presentation of mitigating evidence. Wilson argues that if counsel had allowed more time for the investigation, Dr. Reynolds, by conducting additional tests and interviews, could have obtained a diagnosis of schizophrenia on top of the other mental health problems he had already identified. [13] But Dr. Reynolds's affidavit does not state he advised counsel more time was needed. Nor does the affidavit state counsel rebuffed any request for more time to conduct additional tests or collect additional data from Wilson's family or friends. Not surprisingly, trial counsel did not consider additional tests and interviews necessary. If counsel had considered further investigation necessary, he could have sought a continuance or conducted what further investigation was possible in the time remaining. As the above discussion demonstrates, Dr. Reynolds's investigation revealed enough information to convince a reasonable counsel the investigation was adequate and to ensure counsel's strategic decisions at trial were reasonably informed. The Constitution requires nothing more.