Opinion ID: 172823
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Have Defendant Testify

Text: Defendant also complains in this court that Oliver was ineffective because he “did not have Mr. Epperson testify.” Aplt. Br. at 29. He had raised an identical claim before the OCCA, but did not seek an evidentiary hearing on the issue. In rejecting Defendant’s ineffectiveness claim, the OCCA did not distinguish the failure to call Defendant as a witness from the failure to use evidence of Geoffrey’s violent propensities. It said merely, “[T]he alleged -17- instances of ineffective assistance of counsel were strategic decisions, which we will not second-guess on appeal.” Aplt. App. at 79. The OCCA’s rejection of this claim was reasonable. Defendant indicates that had he testified, he would have denied injuring Michael and described Geoffrey’s violent disposition. But Oliver had already presented the jury with substantial evidence of Defendant’s prior denials and of Geoffrey’s psychiatric problems. He could have reasonably decided that Defendant’s testimony would add nothing new. Moreover, there were dangers in Defendant’s testifying. The Brown Schools Assessment of Geoffrey contains a note that Defendant was verbally and physically abusive to Geoffrey. Counsel therefore had cause to fear that any accusatory mention of Geoffrey by Defendant would open him up to cross-examination on this subject. Under these circumstances, the OCCA could reasonably decide that counsel’s decision not to have Defendant testify was objectively reasonable. At oral argument before this court, Defendant suggested a somewhat different claim based on his failure to testify. He contended that counsel prevented him from testifying. We do not analyze such a contention as we do tactical or strategic decisions by counsel. “A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to testify in his own behalf at trial.” Cannon v. Mullin, 383 F.3d 1152, 1171 (10th Cir. 2004). Therefore “[t]he decision whether to testify lies squarely with the defendant; it is not counsel’s decision.” Id. No matter how -18- unwise it may be for a defendant to testify, it is ineffective assistance of counsel to prevent the defendant from exercising his right to do so. See id. But this claim is not properly before us. Defendant did not raise it in his briefs in this court. Nor has he provided a factual basis for the claim. To establish an ineffectiveness claim predicated on violation of the right to testify, a habeas applicant must show that he did not know that he had a right to testify and would have wanted to, or that he requested to testify and that counsel refused his request. See id. at 1170–71 (habeas petitioner’s affidavit alleged that counsel refused petitioner’s multiple requests to testify); cf. United States v. Meacham, 567 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial because the motion “does not claim that Mr. Meacham was unaware of his constitutional right to testify at trial” and that to obtain an evidentiary hearing, “a defendant must assert more than the bare conclusion that counsel ‘refused to let’ the defendant testify.”). At oral argument defense counsel stated that either his client or Wilson had described in an affidavit Defendant’s desire to testify. But the record contains no such affidavit. We therefore reject this claim.