Opinion ID: 1476684
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to secure brother's participation

Text: Defendant submits evidence, through Lois Nardone, that his brother, Jerry Williams (a.k.a. James Harris) (hereinafter Jerry) was willing to testify on his behalf.
According to Nardone, Jerry (in prison) [8] told her that he would have been happy to testify on his brother's behalf during the penalty phase to tell the jury about defendant's zombie-like state when confined at the psychiatric hospital, about aspects of defendant's terrible childhood, and about how he loved his brother. Defendant's proofs in support of this claim are countered by Fairchild's testimony at the penalty phase, which was consistent with Call's PCR testimony, that Jerry had refused to help his brother's case. Fairchild testified that defendant's brother said, my mother and I will not testify for Ambrose. According to Fairchild, Jerry's explanation was that he did not want defendant to take the family down, an explanation that coincided with Call's testimony about Jerry's refusal to help in the defense.
In evaluating the worth of Jerry's potential testimony, as contained in Nardone's report, we note that its overall effect would have been cumulative because he previously had made similar statements to Fairchild and she conveyed them to the jury. Specifically, Jerry told Nardone that (i) their father was an embarrassing drunk; (ii) that when he visited his brother Ambrose in the psychiatric hospital, it was disturbing because he was with the adults and was in a zombie-like state from the medication; and (iii) that Ambrose experienced intense rejection from his peers. Fairchild conveyed all that information to the jury during defendant's penalty trial. The two things that Jerry told Nardone specifically that were not part of Fairchild's testimony were that Ambrose protected him against physical attacks when they were young, and that he very much loves his brother and desires to continue their relationship even in prison. We recognize the importance of such statements when made to a jury. They could convey that defendant has redeeming qualities in that he enjoys his brother's love and desire to continue a relationship. See State v. Loftin, 146 N.J. 295, 432, 680 A. 2d 677 (1996) (Handler, J., dissenting) ( Loftin I ) (the impact of potential execution on defendant's family is relevant to the uniqueness of defendant as an individual and [t]he contribution and connection the ... defendant makes to his or her family is... indicative of his or her character and relevant in mitigation.); accord King & Norgard, What About Our Families? Using the Impact on Death Row Defendants' Family Members as a Mitigating Factor in Death Penalty Sentencing Hearings, 26 Fla. St. U.L.Rev. 1119, 1146 (1999) (If ... mitigation evidence is to allow the jury to get a complete picture of the defendant, surely the way that he has impacted the people in his life is a relevant consideration to whether he deserves to live or die.). Even assuming that potential testimony from a brother would be helpful to a defendant, the question remains as to his willingness at the time of trial to provide such testimony. His present statement to Nardone aside, the record shows that at the time of trial Jerry declined to provide testimony for defendant. Besides Call's recollection of Jerry's unwillingness, Fairchild testified at the time of the penalty phase that Jerry refused to testify. It is difficult to import to Fairchild motivation to lie about Jerry's willingness to testify at the time of trial: she was there to help prepare the case for a life sentence for defendant. Defendant submits Nardone's report to show that Jerry would have testified at defendant's sentencing trial had he been asked. But, we regard Nardone's report as insufficient to undermine the 1996 testimony of Fairchild that Jerry was resistant to participating in the case. Call's present testimony is fully consistent with that recollection. Defendant has not shown that counsel were unreasonable in their efforts to mount a mitigation defense.