Opinion ID: 1090851
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of the 1993 trial.

Text: ¶ 176. Russell alleges that, in the three years between the 1990 trial and the second sentencing trial, counsel had not developed any other meaningful evidence for the penalty phase, made catastrophic and unjustifiable decisions in terms of what should be presented, and did not even seek to present evidence that the Supreme Court of Mississippi had suggested to be admissible. Since very little of what current post-conviction counsel has developed is meaningful, we do not fault trial counsel for failing to develop or present it earlier. Russell does not specify defense counsel's catastrophic and unjustifiable decisions, and so we will not address these here. As to our suggesting that certain evidence was admissible, we assume that Russell refers to Officer Cotton and his alleged illegal dealings with other inmates. We did state, in Russell, 607 So.2d at 1116, that the evidence discussed herein may well have been admissible during sentencing had Russell re-offered it. Russell did offer evidence during the first sentencing trial of his own dealings with gangs and how they had threatened him for interfering in an attack on a third inmate but did not offer evidence of Officer Cotton and his dealings with gangs. Defense counsel may have felt that introducing evidence which could be viewed as an attempt to smear the victim at this point would have done more harm than good. At the second sentencing trial, defense counsel could have attempted to introduce the evidence about Officer Cotton, but considering that there was still no connection between Officer Cotton, the gangs and the threat on Russell's life, this does not appear to have prejudiced Russell. ¶ 177. Russell alleges that counsel spent 1 3/4 hours with him in preparation for the second sentencing hearing. Russell cites nothing in support of this assertion. Russell again complains about the failure to introduce the gang material, along with evidence of C.O. Cotton's misconduct. Once again we find that this evidence was not particularly relevant.
¶ 178. Russell's counsel filed a motion for change of venue for the second sentencing hearing. Venue was changed to Montgomery County. Russell apparently argues that his counsel should have objected, because the jury was likely to almost as closely linked to Parchman as the Sunflower County jury. This is an argument with no support, and it presupposes that counsel could have prevented the change to Montgomery County.