Opinion ID: 180242
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective Assistance: Prejudice

Text: “[I]n order to establish prejudice, the new evidence that a habeas petitioner presents must differ in a substantial way — in strength and subject matter — from the evidence actually presented at sentencing.” Hill v. Mitchell, 400 F.3d 308, 319 (6th Cir. 2005). In this case, the state challenges the district court’s determination that the petitioner was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance, characterizing the evidence both as “tenuous” because of its indirect sources and as “too weak to establish actual prejudice.” The state also insists that the mitigating evidence offered at the evidentiary hearing in federal court, if produced by Woodard at the original trial, would have risked introduction by the prosecution of damaging rebuttal evidence. Despite this speculation, we agree with the district court’s finding that the evidence adduced at the federal hearing established a clear case of prejudice to the petitioner, resulting from the failure of his attorneys to uncover what was reasonably available information about Woodard’s background. The new mitigating evidence differed substantially in scope and substance from the meager testimony presented at the sentencing phase of Woodard’s trial, through which the jury learned only that Woodard was born to a single mother whose sole income was from welfare and grew up in a housing project; that his father was in prison until Woodard was eight years old; that he had a good relationship with his sister; and that he dropped out of high school before graduation. Because there was nothing of a truly mitigative nature about that testimony, it is obvious that trial counsel were focused merely on attempting to - 19 - 06-4329 Woodward v. Mitchell arouse the jury’s sympathy through pleas for leniency by the petitioner’s mother and sister, in addition to presenting Woodard’s obviously ineffectual, unsworn statement to the jury in an ill-conceived effort to create residual doubt about his guilt. By contrast, at the evidentiary hearing in federal court, counsel for the petitioner presented the testimony of three family members (the petitioner’s mother, father, and sister) and the petitioner himself, as well as three expert witnesses (Dr. Sharon Pearson, Charles See, and Dr. Sandra McPherson). The evidence they provided painted a far different picture of the teen-aged Woodard than the one the jury saw at trial. The new proof revealed not just a disadvantaged childhood, but also entanglement with crime from a very early age. Combined with serious psychological problems, this social history set Woodard on a path to personal disaster, culminating in his senseless shooting of Mani Akram. Although it seems virtually certain that the new mitigation evidence would not have convinced even one juror that Woodard was innocent. i.e., that someone else in the gaffling gang was actually the triggerman, it is equally clear that available evidence about the petitioner’s background and psychological make-up might well have changed at least one juror’s mind about the propriety of imposing the death penalty. For example, Dr. Pearson, a clinical psychologist, testified that she had interviewed and tested the petitioner in order to evaluate his “background and psychosocial history.” In doing so, she reviewed various documents, including Woodard’s school, health, and juvenile court records. She concluded, among other things, that he suffered from - 20 - 06-4329 Woodward v. Mitchell undiagnosed and untreated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which manifested itself in behaviors such as anger, aggression, and poor impulse control. Such “[i]mpulsivity,” she said in an affidavit filed as an exhibit in federal court, “often leads to accidents and engagement in potentially dangerous activities without consideration of possible consequences.” Dr. Pearson also noted that: Eugene is a product of his dysfunctional family of origin, growing up in the projects, unhealthy role modeling, unavailability of reasonably attainable, socially acceptable goals, exposure to repeated violence, destruction and loss, and probable congenital difficulties – low birth weight, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, fetal distress, Cytomegalovirus exposure. The “unhealthy role modeling” was provided, first and foremost, by Leo Clayton, Woodard’s biological father, who was imprisoned for much of his son’s childhood and who never married his mother. Dr. Pearson reported that following Clayton’s release from prison: Leo quickly put Eugene to work in Leo’s drug business as he believed no one would suspect an 8 year old. Eugene was flown back and forth between Chicago and Cleveland picking up drugs from Leo’s suppliers; he also was expected to deliver drugs and collect payment in the neighborhood. By the age of 12 or 13, he was running Leo’s business attempting to keep from collapsing secondary to Leo’s own increasing drug use. Leo reports intentionally teaching his son to hustle as a way to make a living. He denies teaching him to earn a living legitimately. While Leo worked in his earlier years, the streets soon provided him an income. Eugene later stopped contact with Leo secondary to Leo’s drug use. Based on the petitioner’s experience as a juvenile drug-courier for his father, Dr. Pearson found that “Eugene learned very early to take responsibility for the actions of others, to - 21 - 06-4329 Woodward v. Mitchell keep his mouth shut, to behave loyally even when loyalty was not deserved. He had to learn to ignore or deny fears or concerns in order to please his father.” The second role model was, of course, Alonzo Eberhardt, who also was never married to Woodard’s mother but who lived with her for many years and whom Woodard called “Dad.” Dr. Pearson reported that Eberhardt “attempted to befriend [Woodard] and parent him [but] at the same time was violent with his mother . . . [and] eventually was imprisoned for shooting [her].” According to Marsha Woodard, Eberhardt “tried to be a father-figure to Eugene,” but she also said that Eberhardt “oftentimes pulled a gun on me,” sometimes in front of the petitioner. Another expert witness, Charles See, was the director and co-founder of the Community Re-entry Program, which aided individuals newly released from prison. He testified as a cultural expert to his familiarity with the Cleveland urban community in which Woodard grew up, as well as from his knowledge of the Woodard family. See said that Woodard came from a family that on his father’s side was locally notorious for involvement in crime and various illegal activities and that Leo Clayton had involved the petitioner in trafficking drugs at a young age. The resulting impact on Woodard, he testified, was that although “he struggled to develop some sort of identity independent from that of his family, he found that almost impossible, being constantly reminded of who he was, being constantly invited to join various youth gangs, and also unfortunately being given drugs by his father [and] using drugs with his father.” In addition, See said that Alonzo Eberhardt - 22 - 06-4329 Woodward v. Mitchell “was a reputed underworld figure himself . . . . So between the reputation of Leo Clayton and Alonzo Eberhard[t], Eugene f[ound] himself involved with two men who were notoriously reputed in that community.” See also said that, to the best of his knowledge, all the information on which he based his testimony was available at the time of Woodard’s trial in 1990. Dr. McPherson was the clinical psychologist who had not been contacted by petitioner’s trial attorneys until after the jury had returned a guilty verdict and who was therefore unable to evaluate and file a report on their client in time for the sentencing hearing. She noted that there was undoubtedly sufficient evidence available on which to base an evaluation at that time but, with no opportunity to gather and analyze it, she had been forced to decline to take on the case. In response, the state argues that this newly presented evidence, in and of itself, is not particularly powerful, because the evidentiary support for it is “tenuous, coming from a collateral source instead of the primary actors.” We reject this view of the proof. It is true, as the state points out, that Alonzo Eberhardt himself never testified, by affidavit, deposition, or in person. But he was not the only available source for information about the domestic abuse that marked Woodard’s childhood, given that both Marsha Woodard and Eberhardt’s daughter, Tonya Woodard, could have provided that information to the jury. And, contrary to the state’s contention, Dr. Pearson’s affidavit was not the sole source for the information about Woodard’s early involvement in his father’s drug business. - 23 - 06-4329 Woodward v. Mitchell Clayton, in an affidavit filed as part of the state post-conviction litigation, admitted that he began using Woodard to run drugs when he was eight years old and that, when the boy was 12, Clayton used him to pick up contraband from an out-of-state supplier. At the subsequent federal hearing, Clayton affirmed as true all the statements in his affidavit. He did not testify concerning the statement in Dr. Pearson’s affidavit that, at age 12 or 13, Woodard took it upon himself to run his drug-trafficking business in an attempt to keep it from collapsing due to Clayton’s increasing drug use. But this information also has a direct source: Woodard himself testified at the federal hearing that the family history given in Dr. Pearson’s affidavit was accurate. The state next argues that the district court made no credibility findings regarding the information contained in affidavits and merely adopted by reference in the federal hearing. We disagree here, as well. By holding that trial counsel were ineffective in not presenting this mitigating evidence, the district court was necessarily finding credible the witnesses in support of that evidence. Moreover, that determination is not clearly erroneous. The state concedes that the new mitigating evidence is substantially different in subject matter from that presented at trial, but denies that the new mitigating evidence is substantially stronger. As indicated in the discussion set out above, the proof offered at the penalty phase of Woodard’s trial consisted of “[his] mother and sister testif[ying] that Woodard was a good son and brother and that he deserved mercy.” Woodard made an - 24 - 06-4329 Woodward v. Mitchell unsworn statement in which he expressed remorse for the victim’s death, but denied that he was the shooter. That was the extent of the evidence offered in mitigation. It stands in stark contrast to the core theme of the new mitigating evidence: the effect on Woodard of having a father who involved him in drug sales when he was still a child and a father figure who subjected Woodard’s mother to physical abuse in Woodard’s presence. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that this evidence was not substantially stronger than that presented at trial. It is no misstep to conclude in addition that if this evidence had been presented at trial, there is a reasonable probability at least one juror would have had a reasonable doubt that death was the appropriate penalty. Nor do we believe, as the state now contends, that the new evidence, if presented to the jury, would have run the risk of opening the door to a barrage of damaging rebuttal evidence about Woodard. In Ohio, at the time of Woodard’s trial, the prosecutor’s use of rebuttal evidence in the penalty phase was governed by this rule: The prosecutor, in the penalty stage of a capital trial, may rebut false or incomplete statements regarding the defendant’s criminal record. This right is limited, however, to those instances where the defense offers a specific assertion, by a mitigation witness or by the defendant, that misrepresents the defendant’s prior criminal history. State v. DePew, 528 N.E.2d 542, syl. ¶ 3 (Ohio 1988). Based on DePew, the district court rejected the Warden’s argument: “Had defense counsel merely presented the testimony regarding Woodard’s relationships with Clayton and Eberhardt in the context of presenting Woodard’s family background, there is a substantial likelihood that any rebuttal evidence - 25 - 06-4329 Woodward v. Mitchell regarding Woodard’s character would not have been admissible during trial.” On appeal, the state has presented no reason to believe the other-acts evidence would have been admissible. Indeed, although framed as “rebuttal,” it is difficult to grasp just what rebuttal would achieve. Evidence that Woodard had previously committed various juvenile crimes would seem consistent with the theme of the new mitigating evidence, i.e., that he had been raised in a family environment in which crime was seen as a way of life, not a rebuttal of it.