Opinion ID: 6109557
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Conduct a PET Scan

Text: Mr. McFadden also argues the motion court clearly erred in failing to find defense counsel were ineffective for not sending him to have a PET (positron emission tomography ) scan of his brain in 2003 and for failing to call Dr. Gur, a clinical psychologist and professor, to testify about the scan's results. 10 But defense counsel  testified at the postconviction hearing that when preparing for trial they were unaware of any experts who forensically interpreted PET scans, and they knew Washington University in St. Louis refused to analyze scans for use in criminal cases. While Mr. McFadden put on contrary evidence, this Court defers to the motion court's superior opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses. Barton, 432 S.W.3d at 760 . Even if they identified a place to have a PET scan performed, counsel testified at the postconviction hearing they did not want the exam because, If we could have done [the PET scan ] without the State automatically getting the results, I'm sure we would have done it. But counsel believed the State would have seen the results and were worried because: ... if you do a scan and it shows it's-there is no structural damage or the scan doesn't show any damage, the neuro psych testing can still be valid, but it makes it very easy for the prosecutor to argue that, it's just mumbo-jumbo. You should just not pay attention to that neuro psych testing because here we have a picture of his brain and it's fine, so we [defense counsel] tended to proceeded cautiously with imaging for that reason. Forrest v. State, 290 S.W.3d 704 , 709 (Mo. banc 2009) , held counsel was not ineffective for failing to obtain a PET scan based on similar fears an ex parte order would not be granted and the results might have undermined the mitigating evidence. Against these risks counsel balanced what they believed to be minimal potential benefit from PET scan evidence because it would show only structural problems, and, as this Court noted in Zink, for this reason the mitigating value of the PET scan evidence is limited because ... there is no generally accepted scientific link between [a movant's] brain abnormalities and his diagnosed personality disorders. 278 S.W.3d at 182 . The reasonableness of counsel's belief in the limited value of a PET scan became evident during Dr. Gur's postconviction testimony. He said that when he performed a PET scan in 2012, some 12 years after the murder, he found abnormalities that might have resulted in Mr. McFadden misinterpreting danger signals and being unable to exercise impulse control. But Dr. Gur acknowledged brain imaging results have limited application in determining intent, neither he nor Dr. Preston interviewed Mr. McFadden and could not directly link any of his abnormalities to his crimes, experts should avoid drawing conclusions about specific behaviors based on imagining data alone, and he could not definitely say Mr. McFadden's PET scan results would have been the same at the time of the murder or even at the time of trial. Moreover, on cross-examination Dr. Gur testified Mr. McFadden's actions before and after the murder reflected planning, exercise of judgment, and an intent to kill. Counsel has limited time and resources, and if there is a strategy that does not look promising, he may 'cho[o]se not to expend his limited resources to that end.'  Zink, 278 S.W.3d at 182 , citing, State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278 , 298 (Mo. banc 1995) (alteration in original). Here, defense counsel strategically decided not to get a PET scan with full knowledge of the possible results, and the motion court did not  commit clear error in finding it to be reasonable. McLaughlin, 378 S.W.3d at 337 .