Opinion ID: 2792988
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Abuse

Text: Gonzales next claims that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to secure an abuse expert. He states that “[n]o expert addressed the synergy of the effects of [his] sexual victimization, emotional and physical abuse, neglect 10 Case: 14-70006 Document: 00513000966 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/10/2015 No. 14-70006 and rejection by his mother and caregivers, exposure to alcohol and other drugs in utero, and his own substance abuse problem with the fact that he was only 72 days past his 18th birthday at the time of the offense in this case.” Gonzales does not identify an expert that trial counsel should have called or specify precisely how such an expert’s testimony would have differed substantially from that provided by Dr. Milam at trial. Gonzales’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to call a particular witness requires a showing of what that witness would have testified to if called. See Gregory, 601 F.3d at 352-53. Gonzales has made no such showing. Additionally, Gonzales does not argue that the jury did not hear about his “sexual, emotional, physical, biological abuse,” instead claiming that trial counsel should have called an expert to inform the jury “how the presence of all of these issues impacted” Gonzales. Counsel did call an expert—Dr. Milam—to explain the cumulative effect of the abuse and neglect that Gonzales suffered throughout his life. Trial counsel explained to the jury that “[a]t the very end of [the testimony of the defense’s] witnesses it will all be wrapped up together and tied together by an expert in the field of psychology.” As promised, after eliciting first-hand testimony about Gonzales’s deeply troubled upbringing, trial counsel called Dr. Milam to give her expert opinion as to the psychological consequences of the neglect, abuse, and drug use on Gonzales. Dr. Milam testified that Gonzales (a) basically raised himself; (b) was developmentally delayed; (c) is immature; (d) is paranoid; (e) suffers from reactive attachment disorder; (f) has antisocial personality features; (g) has schizotypal personality features; (h) abused drugs from a young age; and (i) was probably in the top 10% of emotionally damaged children. Dr. Milam testified that many, if not all, of these issues were connected with his mother’s use of drugs while pregnant, his severely neglected childhood, and the pervasive emotional, physical, and sexual abuse he suffered throughout his 11 Case: 14-70006 Document: 00513000966 Page: 12 Date Filed: 04/10/2015 No. 14-70006 childhood. Beyond Dr. Milam’s extensive testimony, additional testimony by an abuse expert would most likely have been cumulative, and Gonzales does not show otherwise. See Coble v. Quarterman, 496 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Counsel’s decision not to present cumulative testimony does not constitute ineffective assistance.”). Accordingly, Gonzales has not presented a substantial claim that his trial counsel were constitutionally ineffective. As a result, Gonzales’s state habeas attorney was not ineffective for failing to argue ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and Gonzales therefore cannot overcome the procedural default of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. See Garza, 738 F.3d at 676.