Opinion ID: 2638434
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Cross-examine Garrison

Text: Defendant next argues his defense counsel were constitutionally ineffective for failing to cross-examine Garrison at the penalty phase retrial. He claims cross-examination at the first penalty phase was effective in revealing Garrison's guilt of a previous child molestation, his statement that it was a mistake to allow the victim of that crime to live, and generally to probe and reveal inconsistencies in Garrison's story. Defendant contends that counsel, by choosing not to cross-examine Garrison at the penalty phase retrial, failed to act as a reasonable and diligent advocate. (See Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 687-688, 104 S.Ct. 2052; People v. Weaver, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 925, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 29 P.3d 103.) The record suggests a tactical reason for counsel's decision not to cross-examine Garrison. Much of the evidence supporting Garrison's testimonyhis unsolicited call to police, his waiver of extradition from Texas, his tour with police showing them relevant locations of the crime, and, most importantly, his November 5th statement to policewas admitted in the guilt phase of trial as a prior consistent statement because the defense had suggested Garrison recently fabricated his testimony so as to comply with the terms of his plea bargain. For the penalty retrial, the trial court ruled this same evidence would not be admissible unless defendant again challenged Garrison's credibility. Counsel did not state on the record their reasons for declining to cross-examine Garrison (see People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 266-267, 62 Cal. Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134), but we may surmise that they concluded defendant was convicted in the guilt phase of the trial despite their challenge to Garrison's credibility. Accordingly, they may have opted for a different strategy in the penalty retrial to exclude the People's proposed evidence that tended to support the truth of Garrison's accusations. This evidence included Sergeant Quinn's testimony reiterating Garrison's confession and accusations against defendant. We cannot say on this record that counsel's tactical decision not to cross-examine Garrison was necessarily unreasonable.