Opinion ID: 1148183
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Investigation of and Failure to Present Mitigating Circumstances:

Text: At the outset it should be noted that trial counsel has no absolute duty to present mitigating evidence. Mitchell v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 886 (11th Cir.1985). See King v. State, 503 So.2d 271, 274 (Miss. 1987). Strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. Counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. This Court must apply a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments. The reasonableness of counsel's actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant's own statements or actions. Counsel's actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on information supplied by the defendant. In particular, what investigation decisions are reasonable depends critically on such information. For example, when the facts that support a certain potential line of defense are generally known to counsel because of what the defendant has said, the need for further investigation may be considerably diminished or eliminated altogether. And when a defendant has given counsel reason to believe that pursuing certain investigations would be fruitless or even harmful, counsel's failure to pursue those investigations may not later be challenged as unreasonable. In short, inquiry into counsel's conversations with the defendant may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel's other litigation decision. See United States v. Decoster, 624 F.2d [196] at 209-210 [(D.C. Cir.1979)]. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 695-6 (1984) (quoted in Burger v. Kemp, ___ U.S. ___, ___-___, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3125-26, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987) and in Leatherwood, 473 So.2d at 969). The petitioner points out that mitigating evidence of all kinds must be permitted and that counsel has some ethical duty in this regard. There was some mitigation by cross-examination, and there is an excellent argument that, strategically, it is safer to obtain mitigating evidence from the State's witnesses than to risk aggravating evidence from witnesses called by the defense. This Court cannot say that counsel's litigation decisions were unreasonable in this regard.