Opinion ID: 2756888
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Van Brocklin’s testimony

Text: {¶ 45} Van Brocklin had been lead counsel at Herring’s trial. Van Brocklin testified that after the defense had a difficult time obtaining a mitigation specialist, the Office of the Ohio Public Defender had identified Hrdy as a 13 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO possible mitigation specialist. Hrdy was then contacted and hired as the defense mitigation specialist. {¶ 46} Counsel’s first meeting with Hrdy in early September 1997 was four-and-one-half hours long. Van Brocklin recalled, “Mr. Hrdy was to obviously investigate and determine if we could find mitigation for Mr. Herring in the event that there was a conviction of capital specifications.” Van Brocklin could not recall whether defense counsel met with Hrdy again or only discussed the case over the phone. {¶ 47} Van Brocklin stated that Hrdy never told defense counsel that “he in any way fell short of the mark” and always represented himself as an expert. Van Brocklin said, “I believed at the time that he had done all of the work necessary to look into Mr. Herring’s background.    I believe, that had Mr. Hrdy requested additional time, we would’ve immediately filed a motion for it, and I’m quite confident that Judge Durkin would’ve allowed us the time.” {¶ 48} Van Brocklin also stated that Hrdy had had sufficient time to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation. Hrdy was hired in August or September 1997, and the start of the trial was delayed because a mistrial was declared during jury selection. The trial then eventually commenced on January 5, 1998, and the mitigation proceedings began on February 14, 1998. {¶ 49} Van Brocklin testified that he and Zena “knew a lot of negative information” about Herring “through our own investigation and through criminal records and those kinds of things that were supplied to us during the lengthy discovery process.” Van Brocklin could not recall specific information that they had known about Herring’s background because the case files had been transferred to the public defender’s office. Yet Van Brocklin had known that Herring had a prior juvenile record and that members of his family had criminal records. Van Brocklin also recalled that a subpoena had been issued for Herring’s confinement records to show that he had behaved himself during incarceration. 14 January Term, 2014 But defense counsel decided not to use that information because the records showed Herring’s involvement in “a death threat or a fight.” {¶ 50} Van Brocklin also stated that the defense had hired Dr. Darnall. Dr. Darnall provided defense counsel with “a report that didn’t work well, or was not very definitive.” He did not perform any testing for neurological impairment. {¶ 51} Van Brocklin stated that he and Zena decided to present “positive mitigation evidence.” He also stated, “I hammered home in argument    that Mr. Herring had not been convicted as a principal offender in this matter.” Van Brocklin explained that the decision to present positive evidence in mitigation had “a lot to do with the fact that we had picked two juries, and the second jury was far more conservative that the first jury panel was, and both Tom and I did not think that negative information would have worked with that particular jury panel.” He added, “I thought that any kind of information that you would give the second jury panel that Mr. Herring had been involved in a life of crime would simply be more ammunition for them to find a death verdict.”