Opinion ID: 2790291
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Review of Investigation

Text: As a preliminary matter, J.B. was deficient in his acknowledged failure to consider even the evidence D.S.’s limited investigation had turned up: he did not “listen[] to any DOE V. AYERS 21 tapes of [D.S.]’s interviews, nor did [he] read transcripts of any taped interviews.” J.B. did read a few summary investigation reports produced by D.S., but these included virtually no material from the interviews conducted in Doe’s home state. Even if D.S. had conducted an adequate investigation – which he did not – J.B. would not have learned what D.S. had discovered. Because J.B. failed to review and follow up on the information presented to him by his investigator, he missed clear indications, for example, that his client was repeatedly raped in prison. An ex-girlfriend, I.R., told D.S. that Doe was “fresh meat” upon his arrival in prison at the age of 17, and that people in the community were well aware that fellow prisoners “got some” from him.13 J.B. also knew that Doe’s mother, C.G., had sought psychiatric help for her son after his release from prison. J.B.’s file contained a copy of a lengthy article from the inmate newspaper at the notorious Southern prison where Doe was incarcerated, which described in graphic detail the frequency and effects of prolonged sexual abuse.