Opinion ID: 2995535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Severance Prior to Sentencing

Text: Next, Rouster contends that his sentence should be reversed because his trial counsel failed to move for severance prior to Phase II. Rouster’s argument to the Indiana Supreme Court with respect to this issue was the same as his argument with respect to counsel’s failure to move for severance prior to trial--that he and Williams had mutually antagonistic defenses. Thus, the Indiana Supreme Court was faced with the novel question of [w]hether a defendant may claim separately that his counsel was deficient for failing to file a motion for separate trials in regard to the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. Rouster, 705 N.E.2d at 1007. The Indiana Supreme Court determined that a defendant could do so only if counsel became aware of a previously unknown ground that required severance after the trial had started, and still failed to move for severance. See id. There was no such ground in this case, and therefore, the Indiana Supreme Court held that because the evidence against him was overwhelming, Rouster was not prejudiced by counsel’s omission in failing to file a motion to separate trials before sentencing. Id. at 1007- 08. Now on appeal, Rouster has re-framed his argument to claim that counsel’s failure to move for severance prior to Phase II constituted ineffective assistance of counsel because it denied him an individualized sentencing hearing as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S. Ct. 2978, 49 L. Ed. 2d 944 (1976). Further, even though Rouster did not mention Woodson nor its progeny in his brief to the Indiana Supreme Court, Rouster claims that the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision was contrary to Supreme Court precedent because it did not consider the standard elucidated in those cases. However, Woodson, 428 U.S. at 304, held that the Eighth Amendment . . . requires consideration of the character and record of the individual offender . . . as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death. That case had nothing to do with the issue at hand--whether severance during the penalty phase was required. Therefore, the standard for determining whether Rouster’s counsel was ineffective for failing to move for severance prior to Phase II is whether there is a reasonable probability that [had severance been granted] the sentencer . . . would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695. Rouster speculates that had there been separate sentencing trials, the witnesses that testified favorably about Williams (Williams’ family and friends) would have testified favorably about him. Rouster also argues that the State offered evidence at the joint sentencing proceeding that Williams had previously participated in a robbery, and that the jury may have misascribed that conduct to Rouster. Next, Rouster suggests that because Williams had some mitigating evidence that Rouster did not have (evidence of a job and kindness to his relatives), Rouster looked more deserving of the death penalty in comparison. Finally, Rouster claims he was prejudiced by Williams’ counsel’s statements about him during closing arguments. Despite Rouster’s contentions, there is no evidence that in a separate proceeding, the jury and the judge would have balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors differently. See id. The court instructed the jury that it could recommend the death penalty for Rouster only if it found 1) that the State proved that at least one of the aggravating factors applied to Rouster and 2) that the mitigating circumstances applicable to Rouster were outweighed by the aggravating factor(s). Therefore, the jury knew that in determining whether to recommend a death sentence for Rouster, it should only consider the aggravating and mitigating factors that applied to him. See United States v. Boykins, 9 F.3d 1278, 1289 (7th Cir. 1993) (holding that in joint trial, there is a presumption that the jury will follow instructions on considering each defendant separately.). Also, in imposing the death sentence on Rouster, the judge made specific findings that no mitigating factor applied to Rouster. Further, Rouster’s speculations about what would have happened in a separate sentencing proceeding do not render the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision an unreasonable application of Strickland. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 934 F.2d 847, 852-53 (7th Cir. 1991) (holding speculation insufficient to establish prejudice). For example, Rouster’s argument that he looked more deserving of the death penalty than Williams because of Williams’ additional mitigating evidence is belied by the fact that the jury also recommended the death sentence for Williams. Therefore, because Rouster was not prejudiced, we find that the Indiana Supreme Court’s determination that Rouster’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for severance prior to Phase II was not an unreasonable application of Strickland.