Opinion ID: 70940
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidentiary Hearing to Show Cause

Text: On both state and federal habeas Williams proffered substantial evidence to support his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to discover and present easily discoverable and significant mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase. Williams’s proffer, which was first made to the state habeas court, includes, but is not limited to, the following specific facts and affidavits which have not yet been considered by any court.6 According to affidavits submitted by Williams's sister, mother, and father, both his mother and paternal grandmother, with whom he lived when his mother disappeared for long periods of time, often beat him with objects, including hammers, screwdrivers, the heel of a glass slipper, and tree limbs, and threatened to beat him with barbells. His mother would lock him outside, sometimes while he was naked. Later his stepfather allegedly physically and sexually abused him. When he was a teenager, he went to live with his father, who was never married to his mother and never participated in his upbringing. His father realized that something was wrong with Williams psychologically, and wanted to send him for a psychological evaluation, but Williams's mother initially refused. As a teenager Williams withdrew right to effective assistance of counsel. See Johnson v. Mizell, 912 F.2d 172, 176 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1094 (1991); Menefield v. Borg, 881 F.2d 696, 698-99 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Baker v. Kaiser, 929 F.2d 1495, 1498-99 (10th Cir. 1991) (right to counsel extends through first appeal as of right). 6 For the full record of Williams’s proffer to the state habeas court see Respondent’s Exhibit No. 16 vol. 4, Case No. CV192-209, Transcripts of Proceedings before Honorable Dewey Smith, Superior Court of Butts County, Georgia. 13 emotionally, eventually became obsessed with his own religion, and twice was hospitalized for injuries resulting from blows to his head. He was eventually sent to Georgia Regional Hospital for a psychological evaluation, and was discharged a week later with a recommendation that he continue receiving outpatient treatment. While awaiting trial on the current charges, he experienced auditory and visual hallucinations, and performed bizarre religious rituals. Williams's habeas counsel also submitted the affidavit of Dr. Barry Scanlon, a Board Certified psychiatrist, who, based on the information contained in these affidavits, records of Williams's behavior before, during, and after trial, and two meetings he had with Williams, diagnosed Williams with schizophrenia. The proffered evidence also suggests that neither attorney conducted an interview with Williams’s mother in a way that would have elicited helpful evidence of mitigating circumstances, or followed up on her hints of abuse; nor did they contact Williams’s father prior to the habeas proceedings, or ask him to participate in any of the proceedings. Indeed, Williams's sister stated in her affidavit that, had she only been asked, she would have testified at the sentencing hearing as to Williams's abusive childhood. Williams contends that his failure to present the evidence at the motion for new trial was caused by appellate counsel’s (Allen’s) failure to discover and present it. Thus, the newly proffered evidence is not only relevant to a determination as to whether trial counsel (Collins) was constitutionally ineffective, it is also relevant to whether appellate counsel (Allen) was constitutionally ineffective for failing to 14 discover and present it on the motion for new trial. Although Williams must show cause before he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to present the new evidence to support his primary claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Keeney, 504 U.S. at 11-12, 112 S.Ct. at 1721, Williams is entitled to an evidentiary hearing for purposes of establishing cause if he has proffered specific facts sufficient to support such a finding, Smith, 741 F.2d at 1261. Thus, before denying him an evidentiary hearing on the new evidence, the district court should have determined whether Williams’s newly proffered evidence was sufficient to support a finding of cause and prejudice. Based upon the record, the district court did not make such a determination. Therefore, we remand to the district court to determine whether the newly proffered evidence is sufficient to support a finding of cause and prejudice for failure to present the evidence earlier, i.e., that Allen’s investigation and representation were prejudicially ineffective. If the district court determines that Williams has proffered evidence sufficient to support such a finding, Williams is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in order to show cause and prejudice. If the district court determines that Williams has shown cause for and prejudice resulting from the failure to develop and present the mitigating evidence earlier, then the district court must determine, taking into account the new mitigating facts, whether Collins rendered ineffective assistance in the penalty phase. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. 15