Opinion ID: 1882492
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Additional Witnesses

Text: In his third issue, Whitfield argues that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to call additional witnesses to corroborate evidence of Whitfield's background. Whitfield claims that counsel should have discovered Freddy Lewis Stanley Atkins and called him to testify about Whitfield's family history. Atkins is an important community leader and politician in Sarasota. Early in his career he worked for a family counseling program called Storefront. While there, Atkins was assigned to counsel Whitfield's family. Whitfield claims that trial counsel should have discovered Atkins and called him to corroborate evidence about Whitfield's family history. However, Whitfield never mentioned Atkins's name to his trial lawyers. Neither did his family. Judge Williams testified at the evidentiary hearing that he recognized Atkins's name but that it was never mentioned by Whitfield, his family, or the investigator on the case. He further testified that it was very difficult to obtain information from Whitfield and that he received very little support in terms of [Whitfield's family] getting information. Syprett testified that Whitfield never mentioned Atkins's name and that she was surprised when [she] saw [Atkins] sitting in the hall at the evidentiary hearing. Even assuming trial counsel should have found and presented Atkins, Whitfield cannot demonstrate prejudice. Despite Whitfield's lack of cooperation, the defense managed to elicit through their expert significant facts about Whitfield's background. Dr. Regnier testified that Whitfield suffered from a polydrug dependence that was chronic of long term, spanning some nine years, and that Whitfield also suffered from posttraumatic stress because of his gunshot wound. [9] Dr. Regnier also testified that Whitfield additionally was suffering from a major depression also of long standing. This depression was manifested by a series of suicidal ideation and one serious attempt. Regnier also noted Whitfield's Baker Act commitment. Because of these facts, his review of the record, and his interviews with Whitfield's family, Dr. Regnier opined that at the time of the murder Whitfield was suffering from extreme mental or emotional disturbance, a statutory mitigator. At trial, Dr. Regnier testified at length about Whitfield's childhood and upbringing. Dr. Regnier began his testimony on Whitfield's childhood: [T]his world I'm about to describe is not one that we easily see and it's very difficult for me to describe, even though I have a lot of firsthand knowledge of it. It is not a world that one wants to remember and America doesn't like to remember . . . . We like to keep it hidden and so do I. Any of us who gets out of this world wants to forget it. It is a world where nothing is permanent. It is a world of fear. It is a world of hunger. It is a world of psychological and spiritual hunger. It is a world of isolation and loneliness. It is a world of parents, the adults in our world are dysfunctional. They don't nurture. They don't feed. In fact, they do the opposite. They hurt. They inflict physical, emotional and spiritual harm in children. Q: Did you discover this in Mr. Whitfield's early childhood? A: This is exactly the world he comes from. Q: And was that at the hands of his father or his mother? A: This is at the hands of every adult in his life. It's not just the mother or the father. It's every adult that this young man comes in contact with as a child. His father never accepted him as a son. Dr. Regnier proceeded to describe a very difficult childhood where Whitfield's father repeatedly beat him and his mother. He described Whitfield's earliest memory as one of his father holding a gun after beating his mother to a bloody pulp, holding a gun to her head and threatening to shoot her, and Ernest [Whitfield]. Dr. Regnier also described Whitfield's impoverished surroundings, how the children in the family sometimes went hungry, and how Whitfield was hospitalized as a child because of an infection caused by worms. Whitfield cannot establish prejudice. Any testimony Atkins could have provided in Whitfield's defense would have been cumulative to that provided by Dr. Regnier. As discussed above, trial counsel are not ineffective for failing to present cumulative evidence. See Marquard, 850 So.2d at 429-30 ([C]ounsel is not required to present cumulative evidence.). Furthermore, Atkins's testimony would only have added to the nonstatutory mitigating circumstance of Whitfield's impoverished background. The sentencing court found no statutory mitigators but considered the following nonstatutory mitigating circumstances: [C]ooperation with authorities (little or no weight); impoverished background (considerable weight); crack cocaine addiction (substantial weight); Whitfield's abandonment by his father and his mother's alcoholism (some weight); and that Whitfield was the victim of a near fatal shooting but forgave his assailant (little or no weight). Whitfield, 706 So.2d at 3. The court, therefore, considered all of the nonstatutory mitigation that could have been provided by the additional witnesses. In light of the three strong aggravators in this case, prior violent felonies (two prior aggravated batteries and contemporaneous sexual battery of another victim in this case); commission in the course of a burglary; and that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel, the sentence would not have been different had the sentencing court given more weight to the nonstatutory mitigators. Id. Whitfield also claims that trial counsel should have called Whitfield's mother, Leola Rich. As previously discussed, trial counsel had strategic reasons for not calling Whitfield's family members to the stand. According to counsel's judgment, Rich would not have made a good witness because she was, among other things, inarticulate and a poor historian. Furthermore, Rich appeared at Whitfield's trial in a state of visible intoxication. Counsel had good strategic reasons for not calling Rich to testify. There was no deficient performance or prejudice because of counsel's failure to call Rich to the stand. Whitfield also claims that trial counsel should have discovered and presented William Peterson as a witness at the penalty phase. Peterson was Whitfield's employer at the time of the murder. Peterson testified at the evidentiary hearing that Whitfield was a good worker who never had any disciplinary problems, was always on time or early for work, and never missed work. Trial counsel could not recall if Peterson had been specifically mentioned in the investigation but he did recall that he had discussed Whitfield's employment history with the investigator and with other persons who had knowledge and had specifically chosen not to call any witnesses on this issue. Peterson's testimony could have been relevant as nonstatutory mitigation. However, such testimony would be inconsistent with the defense's theory that Whitfield was a severe crack cocaine addict and would disappear for days at a time. Defense counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to present evidence of Whitfield's employment history. Furthermore, counsel's failure to present the testimony of Peterson does not undermine our confidence in the outcome of this case considering the strong aggravating factors found by the trial court. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (To establish prejudice, [t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.).