Opinion ID: 1057949
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Investigation of state's witnesses and alibi witnesses

Text: R. Vaughn makes several arguments with respect to witnesses. First, he argues that Sindle was deficient for not interviewing all of the State's witnesses. He argues that this conduct falls below the standard for adequate trial preparation that was discussed in Baxter , namely that a defense attorney should ensure that all available defenses are raised by interviewing not only his own witnesses but also those that the government intends to call, when they are available. 523 S.W.2d at 933. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that Sindle was not deficient in this respect because he reviewed the State's discovery, and he also watched parts of J. Vaughn's trial in which many of the same witnesses were called and cross-examined. We agree. Moreover, R. Vaughn has failed to show any prejudice  he offered no evidence at the post-conviction hearing as to the benefit that such additional interviews would have provided. Second, R. Vaughn argues that Sindle failed to adequately establish his alibi defense. R. Vaughn argues that Sindle was deficient for only calling one alibi witness, Robin Malone (Malone), whose testimony was then impeached with a prior inconsistent statement. Malone testified that she saw R. Vaughn outside a club called Big Robert's, which is approximately two to three blocks from Wing-Its, immediately before hearing shots fired. However, the State offered rebuttal testimony from Detective Susan Morrow who had interviewed Malone before the trial, and according to Morrow, Malone stated that she had seen R. Vaughn running on Blythe Street immediately after hearing shots fired. Blythe Street is not next to Big Robert's, but is in the general area behind Wing-Its. Sindle explained at the post-conviction hearing that before he decided to call Malone as a witness, he specifically asked her if she had given any prior statements, which she denied doing. Sindle found Malone to be a credible witness and attempted to ensure that she had not given any other information to the police. Given these circumstances, the fact that she was then impeached by an inconsistent statement does not make Sindle's decision to call her as a witness deficient. Again, tactical choices made by counsel are given deference and the courts must not measure trial counsel's deficiency by 20-20 hindsight. Cooper, 847 S.W.2d at 528. R. Vaughn also contends that Sindle should have called Sammy Alexander (Alexander) as a witness because Alexander's testimony would have cast doubt on the credibility of one of the State's key eyewitnesses, Keith Goodrich (Goodrich). At J. Vaughn's trial, Alexander testified that Goodrich had told him that the shooters were wearing ski masks. Sindle chose not to call Alexander as a witness. He explained that there were credibility problems with many of the witnesses, and he had to decide whether Alexander would do more harm than good to the defense. Alexander had previously been convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Thus, Sindle's decision not to call him as a witness was a legitimate tactical decision that does not deviate from the prevailing professional norms. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Finally, R. Vaughn argues that Sindle was ineffective for failing to call Walker. However, the post-conviction court found that Walker's testimony was inadmissible, and also found that Walker did not make a credible witness. Great weight is given to a trial court's assessment of credibility, see Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 461, and the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings.