Opinion ID: 178830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Failure to Investigate

Text: Trial counsel in a capital case is obligat[ed] to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant's background. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). A capital defendant's lawyer must make diligent efforts to discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence and evidence to rebut any aggravating evidence that may be introduced by the prosecutor. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 524, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (citation omitted). Evidence regarding the exemplary behavior of a capital defendant during time he spends in pretrial detention awaiting trial is clearly relevant mitigating evidence which a capital defendant has a right to place before the sentencer. Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 4, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986). The Missouri Supreme Court's implicit decision as to Cole's trial counsel having adequately investigated his positive jailhouse behavior is unreasonable. I recognize [f]indings of fact made by state appellate courts have the same presumptive correctness as findings of fact made by state trial courts, Weaver v. Bowersox, 241 F.3d 1024, 1031 (8th Cir.2001), but such presumption is overcome in this case. The transcript of the post-conviction proceedings establishes that trial counsel did not investigate Cole's exemplary jailhouse behavior. She never discovered he was involved in the Scripture class or made any attempt to interview Sister Klump. She never conversed with Bradford or Cochrel, or even made an attempt to determine who Cole's housing unit officer was. Instead, her investigation consisted of seeing correction officers walking around during jailhouse visits with her client. As she would finish visiting Cole she would say a few things to people. I can't tell you who those people were by name. Post-Conviction Transcript at 369. This was the full extent of the testimony presented at the post-conviction hearing on trial counsel's purported investigation into Cole's exemplary jailhouse behavior. Saying things to jailhouse staff in passing does not constitute an investigation into Skipper -type evidence. A trial counsel's casual conversations with jail staff, with nothing more than an implied suggestion the conversations even related to her client, clearly does satisfy the stringent investigatory duties required by the Supreme Court in capital cases. The Missouri Supreme Court's decision to the contrary is unreasonable. I am not persuaded by the state's reliance on Skillicorn v. Luebbers, 475 F.3d 965 (8th Cir.2007). Skillicorn rejected a claim that a capital defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to present Skipper -type evidence of his good behavior while he was in a drug treatment center and at a county jail awaiting trial, recognizing Skipper does not necessarily require an attorney to present positive jailhouse behavior evidence in a capital case. In Skillicorn, however, the defendant's attorney actually investigated the defendant's good behavior in jail before deciding the evidence would not be terribly helpful. 475 F.3d at 975. As the Supreme Court noted in Strickland, strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable. Strickland [v. Washington ], 466 U.S. [668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)]. On the other hand, strategic choices resulting from lack of diligence in preparation and investigation [are] not protected by the presumption in favor of counsel. Kenley v. Armontrout, 937 F.2d 1298, 1304 (8th Cir.1991); see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 527, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) ( Strickland does not establish that a cursory investigation automatically justifies a tactical decision.... Rather, a reviewing court must consider the reasonableness of the investigation said to support that strategy. ( citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052)). Armstrong v. Kemna, 534 F.3d 857, 864-65 (8th Cir.2008); see also Sears v. Upton, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3259, 3265, 177 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2010) (reiterating the plain point that a failure to present evidence cannot be justified as a reasonable tactical decision when counsel did not fulfill their obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant's background. (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495)). The Missouri Supreme Court therefore unreasonably concluded trial counsel made a reasonable choice of trial strategy to forego presenting jailhouse evidence, where there is no evidence Cole's trial counsel actually conducted an investigation, let alone an adequate investigation, into his positive jailhouse behavior.