Opinion ID: 2519733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: referee's report and petitioner's exceptions

Text: The referee provided one-paragraph summaries in response to each question posed in our reference order and also set forth detailed findings on each question.
Trial counsel could have presented evidence of petitioner's upbringing and childhood, including evidence of his abandonment by his parents from the age of two. The subsequent loss of his grandfather at the age of 11[ [1] ] triggered an absence of structure in his life resulting in truancy, delinquency and eventual incarceration at a young age in a segregated brutal institution near Montgomery, Alabama. Further evidence could have been presented on the impact of the Alabama state prison system on petitioner, following a conviction for robbery-murder at the age of 16. This prison experience did not provide petitioner with a basis for rehabilitation but the evidence did show that petitioner adjusted well when the prison structure permitted it. Additionally, witnesses could have been presented to develop mitigation regarding petitioner's mental health, including a diagnosis of a learning disorder, brain impairment and posttraumatic stress disorder. Finally, petitioner had a large extended family who would have testified to their love and support for petitioner and the impact of his execution on them. Based on the testimony of more than 50 witnesses, [2] the referee explained in her findings that petitioner's trial attorneys could have presented evidence that petitioner spent his early years in a poor, segregated neighborhood of Mobile, Alabama. His parents were alcoholics who separated soon after his birth. His mother moved to Detroit, Michigan, to better herself when petitioner was two, and his father also moved away when petitioner was young, leaving him in the care of his grandparents and aunt, who raised him in a large family home with his siblings and cousins. Petitioner and his brother were sometimes disciplined by being forced to wear dresses. There was no evidence of abuse; and petitioner apparently had a good relationship with his grandfather, who was described as loving, benevolent, and responsible. [3] When petitioner was 9 or 10, his mother returned to the family home with two children by another marriage. About the same time, petitioner's grandfather, described by the referee as a pivotal figure in his life, died. Petitioner, who grieved for his grandfather, felt rejected by his mother and jealous of her new children. He became withdrawn and began skipping school. At the age of 14, he was committed to the Alabama Industrial School for Negro Children, a reform school known as Mt. Meigs, for car theft. At Mt. Meigs, petitioner encountered appalling conditions. The referee found he wa's subjected to beatings, brutality, inadequate conditions and sexual predators. He also participated with the other boys in using inhalants while at the institution. He was rarely visited by family. His passiveness and small physique caused him to be a target of older, tougher boys, from whom no protection or separation was provided. The evidence also established Mt. Meigs failed to provide any meaningful rehabilitative or educational opportunities. After petitioner's release at the age of 16, he became withdrawn and uncommunicative. Over his family's objections, he began to associate with older, streetwise boys, including Freddie Square, a more sophisticated young man with manipulative and criminal tendencies. Within three months, at Square's instigation, petitioner and Square robbed a grocery store. When they drew guns and announced the robbery, the store clerk placed his hand down the front of his apron. Square fired, killing the clerk. Petitioner had acted as a lookout in the robbery, but played a more active role when he and Square robbed a taxi driver during their getaway, firing three shots at the driver as the latter fled the scene. He was convicted of murder and robbery and introduced to the Alabama State Prison system just before turning 18. [4] Petitioner spent the next 10 years in Mobile County Jail and in Kilby, Draper, Atmore, and Holman Prisons in Alabama. Regarding conditions there, the referee heard the accounts of numerous inmates incarcerated with or during the same time as petitioner as well as testimony of noninmates, several of whom had witnessed the conditions firsthand. On this basis, she described conditions in these institutions as abysmal, characterized by severe overcrowding, racial segregation, substandard facilities, no separation of the tougher inmates from younger or smaller inmates, constant violence, the persistent threat of sexual assaults and the constant presence of sexual pressure, the availability and necessity of weapons by all inmates, and degrading conditions in disciplinary modules. Petitioner not only received beatings but was also personally subjected to sexual assaults. At the same time, the referee noted that petitioner was personal[ly] involve[d] in violence including] the stabbings of two inmates who had been threatening him. In 1976, petitioner was released from prison. He was soon arrested for attempted robbery of a laundry, which involved taking a young woman hostage at gunpoint and threatening responding police officers. Petitioner escaped from the Mobile County Jail [5] and fled to California, where he found a job and for a short time had a stable relationship with Debra Pickett, with whom he had a child. He then resumed using cocaine and left Pickett. Soon after, he committed the murders in this case. At the reference hearing, petitioner's son, Dominick, who communicates with petitioner through letters and telephone calls, testified that he loved his father and would be devastated if he were executed. Extensive psychiatric testimony was presented in the form of several expert witnesses [including Drs. George Woods, Craig Haney, James Park, Dorcas Bowles, John Irwin, and Myla Young]. They generally described the petitioner as suffering from a learning disorder known as attention deficit disorder, and post traumatic stress disorder. They also described mild to moderate organic brain impairment from a history of drug use and abuse, starting with the inhalants at Mt. Meigs, as well as possibly from a head injury suffered while in prison. These witnesses presented evidence that the aggravating circumstances of the murders and sexual assaults were diminished by an awareness of the context of petitioner's participation in the instant crime, that his learning disability and the adverse circumstances of his childhood as well as the impact of the Alabama juvenile and adult correctional systems made his behavior understandable and his reincarceration predictable. The added effect of post traumatic stress disorder was presented to mitigate his actions in the Warhurst and laundromat robberies as well as the instant charges. The additional impacts of his experiences in the prison system provide an argument that he was prevented from adjusting to the free world and that his alienation from conventional society led him back to the familiar world of crime. Sifting through the overwhelming] minutiae of this expert testimony, the referee found that the impact of petitioner's incarceration history, while a doubleedged sword, was compelling, having occurred from an extremely vulnerable and sensitive age. Although there were a number of inconsistencies concerning exactly what petitioner personally experienced, it was undisputed that he was rarely the instigator of violence. On the contrary, the evidence showed that he avoided violence and appeared to adjust well when the structure permitted and that he would continue to do so. His smaller stature made him the target of more violent inmates in virtually every institution in which he was housed. However, when circumstances permitted, he tended to hold positions of responsibility. To the extent that he was involved in prison violence personally, the evidence remains consistent that he was the prey rather than the predator.
Trial counsel could have contacted petitioner's family to develop his background and childhood, including contacting his mother and other relatives either living in the same location or accessible through known family members. Evidence relating to the impact of the juvenile and adult correctional systems could have been developed by obtaining prison records and contacting inmates referenced in those records as well as conducting standard legal research of public records relating to lawsuits involving these institutions. Mental health experts could have been appointed to review the background material and to test petitioner in order to ascertain the viability of psychiatric mitigation. In her findings of fact, the referee explained that appellate counsel utilized standard investigative techniques to obtain the evidence presented at the reference hearing. She categorized the evidence into three general and partially overlapping areasthe circumstances of petitioner's upbringing, the impact of the correctional facilities in Alabama and petitioner's adult experiences, and the psychiatric aspects of petitioner's historynone of which called for any extraordinary efforts beyond simple persistence. In the referee's view, petitioner's attorneys could readily have learned about petitioner's upbringing from their contact with his mother. Other family members and acquaintances could have been found through her; and many were willing to testify on petitioner's behalf. Addresses and information were also independently available from public documents; and counsel could have reached numerous individuals familiar with petitioner's family and upbringing with little effort. [General information regarding schooling issues was available through family members. Many family members and friends continued to live in the Mobile area and others were known to the family.... Several areas of inquiry were available relating to petitioner's experiences in the correctional system in Alabama.... Further, ... the `word' had spread that counsel were looking for people who knew petitioner, and several came forward of their own volition. In the area of mental health, there was no significant written history. The references to family members having mental impairments was not particularly impressive .... [¶] [Nevertheless,] [r]outine appointment of psychiatric experts would have provided some information to dictate any additional steps that may have been in order. The referee further found, however, that [a]ny such inquiry may not necessarily have resulted in the availability of evidence of the diagnoses of organic brain impairment, learning disorders, or of post traumatic stress disorder. The quality of standardized personality tests was not the same, the knowledge of post traumatic stress disorder was in an infancy stage, and the resulting diagnosis may not necessarily have been favorable to the petitioner. [6] Although petitioner's cooperativeness was a significant issue and he had been more forthcoming with appellate counsel than with his trial counsel, the referee found nonetheless that essentially all of the information that was presented [by petitioner at the reference hearing] could have been developed through outside sources in the absence of any cooperation from the petitioner.
Trial counsel took two trips to Mobile, searching the court records for petitioner's priors, and documents relating to his background. On one such trip, they drove around petitioner's neighborhood searching for relatives or witnesses. They also contacted petitioner's mother and spent some time interviewing her about petitioner as well as her own history. In her factual findings, the referee explained that petitioner's trial attorneys made only limited efforts to gather penalty phase evidence on petitioner's behalf. The two defense investigators worked solely on the guilt phase; the attorneys themselves did the investigative work on the penalty phase. Counsel did not have petitioner examined by a psychologist, psychiatrist, or any other mental health expert. Both attorneys traveled to Mobile on February 4, 1983, for one day. There, they spent time searching for records relating to petitioner at the Mobile County courthouse and driving around Mobile in taxis unsuccessfully looking for relatives and making inquiries. Miller testified that they were seeking evidence of good character and good deeds, but he could not remember precisely whom or what he and Lenoir were trying to find. [7] On counsel's second trip to Mobile, after petitioner's first trial resulted in a hung jury, they again visited the county courthouse, where they obtained the information about petitioner's prior murder conviction. Later that day, they flew to Pensacola, Florida, where they spoke with petitioner's mother at the airport for an hour and a half or more. Among other matters discussed, they obtained information about the fact that petitioner had been a slow learner, that he had been raised by his grandparents, and that he started getting into trouble as a teenager.... Counsel provided her with their business cards and ... Mr. Miller specifically recalled that he told her they would contact her if they could convince petitioner to `cut us loose in the investigation' to obtain more information about other family members or any others that may have helped.
There were no financial constraints affecting the penalty investigation. The tactical constraints were trial counsel's distaste for the use of inmate witnesses, concern for the consequential development of petitioner's acts of misconduct while incarcerated as well as the preliminary impression that a `poverty-presentation' lacked viability. Also, the petitioner's adamant refusal to have his family involved and his threat to disrupt proceedings if his wishes were not honored impacted on counsel's tactical decisions. The referee found essentially no financial constraints weighing against the investigation or presentation of penalty phase evidence. Regarding tactical constraints, the findings being limited by the absence of Mr. Lenoir's state of mind, Mr. Miller testified that he felt constrained by the adamancy of petitioner's opposition to having his family, and in particular his mother, testify at the trial. Mr. Miller was very consistent in his testimony regarding petitioner's refusal to cooperate in this area, and this position is supported circumstantially by statements made by petitioner as well as testimony from the prosecutor, Ed Ferns. Mr. Miller believed the petitioner when he threatened to be disruptive if these wishes were not accepted. Acceding to these wishes, neither he nor Mr. Lenoir pursued a full investigation of petitioner's background or family and never learned the names of family members with one or two exceptions. In addition, Miller was not particularly impressed with the house or neighborhood in which petitioner grew up as providing a basis for mitigation as it resembled the manner in which counsel had been raised. As to the inherent problems of calling prisoners as witnesses, Mr. Miller stated he was not generally impressed with prisoners and did not want to trade 'good acts' for `bad acts,' expressing concern about the risk of disclosure of any possible misconduct petitioner may have been personally involved in. In fact, the evidence reflected that petitioner engaged in two stabbings and escaped from custodial facilities on two occasions. From a practical standpoint, relating to Mr. Miller's reaction to prisoner-witnesses, the inmates who were called did have substantial violent criminal records and these offenses included a substantial number of escapes. Common themes at that time in penalty presentations included familial abuse, abandonment and institutional witnesses, although the evidence also noted that penalty trials at that time were not generally lengthy. Post traumatic stress disorder remained in its incipient stages and was generally not used at this time except relating to Viet Nam veterans, a sharp contrast with current standards. The evidence further established that both trial attorneys were severely impeded in their efforts to focus on petitioner by their heavy caseloads, conducting back-to-back capital cases before and after petitioner's trial.