Opinion ID: 2508188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: failure to adequately investigate and present a mental illness defense in the guilt phase

Text: ISSUE (8). Whether Petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when his attorneys did not pursue a mental illness defense after consulting five mental health experts after Petitioner's refusal to adopt any defense requiring an admission of guilt. Petitioner argues that defense counsel did not adequately investigate and present evidence relating to a mental illness defense, rendering counsel's representation ineffective. According to Petitioner, a reasonable investigation would have uncovered evidence which would have provided a defense to the charged crimes and aggravating circumstances in the guilt phase, as well as essential mitigating psychological evidence in the penalty phase. Petitioner's defense team, consisting of chief trial counsel (Mr. Alton), cocounsel (Ms. Lindstrom) and four investigators, conducted an investigation in preparation of a mitigation report which was submitted to the prosecutor before the death penalty notice was filed. [233] This report chronicled Petitioner's medical history and the abuse he allegedly suffered. In addition, the report contained a neuropsychological screening evaluation which had been completed in 1994 by Dr. Lloyd I. Cripe, Ph.D., a clinical neuropsychologist, as part of another criminal investigation involving Petitioner. [234] During pretrial investigation, defense counsel retained five mental health experts  two psychiatrists (Dr. Dorothy Otnow Lewis, M.D. and Dr. Robert B. Olsen, M.D.), a neurologist (Dr. Barbara Jessen, M.D.) and two neuropsychologists (Dr. Lloyd I. Cripe, Ph.D. and Dr. John B. Powell, Ph.D.)  to evaluate Petitioner's mental state. Only Dr. Cripe and Dr. Olsen were retained as qualified experts and both testified during the penalty phase of the trial. [235] On May 29, 1997, Dr. Cripe, a board-certified clinical neuropsychologist since 1985, interviewed Petitioner and administered several tests. He furnished a report to defense counsel, which concluded that [Petitioner] clearly manifests impairments of neurobehavioral functioning. [236] According to Dr. Cripe, Petitioner's neurobehavioral problems were probably multi-factorial including: chronic learning disability, closed head injury, drug abuse, chronic medical condition (diabetes), and medication effects. [237] Dr. Cripe was of the opinion that there are mitigating factors in [Petitioner's] case that should be carefully considered in negotiating or in determining the most appropriate sentence if [Petitioner] is found guilty of the allegations. [238] He also recommended that the results of the neuropsychological evaluations be combined with medical evaluations by neurologic specialists who understand brain behavior relationships. [239] Dr. Cripe neither requested further background information on Petitioner from defense counsel nor qualified his conclusion because of insufficient information about his patient. A declaration by Dr. Cripe was submitted as part of this petition. He recalled that defense counsel asked him to do a quicker evaluation than normal rather than a comprehensive evaluation. [240] He also remembered defense counsel telling him that other experts were evaluating [Petitioner] for mental illness and that [Dr. Cripe] should evaluate [Petitioner's] neuropsychological functioning and abilities only. [241] Defense counsel arranged for Dr. Barbara Jessen, M.D., a physician board-certified in neurology and EEG (electronencephalogram), to consult with Petitioner. She evaluated Petitioner on July 25, 1997. In her report to counsel, she was unable to identify objective evidence of any neurological deficits of a gross nature which could be correlated with [Petitioner's] prior episodes of head injury or with [Petitioner's] behavior. [242] She reported that an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan of Petitioner's brain was normal, indicating no gross structural abnormality of the brain, and that an EEG printout revealed generalized slowing perhaps due to medications. [243] She also mentioned in her report that the type of examination which is conducted by a neurologist may not pick up the more subtle abnormalities which are seen on neuropsychological testing. [244] The third expert retained by defense counsel was Dr. Dorothy Otnow Lewis, M.D., a professor of psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine. She is certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. [245] On August 3, 1997 she, along with counsel, interviewed Petitioner at the Pierce County Jail. The interview was videotaped. [246] Dr. Lewis also interviewed Petitioner's mother, sister, and his sister's boyfriend. She did not prepare a report. [247] A declaration from Dr. Lewis submitted on behalf of Petitioner provided various conclusions concerning Petitioner's mental state, including that Petitioner has been psychotic for years prior to the offense in question, Petitioner is of borderline intelligence, and Petitioner suffers from severe dissociative symptoms as a result of the extreme physical abuse he endured and ... that dissociation accounts in great measure for [Petitioner's] amnesia for the offense in question. [248] Defense counsel retained Dr. Robert B. Olsen, M.D., board-certified in internal medicine, psychiatry, and forensic psychiatric and geriatric psychiatry. According to Dr. Olsen, defense counsel requested that he consult with Petitioner regarding possible effects of diabetes and mental illness on [Petitioner]. [249] As preparation for his interview with Petitioner, Dr. Olsen reviewed Petitioner's medical records, psychological testing results, neuropsychological and neurological consultations (by Dr. Cripe and Dr. Jessen), and family interview transcripts. [250] On October 17, 1997, Dr. Olsen conducted a three-hour interview of Petitioner. [251] Dr. Olsen did not in his report to defense counsel request further background information on Petitioner, and he did not qualify his conclusion because of insufficient information on Petitioner. He summarized his findings as follows: In summary, there is a clearly documented history of compunding [sic] influences on [Petitioner's] behavior. 1. Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus. 2. Chronic and acute alcohol intoxication and abuse. 3. Chronic and acute cocaine intoxication and abuse. 4. An incompletely described and diagnosed psychiatric illness of potentially psychotic proportions. 5. A progressive decline in complex mental functioning between 1994 and 1997. [ [252] ] In his declaration submitted as part of this petition, Dr. Olsen stated that: Mr. Alton asked me to focus my evaluation of [Petitioner] on the effects of his diabetes, rather than any psychiatric issues. He asked me if I could affirmatively make a diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder. I told him that I could not. I was not asked to explore any potential mental defense to the charge. Mr. Alton never asked me to do more regarding my finding that [Petitioner] had an undiagnosed psychiatric illness. I assumed that Mr. Alton was pursuing the psychiatric issues of [Petitioner] with another expert. .... I do not recall speaking to Mr. Alton about my testimony prior to testifying. Mr. Alton did send me a list of questions which focused largely on diabetes and how it had affected [Petitioner's] life and behavior.... [ [253] ] Defense counsel retained Dr. John B. Powell, Ph.D., a neuropsychologist. Before evaluating Petitioner, he reviewed the legal and medical records in the case and spoke with Dr. Jessen about the possibility that Petitioner was suffering from a multiple personality disorder. [254] Dr. Powell interviewed Petitioner for 4.5 hours and noted the following in his report to defense counsel: Of primary concern in my evaluation were the issues of [Petitioner's] neurological impairment from the head injury in 1981, and the suggestion by Dr. Jessen of a possible multiple personality disorder. However, I also investigated broader neurobehavioral issues, including [Petitioner's] capacity to organize and direct his behavior, his capacity to cope with emotional impulses, his comprehension of the wrongfulness of the alleged crime, and his capacity to participate in his own defense.... .... I saw no evidence of any thought disorder, delusions or hallucinations. .... Since the issue of multiple personality disorder had been raised previously by Dr. Jessen, I spent some time exploring this with [Petitioner]. [Petitioner] confirmed upon questioning that he heard voices, which usually offered him advice  they never said negative things to him or gave him commands. When asked about the personalities noted by Dr. Jessen, [Petitioner] claimed that there were four of them, and that these were indeed the sources of the voices in his head. [Petitioner] gave names and detailed descriptions of the four personalities, all of whom appeared quite benign and helpful. By his account, these personalities coexisted openly and did not ever take control of his body. When asked about another personality noted by Dr. Jessen (`The Boss'), [Petitioner] said he had forgotten about that one, and then launched into another detailed description. I had some difficulty distinguishing between the personalities from his descriptions. I then asked about another personality, Frank. [Petitioner] again provided a detailed description of this sixth individual. I did not mention to [Petitioner] that I had made up the name Frank. [Petitioner's] account of his multiple personalities is extremely atypical from a number of perspectives, and his blatant manufacturing of information on a fictitious personality raises serious questions about the credibility of his other descriptions.... [Petitioner] was very cooperative with testing, but there were again indications that he was motivated to present himself as being more impaired than he actually was. On almost all measures he showed a major decline in performance levels from where he was at the time of testing by Dr. Cripe.... Such findings are extremely difficult to explain in the absence of a serious neurological illness or accident, and tend to invalidate the results. .... In summary, I cannot find any evidence to support multiple personality disorder, thought disorder, or borderline intelligence. The most likely influences on [Petitioner's] behavior are a personality disorder (characterized by long-standing, maladaptive narcissistic and antisocial behaviors), a mild traumatic brain injury (characterized by lowered impulse control and lowered stress tolerance), and the combined effects of alcohol and drug abuse. [Petitioner] is currently mentally competent, understands his criminal charges and the wrongfulness of the behavior of which he is accused, and can participate appropriately in his own defense. Despite my obvious reservations, I cannot conclusively rule out multiple personality disorder (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), and if Dr. Jessen feels she has stronger evidence, then you may wish to build a defense around her testimony. I fear that juries will not be too sympathetic to my findings.[ [255] ] Defense counsel, Mr. Alton, submitted a declaration describing his efforts in investigating Petitioner's background and a potential mental illness defense, stating: During the course of my representation of Cecil Davis, my co-counsel Julia Lindstrom and I utilized the services of four investigators:.... Prior to trial I received and reviewed each of the written memorandums of [the investigators].... .... Our defense team was able to gather the medical records of [Petitioner].... I provided these medical records to the various doctors who evaluated [Petitioner] at my request prior to trial. Our defense team was able to secure [Petitioner's] service and medical records from the time that he spent in the Army. I received and reviewed these documents prior to trial and relied upon them in part when making decisions about what evidence to present at the special sentencing proceeding. I determined not to present evidence that delved too deeply into [Petitioner's] behavior while in the Army because the records we received reflected that [Petitioner] had had problems with his anger in the Army, and he had been discharged following a drunk driving accident that resulted in injuries to a female passenger.... Prior to trial I arranged to have [Petitioner] examined and evaluated by five different doctors: Dr. Lloyd Cripe, Dr. Dorothy Otnow Lewis, Dr. Barbara Jessen, Dr. John Powell, and Dr. Robert Olsen. It was my hope that a psychologist, psychiatrist, or medical doctor would be able to diagnose [Petitioner] with a mental illness or brain abnormality that could be used to either negate guilt or provide the jury with mitigating circumstances. Prior to trial I received and reviewed the reports of Drs. Cripe, Lewis, Jessen, Powell, and Olsen, which follow or are attached to this declaration. I relied in part on these reports in making decisions about the defense that should be presented at trial; and in making decisions as to what mitigation evidence would be presented at the special sentencing proceeding. I was present for Dr. Lewis' videotaped interview of [Petitioner] at the Pierce County Jail. I remember the Dr. Lewis suggested to me the possibility of a mental defense based upon multiple personality disorder. I was initially optimistic about pursuing this defense, but was somewhat skeptical about the actual evidence that could be presented to support such a diagnosis. I therefore determined to have [Petitioner] evaluated by a second doctor, Dr. Powell, before making a decision with [Petitioner] about presenting a defense based upon multiple personality disorder. Dr. Powell examined and interviewed my client. I consulted with Dr. Powell and reviewed his report, .... Dr. Powell would not diagnose [Petitioner] with multiple personality disorder, and he in fact suggested that my client was faking a personality disorder. Dr. Powell reported that he had suggested a fictitious personality named Frank to [Petitioner], and [Petitioner] proceeded to describe this personality to Dr. Powell. I ultimately decided not to pursue a defense based upon multiple personality disorder due to concerns about credible evidence to support such a diagnosis, as well as my client's wishes as discussed below. I also determined not to pursue a mental defense because [Petitioner] insisted that he was innocent and he instructed us not to pursue any defense that required an admission that he killed Mrs. Couch. Myself, Ms. Lindstrom, and some of our investigators interviewed or attempted to interview a number of [Petitioner's] family members.... Most of [Petitioner's] family members were either disinterested in providing assistance, had little helpful information to offer, or were downright hostile towards [Petitioner]. .... I do not recall that any of the five doctors I consulted with could diagnose my client with a mental illness or brain damage. .... I did not call Dr. Lewis for purposes of presenting a defense based upon multiple personality disorder after I received Dr. Powell's report. Dr. Powell's report was not dispositive of my decision, but I was confident that given Dr. Powell's conclusions, the State would be able to call doctors who would concur with Powell and dispute Lewis. Most importantly, [Petitioner] was adamant that he did not kill Mrs. Couch and he did not want us to either admit that he killed Mrs. Couch or present a mental defense .... [ [256] ] Petitioner cannot fairly claim his counsel did not perform any investigation into the possibility of a mental defense. He argues only that his trial counsel should have investigated a mental illness defense more thoroughly. Under existing Washington and federal case law, defense counsel's investigation into Petitioner's medical and mental health and his reliance on the conclusion of his expert adequately answers Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. [257] In this state, [w]hen defense counsel knows or has reason to know of a capital defendant's medical and mental problems that are relevant to making an informed defense theory, defense counsel has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation into the defendant's medical and mental health, have such problems fully assessed and, if necessary, retain qualified experts to testify accordingly. [258] In Brett, we determined counsel was ineffective when he did not promptly seek appointment of cocounsel, present a mitigation report to the prosecutor before a death penalty notice was filed, investigate relevant mental health issues, timely seek appointment of qualified mental health experts, and adequately prepare for the penalty phase by retaining qualified mental health experts. [259] We noted that while failure to perform any one of these actions would not establish ineffective assistance of counsel, counsel's numerous failures fell below the objective standard of reasonableness required of counsel. [260] In this case defense counsel's actions well conformed to the objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. The defense team conducted an in-depth investigation in preparation of a mitigation report for Petitioner. Counsel retained five mental health experts and conducted a thorough pretrial investigation into the possibility that a mental illness defense could be used at trial. Counsel readily admits he had hoped a psychologist, psychiatrist, or medical doctor would be able to diagnose [Petitioner] with a mental illness or brain abnormality that could be used to either negate guilt or provide the jury with mitigating circumstances. [261] Initially, Dr. Olsen, one of the defense experts, found that Petitioner suffered from an incompletely described and diagnosed psychiatric illness of potentially psychotic proportions. [262] However, in his declaration, Dr. Olsen admitted that when defense counsel asked him if he could affirmatively make a diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder, he could not. [263] Only one other expert, Dr. Lewis, expressed the possibility that Petitioner suffered from multiple personality disorder. But after personally observing Dr. Lewis' interview of Petitioner, counsel became skeptical about the actual evidence that could be presented to support a [multiple personality disorder] diagnosis. [264] Trial counsel had Petitioner evaluated by Dr. Powell before making a decision with [Petitioner] about presenting a defense based on multiple personality disorder. [265] Dr. Powell thought Petitioner was motivated to present himself as being more impaired than he actually was and found no evidence to support multiple personality disorder, thought disorder, or borderline intelligence. [266] Dr. Powell dismissed the possibility that Petitioner was insane or suffered from diminished capacity. [267] Considering Dr. Powell's conclusion and Petitioner's own refusal to adopt any defense that would require him to admit killing Ms. Couch, defense counsel made a reasonable, informed strategic choice to forgo a mental illness defense in the guilt phase of the trial. [268] It was clearly within the `wide range of professionally competent assistance' for defense counsel to rely on properly selected experts. [269] Petitioner has not alleged any facts showing that his counsel should not have chosen the mental health experts who assisted the defense, that counsel had any reason to believe the experts were incompetent, or that credentials of the experts were deficient in any manner. [270] Petitioner has also not submitted any credible evidence that the conclusions of the experts were tentative, snap judgments, or otherwise based on anything less than a full analysis of complete data. [271]