Opinion ID: 1836026
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Investigate other Mitigation

Text: Rutherford further argues as a basis for ineffective assistance of counsel that his trial counsel was deficient for failing to investigate, develop, and present substantial available mitigating evidence regarding his harsh childhood and Vietnam war experience. At trial, the mitigating evidence consisted of testimony from Rutherford's friends and family members about his background and his nonviolent nature and from Rutherford himself about his experiences as a Marine infantryman in Vietnam. Rutherford, 545 So.2d at 856 n. 3. At the 3.850 hearing, Rutherford presented additional lay testimony that he increased his consumption of alcohol and had headaches upon returning from Vietnam; that his father had a drinking problem and was physically abusive; and that Rutherford had a troubled relationship with his wife. In many other respects, the 3.850 testimony was essentially cumulative to the lay character testimony presented by trial counsel in the original penalty phase. See Woods v. State, 531 So.2d 79, 82 (Fla. 1988) ([T]he testimony now advanced, while possibly more detailed than that presented at sentencing, is, essentially, just cumulative to the prior testimony. More is not necessarily better.) As to the drinking problem and troubled relationship with his wife, these aspects were contained in the competency evaluations and were known to trial counsel. Trial counsel elected not to present this negative evidence in favor of depicting Rutherford as a decent family man. As to his claim that counsel should have elicited more testimony about his harsh, abusive, and impoverished childhood, the trial court found: The evidence presented at the hearing was not conclusive of an abusive situation. In fact, except for the testimony of his brother William, the other family members portrayed an essentially healthy family life quite distinct from the seriously dysfunctional family portrayed in the motion. Times were hard, and his father had a problem with alcohol, but, given the time and circumstances of Mr. Rutherford's childhood and conflicting stories from within his own family, it is difficult to say that his childhood was in fact abusive. Additionally, evoking images of an abusive childhood and debilitating war experience would have been inconsistent with the reasonable penalty phase strategy [to humanize Rutherford] developed by counsel. In further denying relief on this claim, the trial court found no deficiency because any failure to present additional mitigating testimony [in this regard was] more the responsibility of Mr. Rutherford than his counsel. He refused to help his counsel develop mitigation... [and] insisted on pursuing the defense of innocence. Moreover, he not only refused to cooperate, but actually encouraged his parents not to speak with defense investigators. The trial court concluded that [g]iven the limitations created by Mr. Rutherford's refusal to assist in a viable defense, counsel made reasonable tactical decisions with respect to the presentation of mitigating evidence about Mr. Rutherford's entire background inclusive of his childhood and war record. We find additional support for counsel's testimony about his difficulties with Rutherford, based on the fact that Rutherford was placed in restraints before closing arguments in the penalty phase because of his threatening conduct. Rutherford, 545 So.2d at 857 n. 4. We find no error in the trial court's determination that Rutherford's lack of cooperation was a hindrance to presenting additional mitigation evidence regarding his military background. Trial counsel testified to himself having a military background and being otherwise familiar with how to effectively use military decorations in mitigation, but that Rutherford did not want me to use any military background or record, and would not discuss Vietnam service or his Marine Corps service in general until he unexpectedly did so on the stand during the penalty phase. Trial counsel similarly testified that Rutherford discouraged his parents from talking to or cooperating with trial counsel. As found by the trial court, Rutherford's uncooperativeness at trial belies his present claim that his trial counsel was deficient for not investigating and presenting mitigation regarding his harsh childhood and military history. Furthermore, neither his harsh childhood nor his military history are statutory mitigators, although both are potential nonstatutory mitigators. As we held in Rutherford's direct appeal, [t]he evidence that Rutherford had served in the armed forces in Vietnam may be considered by a trial judge as a mitigating factor, but need not be. Rutherford, 545 So.2d at 856. Compare Masterson v. State, 516 So.2d 256, 258 (Fla.1987) (evidence that defendant was wounded, honorably discharged from Vietnam, introduced to drugs in Vietnam, suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, and consumed substantial amounts of drugs and alcohol on day of the murder, together with other matters presented in penalty phase, was sufficient to establish a reasonable basis for the jury to find mitigating circumstances sufficient to recommend life).