Opinion ID: 2778642
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure-to-investigate case law

Text: The Supreme Court in Strickland set forth the following guidance in evaluating failureto-investigate claims. “[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. “In assessing the reasonableness of an attorney’s investigation . . . a court must consider not only the quantum of evidence already known to counsel, but also whether the known evidence would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further.” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 9 No. 14-3355, Jackson v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst. 527 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court in Strickland made clear that the known record evidence includes the defendant’s communications to his counsel: “[t]he reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. The thoroughness of a counsel’s investigation in turn influences the reasonableness of strategic choices made on the basis of that investigation. “[S]trategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. However, “strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.” Id. at 690–91. The Supreme Court has cautioned that attorneys do not need to investigate exhaustively every aspect or potential angle of the defendant’s case. “[T]he duty to investigate does not force defense lawyers to scour the globe on the off chance something will turn up; reasonably diligent counsel may draw a line when they have good reason to think further investigation would be a waste.” Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 383 (2005); see also Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 791 (“The Court of Appeals erred in suggesting counsel had to be prepared for any contingency. Strickland does not guarantee perfect representation, only a reasonably competent attorney.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Supreme Court decisions finding ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland in the failure-to-investigate context fall into two categories. In one line of cases, trial counsel failed to conduct any investigation or perform basic investigative steps such as reviewing known evidence 10 No. 14-3355, Jackson v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst. or interviewing known witnesses. See, e.g., Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 39–40 (2009) (“Here, counsel did not even take the first step of interviewing witnesses or requesting records.”); Rompilla, 545 U.S. at 383 (holding that “the lawyers were deficient in failing to examine the court file on Rompilla’s prior conviction,” knowing that the state “intended to seek the death penalty by proving Rompilla had a significant history of felony convictions indicating the use or threat of violence,” including by proving this prior conviction); Williams, 529 U.S. at 395–96 (holding that defense counsel failed to reasonably investigate mitigating evidence because he “failed to seek prison records recording Williams’ commendations” in prison, positive character “testimony of prison officials,” and “failed even to return the phone call of a certified public accountant who had offered to testify that he had visited Williams frequently” and would speak positively about him); Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 385 (1986) (holding that trial counsel rendered deficient performance because “[r]espondent’s lawyer neither investigated, nor made a reasonable decision not to investigate, the State’s case through discovery”). In another line of cases, evidence in the record suggested fruitful leads that a reasonable attorney would have pursued. In Wiggins, for example, the Supreme Court held that the defendant’s trial counsel had rendered deficient performance because it was objectively unreasonable for them not to investigate “leads” in the presentence investigation report and Department of Social Services records on the defendant’s background that suggested abuse and other facts useful as mitigating evidence in sentencing. 539 U.S. at 525. See also Porter, 558 U.S. at 40 (“[L]ike the counsel in Wiggins, [counsel] ignored pertinent avenues for investigation 11 No. 14-3355, Jackson v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst. of which he should have been aware. The court-ordered competency evaluations, for example, collectively reported Porter’s very few years of regular school, his military service and wounds sustained in combat, and his father’s ‘over-disciplin[e].’”). Bigelow v. Williams, 367 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2007), the main Sixth Circuit case cited by Jackson, is more fairly characterized as falling within the category of “leads” that should be investigated further, rather than establishing a stand-alone rule that counsel must investigate all potential witnesses in a known class, as Jackson claims. Bigelow had always maintained to his counsel that he had been working in Columbus, Ohio, on the date of the crime, not Toledo, Ohio, where the crime took place. Id. at 564–65. Four days before trial, there was an “evidentiary breakthrough”—the appearance of one witness who said he could confirm Bigelow’s alibi. Id. at 572, 574. In light of this development—“the only evidence then available for Bigelow’s defense”—we held that “[a]t a minimum, it would seem that this evidentiary breakthrough would have prompted additional inquiry either by [counsel] or by a publicly-funded investigator” to attempt to locate other witnesses who could corroborate that Bigelow was in Columbus. Id. at 572–73. The other witnesses the court mentioned that Bigelow’s counsel could have investigated were all landscapers who had worked at the house where Bigelow claimed he was working on the day of the crime. Thus, they did belong in one sense to a class of witnesses. But we did not characterize the holding as establishing an obligation to interview all members of a 12 No. 14-3355, Jackson v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst. class of potential witnesses, nor did we actually explicitly hold that Bigelow’s counsel needed to interview all of the other landscapers at the house that day.1 2. Assessment of Jackson’s trial counsel’s investigation Applying AEDPA deference, we hold that the Ohio Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply existing Supreme Court precedent to find that Jackson’s trial counsel’s investigative decisions were not objectively unreasonable. This case does not fall into the first category of cases. Jackson’s trial counsel did not fail to conduct any investigation or fail to review known evidence. He interviewed Jackson, Jackson’s wife, and Jackson’s psychiatrist. R. 9-2 (Holtschulte Aff. ¶ 6) (Page ID #353). Jackson’s trial counsel also “review[ed] . . . the investigation information provided in discovery” by the prosecution. Id. Nor were there any known eyewitnesses to the shooting that Jackson’s trial counsel failed to interview. As the district court noted, “[t]his is not a case in which defense counsel deliberately failed to interview or investigate known witnesses.” R. 25 (Op. and Order at 3) (Page ID #1323). Nor does this case clearly fall into the category of cases where a “lead” in the evidence known to trial counsel should have prompted further investigation. On the one hand, the fact that the shooting took place in broad daylight behind a nursing facility presumably full of people would seem to suggest the possibility that someone might have witnessed the actual moment of 1 Jackson also cites Poole v. MacLaren, 547 F. App’x 749, 751 (6th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 122 (2014), for the proposition that a petitioner could successfully establish ineffective assistance for failure to find an initially unknown witness if facts established by the petitioner indicated that the witness “could have been found by counsel prior to Petitioner’s trial.” Appellant Br. at 20 (quoting Poole, 547 F. App’x at 755). It is true that Poole did preserve the possibility that counsel could be ineffective for failing to find and interview an unknown witness, but the decision does not specify what those additional facts might be. 13 No. 14-3355, Jackson v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst. the shooting. A better attorney would have conducted an independent investigation of the residents and employees at the facility to verify that the prosecution had fully disclosed all witnesses or had conducted a sufficiently thorough investigation. Jackson’s trial counsel might have found Chaffin if he had done so because she was working there that day. Moreover, while Jackson’s trial counsel stated in his affidavit that he reviewed the witnesses and their statements disclosed by the prosecution, the affidavit does not state that he actually personally interviewed any of the witnesses to check the accuracy of the statements disclosed or to see if any witness could suggest other individuals to interview. Under de novo review, we might therefore hold that Jackson’s trial counsel’s decision to limit his investigation was unreasonable. On the other hand, it is hard to identify a “lead” in the record that should have prompted Jackson’s trial counsel to conduct further independent investigation of possible eyewitnesses. The discovery provided by the prosecution was extensive. As described by the Ohio Court of Appeals, it included “a list of thirty-five (35) witnesses that could be called at trial; copies of police reports and narratives; [and] copies of the witness statements,” and the “State filed supplemental discovery several times.” R. 9-2 (Op., Nov. 9, 2009 at 11) (Page ID #529). Detective Ropp testified at trial that he attempted to locate witnesses to the shooting right after it occurred and interviewed and took witness statements that same day. R. 9-3 (Trial Tr. at 285– 288) (Page ID #899–902). Jackson does not argue that anything in the materials disclosed by the prosecution suggested that someone not interviewed by the prosecution had witnessed the exact moment of the shooting. Jackson’s trial counsel’s affidavit states “[t]hat witnesses identified 14 No. 14-3355, Jackson v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst. and/or disclosed saw activity immediately before and after the shooting but none stated they saw the actual instant of the shooting.” R. 9-2 (Holtschulte Aff. ¶ 7) (Page ID #353). No Supreme Court case squarely stands for the proposition that simply reviewing fairly extensive discovery provided by the prosecution about potential witnesses—when nothing in that evidence suggests further investigation could prove fruitful—is objectively unreasonable in and of itself. And the cases from other circuits cited by Jackson do not stand for this proposition. Appellant Br. at 17–18. Rather, those cases fall within the category of cases in which record evidence contained “leads” that a reasonable attorney would have investigated further. See, e.g., Code v. Montgomery, 799 F.2d 1481, 1484 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that counsel failed to investigate adequately because he “did not contact both of the alibi leads [the defendant] had provided him”); Nealy v. Cabana, 764 F.2d 1173, 1177–78 (5th Cir. 1985) (finding ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to investigate known potential alibi witnesses); Thomas v. Lockhart, 738 F.2d 304, 308 (8th Cir. 1984) (holding that counsel failed to investigate adequately because counsel only “review[ed] the investigative file of the prosecuting attorney” in combination with the fact that the defendant “maintained he was innocent” and “[the defendant] and his mother testified that he gave [counsel] the names of three alibi witnesses”; distinguishing the case “from cases in which the defendant did not provide counsel with any information casting doubt on the events as portrayed by the files of the prosecuting attorney”); Crisp v. Duckworth, 743 F.2d 580, 583-84 (7th Cir. 1984) (finding ineffective assistance of counsel in part because counsel did not interview three known witnesses to the shooting and he “failed to interview or call any of the persons [the defendant] said could corroborate his story”). In any 15 No. 14-3355, Jackson v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst. event, these cases were all decided before AEDPA became applicable and do not constitute “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). No other record evidence can be characterized as a “lead” that should have prompted Jackson’s trial counsel independently to search for other eyewitnesses to the actual moment of the shooting. Unlike the defendant in Bigelow, for example, Jackson does not claim that he told his trial counsel that the shooting was accidental, which clearly would have made it more necessary to search for other possible eyewitnesses. Jackson maintained that he could not remember what happened at the time of the shooting. R. 9-4 (Trial Tr. at 95) (Page ID #1026). Jackson’s mother did not tell the bystanders who came to her aid immediately after the shooting or the police that the shooting was accidental; all she said was that her son had shot her. Id. at 54 (Page ID #985). In sum, under existing Supreme Court precedent, it is difficult to conclude that Jackson’s trial counsel’s decision not to seek independently other eyewitnesses to the shooting was so objectively unreasonable such that “fairminded jurists” would not disagree, particularly given the doubly deferential review of Strickland claims. Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 786. Based on the investigation Jackson’s trial counsel undertook, his decision to pursue the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity was also not objectively unreasonable. R. 9-2 (Holtschulte Aff. ¶ 6) (Page ID #353). We therefore do not reach the second prong of the Strickland analysis.