Opinion ID: 1360016
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Failing to Have Todd Selma Testify

Text: Several of the District Court's findings concern the missing testimony of Todd Selma, who allegedly heard Wilder confess to the shooting. Contrary to the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals, the District Court held that Davis's trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to locate and obtain testimony from Selma. The District Court also held that Davis's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to meet with Davis until eight days before trial, and so failing to learn about Selma's supposedly vital comments until it was too late to find Selma before the trial. All three of these findings depend upon the assumption that Selma, had he been located, would have testified that it was Wilder and not Davis who shot Prewitt. There is evidence that both lawyers were deficient. The District Court believed that a pro se motion filed by Davis that included Selma's name should have made trial counsel aware of Selma's potential testimony several months before the trial. Although trial counsel read the motion, he admitted that he did not learn of Selma's existence until he met with Davisfor the very first timejust eight days before the trial. Trial counsel then asked the police officer in charge of the case to locate Selma but did not know what steps were taken to locate him. Trial counsel was unaware that an investigator had been approved for his use by the court. Because Selma was on probation, before and during the trial, he presumably could have been located with a reasonable search. At the habeas evidentiary hearing, appellate counsel testified that the only effort he made to locate Selma was to call a telephone number given to him by Davis, but he did not receive a response. He did not provide any reason for failing to take further steps but testified that it was his understanding that, if called to testify at trial, Selma would have testified that Wilder confessed to being the gunman. Davis, 594 F.Supp.2d at 819-20. Whatever the deficiencies by Davis's attorneys for failing to locate and call Selma, Davis must also show that, had Selma testified, the result of his trial would have been different with a probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome. Avery v. Prelesnik, 548 F.3d 434, 438 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). Davis claims, and the District Court found, that Selma would have testified that Wilder confessed to Selma that Wildernot Davisshot the victim. This Court need not consider the impact that such an alleged confession might have had at trial because there is no real evidence that Selma would have actually implicated Wilder and exonerated Davis had Selma testified. Neither the District Court opinion nor Davis's brief sets out what Selma actually knew and how he knew it. From the Warden's brief, we learn that Davis's claim is based on two sources. First, Davis testified at a state court evidentiary hearing that while Davis, Wilder, and Selma were all in a lineup in 1998, Wilder confessed to Selma that Wilder killed Troy Prewitt. Moreover, according to Davis, Selma told Davis that Selma would testify if Wilder did not confess to police. (Resp. Br. at 19.) Second, and most importantly, Selma wrote Davis a letter in 2002 which reflects not only his confusion about to whom he is writing but also his belief that a guy from New York was the shooter. Because Davis, as he acknowledges in his brief, is the only person involved in the case from New York, it is clear that Selma, if he had testified consistently with his letter, would have destroyed Davis's defense: Dig man, sorry to hear that you got railroaded like you did, that's . . . up. But dig man, I'd like to help you as much as possible, and if you're the guy I then talked to in Inkster then yeah I can honestly say that no you didn't shoot Troy based on my own investigation. What I'm trying to say is I don't remember hearing the truth like in the affidavit as you have it. At present my version is pretty vague, but I do remember that some guy from New York is the one who shot Troy. And if I'm not mistaken, you were driving and he was on the passenger's side and reached over and shot Troy after he refused y'all some credit. I also remember the line-up, the glasses, and the guy in the county greens wearing the glasses. We were all in that small cell by the kitchenette of Inkster jail. I don't fully recall the ride back and forth from and to the County jail. Dig man, I wanna help you and I'm tryin my best to remember as much of that day as I can, but honestly, I'm not doing too well. I don't know how much time you have to correct the wrong but I'm gonna need a bit more. It's coming back to me in scattered pieces. I remember something about somebody putting on a dress and sneaking next door when the police showed up. I also remember the guy from New York saying that he couldn't admit to killin Troy but he would testify that you didn't do it. That he had been to the joint once before and he wasn't going back. Oh yeah: I remember me asking him why did he shoot Troy and he said he didn't know. (Resp. Br. at 21) (emphasis added). The District Court noted that [t]he substance of the letter is confused [because] Selma appears to simultaneously profess [Davis's] innocence while placing the blame for the shooting on someone from New York. Davis, 594 F.Supp.2d at 817. Thus, the Court found in error that although the letter does not clearly and unequivocally exculpate [Davis] . . . the letter raises additional questions, including whether Selma believed that he was, as [the Warden] argues, writing to Wilder rather than [Davis]; whether Selma thought Wilder was known [1] as `New York;' and whether Selma would have been able to clarify these ambiguities had he been located prior to trial. These questions may have been answered had counsel undertaken a vigorous, effective search for Selma. Id. To the contrary, there is only way that the letter may reasonably be read: Selma (1) believed that Davis had confessed to the shooting and (2) mistakenly thought he was writing to Wilder instead of Davis. Although it seems unusual to write such a letter to the wrong person, Selma expressly conveyed his uncertainty about the person with whom he was corresponding (if you're the guy I talked to in Inkster . . .). Selma is sure about several distinct details regarding both the events surrounding the confession and what he learned about the shooting itself, the most significant of which is that the guy from New York was the shooter. Because only Davis was from New York, it is clear that Selma thought Davis was the shooter. Like his trial and appellate counsel, Davis's habeas counsel says he has also been unable to locate or obtain a statement from Todd Selma. The District Court, having concluded that Selma's testimony may now be irretrievably lost, held that Davis need not show prejudice for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim: To hold that this failure to produce evidence regarding what [Selma's] testimony would have been prevents a finding of prejudice would be to insulate counsel's failure to investigate from review. Id. at 818. To the contrary, the letter unmistakably demonstrates that Selma's testimony would have served to inculpate, rather than exculpate, Davis. Davis was not prejudiced by the failure of his attorneys to procure prejudicial testimony from Selma.