Opinion ID: 797369
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District court's review

Text: 47 The Report and Recommendation adopted by the district court concluded that [p]resent counsel have failed to show what witnesses could better have presented the critical testimony elicited from [Dr. Cooper and Rochelle Pittman]. It also reinforced that, although portions of Dr. Cooper's testimony were adverse to Nields, defense counsel cannot be faulted for choosing experts who insist on telling the truth as the[y] see it. Similarly, although Pittman's testimony allowed the prosecution to introduce her diary that was damaging in parts, Pittman was a crucial witness for the impact of alcohol on her brother's life and how substance abuse had affected his entire family. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation concluded that the Ohio Supreme Court's application of Strickland was not objectively unreasonable. 48 Nields challenged this finding on the ground that the magistrate judge did not consider evidence of the ineffective assistance of counsel in the form of affidavits produced at state post-conviction proceedings regarding trial counsel's mitigation investigation. The district court conceded that the magistrate judge did not consider the affidavits in question, but concluded that doing so would not have made a difference in his ultimate recommendation: 49 [T]he only evidence identified in the Traverse for consideration by this Court is boilerplate about how important it is to do a thorough investigation, the failure to adequately talk to Nield[s]'s sister and a conclusory statement regarding failure to adequately interview and present the testimony of witnesses for mitigation. In addition, Petitioner did not seek an evidentiary hearing to present the testimony of the additional witnesses. 50 Nield[s]'s sister was called as a witness during the mitigation phase. Further, the Petitioner has not specifically brought evidence to this Court's attention about what investigation was done by trial counsel or what strategic decisions were made by them. No specific evidence of lack of preparation has been presented to this Court.