Opinion ID: 548382
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Merits of Schouest's New Claims

Text: 18 In both petitions Schouest has claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial: in his second petition Schouest argues that his attorney erred 1) by allowing the state to introduce [at trial] a report of Dr. Mann without the testimony of Dr. Mann, and 2) by making no effort to call Dr. Mann or Dr. [Bishop] 2 at the sanity hearing. Neither of these arguments was presented in Schouest's first federal habeas petitions, although they were presented to the Louisiana courts in Schouest's state habeas proceedings. 3 19 The magistrate carefully considered both of these claims, and found them to be without merit. In particular, as to Schouest's complaint about the failure to call Dr. Mann at trial, the magistrate found that 1) both counsel stipulated that Dr. Mann's testimony, had he been called, would have been the same as Dr. Birchard's, and that 2) Dr. Birchard's testimony was entirely consistent with Dr. Mann's report. As to Schouest's claim that his attorney erred in failing to subpeona the doctors at the sanity hearing, the magistrate found that 1) Schouest did not contend that their testimony would have been any different than that of the doctor who did testify, 2) Schouest did not know what the testimony of those doctors would have been, and 3) Schouest acknowledged that he was competent at the time of trial to assist his attorney. Accordingly, we agree with the magistrate's conclusion that Schouest has not met the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for making out a cognizable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.