Opinion ID: 2581989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Failure to adequately investigate

Text: [¶ 55] Duke next faults counsel for allegedly failing to interview any of the prosecution's witnesses prior to trial. Counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. This Court assesses counsel's performance by considering all of the circumstances existing at the time counsel made the investigative decision and applies a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments in this regard. Asch, at ¶ 41. A convicted defendant claiming counsel was ineffective bears the burden of demonstrating counsel acted unreasonably and that he was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. In doing so, an appellant must identify the acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment. Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. [¶ 56] Duke's contention that counsel failed to interview any of the witnesses is not supported by the record and is speculative at best. This Court will not presume the truth of allegations that are not supported by the record. Madrid v. State, 910 P.2d 1340, 1343 (Wyo.1996). In his argument, Duke assumes that counsel did not investigate or interview the witnesses because counsel appeared to meet several prosecution witnesses for the first time at trial. However, counsel may have interviewed the witnesses, without meeting them in person, perhaps by telephone. Or, another attorney or an investigator may have interviewed the witnesses for counsel. An appellant's speculative contentions as to what he believes occurred are not considered by this Court unless they are demonstrated in the record. Id.; Hayes v. American Nat'l Bank of Powell, 784 P.2d 599, 601 (Wyo.1989). [¶ 57] Moreover, Duke provides no authority that counsel must meet and interview all of the prosecution's witnesses in person in order to act as reasonably competent counsel and does not explain what solid investigation of all important witnesses might entail. Although this Court has acknowledged that a failure to investigate under certain circumstances may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, none of those circumstances apply in this case. See Asch, ¶¶ 41, 43, 45 (regarding failure to investigate a possible defense, failure to identify favorable evidence or witnesses that additional investigation would have revealed, failure to interview an eyewitness to the crime, or failure to investigate evidence that goes to the very heart of the prosecution's case). An appellant must provide more than mere speculation or equivocal inferences to satisfy the burden of demonstrating that counsel's performance was ineffective. Sincock, at ¶ 37. Duke's purely conjectural allegations concerning whether counsel interviewed, or should have interviewed, the prosecution's witnesses simply do not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He has not demonstrated that counsel's performance was other than reasonable or that he was prejudiced by the alleged failure of counsel to interview the witnesses. [¶ 58] The majority of Duke's argument faults counsel for allegedly failing to interview Mrs. Brauberger, the wife of the prosecution's main witness. This claim fails because it is not supported by the record. His claim that counsel did not try to talk with Mrs. Brauberger misreads the record. Counsel spoke with Mrs. Brauberger before trial, and she told him to contact the prosecuting attorney. Apparently, she was not willing to provide him with any information and any attempt to interview her or to call her as a witness to impeach her husband would have been futile. Indeed, when the trial court offered to make her available for questioning so counsel could determine whether she did have any relevant impeachment testimony, Duke told counsel not to talk to her. He cannot now complain that counsel was ineffective when counsel simply followed his direction. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066; Frias, 722 P.2d at 145. [¶ 59] In speculative fashion, Duke also alleges that if counsel had interviewed Mrs. Brauberger, counsel could have been prepared for Roger Brauberger's damning testimony that he had previous[ly] told his wife about Duke's request that he kill his wife and child. According to Duke, this testimony was contradicted by the fact he twice omitted naming his wife as one of his early confidantes about this murder for hire solicitation later in his testimony. Duke claims counsel might have been able to impeach Roger Brauberger's testimony by putting Mrs. Brauberger on the stand. However, Duke misinterprets the word previous in the above-referenced testimony as indicating Mrs. Brauberger was one of Roger Brauberger's early confidantes about the murder for hire solicitation. [¶ 60] Duke's assertion derives from the fact that, at trial, Roger Brauberger explained why he finally went to the police with the information about Duke. He said, Well, I hadn't told my wife about it until one night when we were driving home.... He then continued: I said, Something really bad and terrible has happened and something really bad and terrible might happen if I don't do something about this. So I told her exactly what we [Duke and Roger Brauberger] talked about, about killing his parents. I told her previous about the wife and child. I said, Look, he's capable of doing it. If I don't go to the police, something we may end up, you know, seeing another funeral, and I can't deal with that. She advised me to go to my father. My father advised me to go to the police. [¶ 61] Roger Brauberger talked to the police the next day, January 4, 1999. Contrary to Duke's characterization of this testimony as an indication that Mrs. Brauberger was an early confidante, Roger Brauberger was discussing what he told his wife the night of January 3, 1999. He told her for the first time about Duke's previous request to kill Erik and Liana Duke to explain why he was concerned about Duke's request to kill his parents. Not only was counsel's investigation reasonable, but Duke has not demonstrated prejudice because there was no discrepancy in Roger Brauberger's testimony. [¶ 62] Duke also complains that the alleged failure to interview witnesses deprived counsel of the ability to determine whether they might have information that could have shaken the jury's confidence in Roger Brauberger. This argument ignores the testimony that the jury did hear about Roger Brauberger. Defense counsel cross-examined Roger Brauberger and delved into his drug and heavy drinking habits and that he bought and sold marijuana. Counsel noted that Roger Brauberger did not remember many details and contradicted himself in other ways. Duke also testified that it was Roger Brauberger's idea to kill Duke's parents. Defense counsel presented a formidable attack on Roger Brauberger's credibility, and Duke has not demonstrated that counsel's performance fell below that of a reasonably competent counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. [¶ 63] Considering the speculative nature of Duke's claims that counsel did not interview any of the prosecution's witnesses, he has not demonstrated that counsel failed to investigate or any alleged failure to interview witnesses was unreasonable. Nor has he demonstrated any prejudice resulting from counsel's alleged failure to investigate.