Opinion ID: 612544
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Investigate Adequately By Obtaining Records and Interviewing Mitigation Witnesses

Text: [E]vidence about the defendant's background and character is relevant because of the belief, long held by this society, that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to a disadvantaged background ... may be less culpable than defendants who have no such excuse. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 319, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). In this case, Foust's dire upbringing formed the crux of the mitigation strategy, yet counsel failed to investigate Foust's upbringing in any way. Counsel's failures fall in two categories: failure to obtain records and failure to interview family members. Foust's attorneys admit that they did not gather any of the copious Children's Services records that relate to Foust and his family. App'x Vol. 4 at 1353 (Butler Aff. ¶ 4); id. at 1479 (Webster Aff. ¶ 7). Both attorneys now say that they would have introduced the records at the mitigation hearing had they obtained them. Id. We cannot fathom why counsel failed to obtain those records. At the mitigation hearing, counsel's strategy was to evoke sympathy for Foust based on the deplorable conditions of his childhood. To this end, Karpawich repeatedly reminded counsel of the importance of gathering the records. App'x Vol. 3 at 1200-05 (Karpawich Aff. ¶¶ 10, 11, 14, 15). There is no question that a reasonable attorney would believe records of Foust's childhood to be relevant to a defense about the conditions of Foust's childhood. This conclusion is amplified by the relative recency of Foust's childhood, given that Foust was only twenty-four when he committed the crimes. App'x Vol. 2 at 484 (Sent. Op.). Nevertheless, Foust's attorneys failed to act while potentially powerful mitigating evidence ... would have been apparent from documents any reasonable attorney would have obtained. Bobby v. Van Hook, 558 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 13, 19, 175 L.Ed.2d 255 (2009) (citing Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 389-93, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005)). Counsel also failed to interview any of Foust's siblings. App'x Vol. 3 at 1213 (Amy Aff. ¶ 26); id. at 1221 (Julie Aff. ¶ 11) [4] ; id. at 1224 (Jeremy Aff. ¶ 10). Amy, Julie, and Jeremy have submitted affidavits saying that they would have testified on Foust's behalf. Id. at 1206-24. [5] In addition, the attorneys did not interview Foust's parents before they testified at the mitigation hearing. Gary never received an explanation about what mitigation was and no one discussed his testimony or possible questions that the prosecutor might ask. Id. at 1228 (Gary Aff. ¶ 6). Barbara received a half-ass explanation of mitigation[ that] was real high-pressure, id. at 1225 (Barbara Aff. ¶ 3), and counsel never discussed the specifics of her testimony or what questions the prosecution or defense might ask, id. at 1226 (Barbara Aff. ¶ 4). Although counsel interviewed Foust a few times, the only other information that they had prior to the mitigation hearing was four pages of notes and suggested questions for the attorneys to ask the witnesses that Karpawich prepared and faxed to the attorneys on January 4, 2002  the last business day before the mitigation hearing was scheduled to begin. Id. at 1204 (Karpawich Aff. ¶ 17). [6] The Ohio Court of Appeals, which provided the last reasoned decision on the issue, characterized the omission of the Children's Services records and sibling testimony from the mitigation hearing a tactical decision. Foust, 2005 WL 2462048, at . That description is nonsensical because counsel did not even take the first step of interviewing witnesses or requesting records. Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 447, 453, 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009). Foust's counsel chose to abandon their investigation at an unreasonable juncture, making a fully informed decision with respect to sentencing strategy impossible. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 527, 123 S.Ct. 2527. This is not a case like Van Hook, in which counsel simply fail[ed] to dig deeper into the defendant's background. 130 S.Ct. at 19. Foust does not contend that his counsel should have sought information from more distant relatives such as a stepsister, two uncles, and two aunts. Id. Indeed, Foust's counsel failed to interview anyone or seek any Children's Services records. The Court in Porter itself draws this distinction to distance the facts from those of Van Hook. Porter, 130 S.Ct. at 453; see also Jells, 538 F.3d at 493 (finding ineffective assistance based on counsel's brief interviews of only three family members and the [in]sufficiently probing questions that counsel asked at those interviews). Although we afford strong deference to Foust's attorneys, we also find it inconceivable that Foust's attorneys chose not to interview Foust's parents and siblings on account of potential damage to Foust's defense. In Pinholster, evidence of the defendant's childhood neglect would have damaged a family sympathy mitigation defense. 131 S.Ct. at 1404. Foust's counsel were not making a family-sympathy defense. To the contrary, counsel elicited from the parents themselves information about how they failed to care for Foust. Exploring Foust's background by interviewing his family and by finding Children's Services records could only have aided counsel's strategy of exposing the horror of Foust's childhood. In addition, the defense in Pinholster was based primarily around the petitioner's mother, giving the attorneys good reason to limit their investigation of other family members. Foust's upbringing, however, was characterized by parental failure and neglect, making the siblings' experiences more relevant than what parents might choose to admit about their own failings. Failure to conduct the investigation was deficient performance.