Opinion ID: 2508188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 30

Heading: failure to investigate state witnesses

Text: ISSUE (11). Whether Petitioner was prejudiced by defense counsel's decision not to interview before trial a jailhouse informant who testified Petitioner admitted killing Ms. Couch. Petitioner claims ineffective assistance of counsel because before trial his attorneys neither investigated nor interviewed any State's witnesses other than members of Petitioner's family. He also argues his counsel was ineffective because they failed to adequately investigate Shelbey B. Johnson, a jailhouse informant who testified against him. Petitioner asserts that if his counsel had conducted a reasonable investigation, they could have cross-examined Mr. Johnson more adequately during trial, impeached him with testimony from another witness, Timothy Hicks, and uncovered evidence that Mr. Johnson was biased. Before trial, Petitioner and Mr. Johnson were cellmates in the Pierce County Jail. Mr. Johnson testified at trial that while he and Petitioner were incarcerated, Petitioner admitted killing Ms. Couch but denied raping her. [278] In our opinion on Petitioner's direct appeal, we observed that during trial [a] substantial criminal history of dishonesty was introduced against Mr. Johnson. Under direct examination by the State, Mr. Johnson admitted he was currently serving a 10-year sentence in Montana for felony theft and bail jumping [279] and that he had prior convictions for theft, robbery, possession of stolen property, possession of a controlled substance, and taking a motor vehicle without permission. [280] Mr. Johnson also admitted he had been previously charged with giving a false name to police. [281] We also observed that [d]efense counsel attacked [Mr. Johnson's] credibility, suggesting he lied because [Petitioner] was bothering him. [282] In her declaration, Ms. Lindstrom states that: Other than members of Mr. Davis' family who were to testify I do not recall that I interviewed any of the State's witnesses in the guilt phase prior to trial. .... To the best of recollection, my preparation prior to trial for the cross examination of Shelby Johnson consisted of reviewing his record and discussing his testimony with Mr. Davis. We did not interview Mr. Johnson prior to his testimony. I believe that he was no longer in the Pierce County Jail and possibly had been moved to a DOC facility. I believe this is the reason I did not interview him in advance of the trial although I do believe we may have interviewed him just prior to his testimony. [ [283] ] Petitioner provided a declaration from Timothy Lee Hicks disputing that Petitioner admitted to Mr. Johnson that he killed Ms. Couch. His declaration noted that: On one occasion, Johnson came into the cell and said he knew how I could beat my charges.... He then laid out a scheme in which I should falsely state that the black male [Petitioner] confessed to the murder to me.... He said that if I did this, it would be as if I had a get out of jail ticket. .... Penny Cole has showed me a copy of a letter ... in which Johnson claims that he overheard the [Petitioner] confessing to the murder of the old lady. I recall that one day the [Petitioner] came down from his cell and wanted to read the newspaper. Johnson had the newspaper in his possession and was telling the [Petitioner] that he had to wait. The [Petitioner] kept asking Johnson if the paper was saying what the news said, that he had raped and killed the old lady. I recall the [Petitioner] saying that this was bullshit or horseshit. He said that if the paper said this about him, he was going to sue the paper. The [Petitioner] got agitated when Johnson refused to let him look at the paper. At no time was there a conversation in which he said that he had killed the bitch. At no time did he say that he raped or killed the old lady. The cells in the high security area are arranged in such a way that you can hear what is being said in the common area. If the [Petitioner] confessed to the murder, I would have heard it. I recall that his case was a high profile case with a lot of publicity, and if I heard him confess, I would have remembered it.[ [284] ] Petitioner also encloses a letter from the prosecuting attorney, John M. Neeb, to the Montana Board of Pardons and Paroles on behalf of Mr. Johnson. In that letter, dated March 12, 1998, after Petitioner's trial, Mr. Neeb wrote that: Cecil Davis made several statements to Shelby incriminating himself in the murder. Shelby wrote a letter to jail staff in an attempt to get moved away from Cecil Davis. That letter was forwarded to the detective investigating the murder case, and he obtained a taped statement from Shelby. Shelby was cooperative in giving that statement and continued to cooperate up to and including giving testimony at trial. That testimony was helpful to the people of the State of Washington.... Shelby never requested any special treatment in exchange for his cooperation. He received a sentence in the middle of the applicable range for his crimes in Pierce County. He never tried to back away from what he said to the detective or prevent himself from being transported back to Washington to testify. After his testimony was complete, Shelby asked that I mention his cooperation to the appropriate authorities in Montana. I was very clear with Shelby that I had no control over his release from the prison system in Montana.... Shelby did the right thing in this case. Anyone involved in the criminal justice system knows the frustration of having a witness recant or refuse to testify. That is especially likely to happen when the witness is incarcerated himself and wants to avoid wearing a snitch jacket. Shelby neither recanted or refused to cooperate. He followed through and was a portion of the evidence that resulted in a very dangerous killer being placed on death row. Please give this information whatever consideration you deem appropriate when Shelby is reviewed for release on parole.... [ [285] ] The duty to investigate does not necessarily require that every conceivable witness be interviewed. [286] However, defense counsel has an obligation to `provide factual support for [the] defense where such corroboration is available.' [287] Not pursuing such corroborating evidence with an adequate pretrial investigation may, under certain circumstances, establish constitutionally deficient performance. [288] At the least, a defendant seeking relief under a failure to investigate theory must show a reasonable likelihood that the investigation would have produced useful information not already known to defendant's trial counsel. [289] And even if a defendant can show that exculpatory evidence unknown to trial counsel would have been uncovered by further investigation or interview, the court must still consider whether counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. In evaluating prejudice, `ineffective assistance claims based on a duty to investigate must be considered in light of the strength of the government's case.' [290] Petitioner does not identify any witnesses other than Shelbey B. Johnson whom his counsel should have interviewed. Nor does he indicate their availability or specify the content of their testimony. He has not established that his defense team did not interview Mr. Johnson before he testified at trial. Although Ms. Lindstrom's declaration is contradictory, she claims she may have interviewed [Mr. Johnson] just prior to his testimony. [291] Petitioner has not provided any evidence to the contrary. Even if Ms. Lindstrom did not interview Mr. Johnson before he testified, Petitioner has not made a persuasive showing that shortcomings in his counsel's investigation were unreasonable under prevailing professional standards. Ms. Lindstrom stated that she reviewed Mr. Johnson's criminal record and discussed his expected testimony with Petitioner. Petitioner does not contend that he told his counsel that Timothy Lee Hicks was present during his conversation with Mr. Johnson. Petitioner's claim that the existence of Mr. Hick's would have surfaced in an interview with Mr. Johnson is purely speculative. In addition to showing that Ms. Lindstrom's investigation efforts were deficient, to succeed with his ineffective assistance of counsel claim Petitioner must make a sufficient showing of prejudice. Even assuming Petitioner could demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that an interview with Mr. Johnson would have led to identification of Mr. Hicks, Petitioner cannot show that he was prejudiced by his counsel's performance. Despite Petitioner's suggestion to the contrary, defense counsel did effectively cross-examine and impeach Mr. Johnson. [292] Petitioner argues that through a reasonable investigation his counsel could have discovered Mr. Johnson was seeking a benefit from the prosecutor in exchange for his trial testimony. He provides no evidence that the prosecutor agreed to assist Mr. Johnson with any of his future legal problems. The prosecutor's letter to the Montana Parole Board on Mr. Johnson's behalf was written after Petitioner's trial and explicitly states that Mr. Johnson never requested any special treatment in exchange for his cooperation and testimony in this case. The State's case against Petitioner was strong. The evidence against him was overwhelming. Any prejudice arising out of shortcomings in investigation of witnesses does not undermine the verdict of the jury.