Opinion ID: 564919
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Johnson's Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at Sentencing

Text: 29 Johnson alleges his attorneys at sentencing and his court-appointed psychologist failed to conduct a competent investigation of his psychological state. Had they done so, he asserts, they would have discovered psychological problems resulting from a long history of drug abuse and addiction. Johnson contends such an investigation would have enabled sentencing counsel to demonstrate the existence of three statutory mitigating factors, which would have precluded the jury override. 17 30 The testimony presented by Johnson's counsel at the sentencing hearing before the advisory jury consisted of the following. A prison official from Tennessee, who had previously been called by the State, was recalled. He testified regarding Johnson's medium security classification in the Tennessee prison system before his escape from that system. 18 Next, sentencing counsel called a local religious leader to testify regarding the morality of the death penalty. The State objected and the judge sustained the objection and refused to allow the witness to testify. 19 Sentencing counsel's principal witness, court-appointed psychologist Ronald Yarbrough, was then called. 31 Yarbrough had interviewed Johnson the night before for about two and one-half hours. 20 During the interview he conducted several psychological tests, and he later analyzed the results of those tests. 21 From this information, Yarbrough testified, he could draw some strong hypotheses regarding Johnson's behavior in various situations. 22 The psychologist testified that Johnson had a high average range of intelligence and an extremely high level of commonsense, but that if Johnson didn't want to apply himself to a task, he wouldn't. 23 Yarbrough believed Johnson to be in contact with reality, and not schizophrenic or psychotic. 24 He found no evidence of organic brain damage, 25 that Johnson probably had problems with authority figures, 26 that he had a good relationship with his family, 27 and that Johnson perceived himself as cool and was probably perceived as a leader within his peer group. 28 Finally, Yarbrough opined that Johnson's ability to think and make decisions deteriorates dramatically in stressful situations, that in extremely demanding emotional situation[§ Johnson] breaks down his normal mode of thinking, ... decision making ... [and] responding, 29 but that there was nothing to indicate that on the day of the crime Johnson did not appreciate the criminality of his conduct. 30 32 The next witness was Johnson's sister, who testified regarding Johnson's disadvantaged background. 31 Johnson's sister also testified that whatever happened to Johnson would have an effect on her; 32 the final witness, Johnson's daughter, testified to the same effect. 33 The advisory jury and sentencing judge were also of course free to consider the fact that Johnson did not initiate the gun battle, and were free to consider Johnson's counsels' argument at the advisory sentencing hearing (and at the second sentencing hearing before the trial judge) that Johnson's decision to shoot the pharmacist was the product of, among other things, his extreme emotional disturbance after being shot at by Moulton. 33 Johnson's sentencing counsel made an effort to exclude evidence regarding the details of Johnson's past and his record of violent crime. Counsel made a motion in limine to exclude such evidence, including evidence of Johnson's recent attempted escape from prison. 34 Also, counsel stated that he wished to foreclose impeachment by not relying on character evidence; 35 thus testimony from Johnson's sister was limited to showing his background, not his character. 34 Johnson now claims that Yarbrough's psychological evaluation was seriously flawed by sentencing counsel's failure to instruct Yarbrough to ask Johnson about his long history of drug abuse (and by implication, Yarbrough's failure to ask Johnson about any history of drug abuse and Johnson's failure to mention that history to Yarbrough during the interview) as well as the failure to conduct any further investigation regarding Johnson's psychological state during the month between the advisory jury hearing and the final sentencing hearing before the trial judge. 35 Attached to Johnson's second federal habeas petition is an affidavit in which Yarbrough indicates that when he testified he was unaware of Johnson's drug problem or the role that problem played in the murder and robbery. After examining affidavits of friends and family members regarding the severity of Johnson's drug addiction, as well as the affidavit of Dr. Peter Macaluso, an addictionologist who interviewed Johnson, Yarbrough's opinion of Johnson's psychological state is now different. He now believes that at the time of the murder Johnson was under the influence of a totally controlling, extreme drug addiction, 36 and that Johnson's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his behavior or to conform to the requirements of law were [sic] substantially impaired. 37 Also attached to the petition are the affidavits of two doctors (including Dr. Macaluso) who interviewed Johnson in 1988. Their conclusion is similar to that of Yarbrough, that is, that at the time of the murder Johnson was consumed by an overwhelming desire to obtain drugs to feed his drug habit.