Opinion ID: 2549030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Further Investigate Cause of Fire and Present Expert Arson Investigator.

Text: Finally, Ferguson contends she was deprived of her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel because her trial lawyer failed to properly investigate the cause of the fire and failed to present expert testimony from an arson investigator at trial. In its memorandum decision, the district court classified Meisenheimer's actions in regard to investigating the fire and obtaining the use of an arson investigator as just the type of action that the Kansas Supreme Court said `might be considered sound trial strategy.' In response to questions concerning his reasons for not obtaining an expert fire investigator to present testimony at trial, Meisenheimer indicated he had sent the reports of the State's experts and other relevant documents to Don Emerson for review. Meisenheimer stated that the information that Emerson provided was not particularly helpful to me, or in my view, particularly helpful to the defense . . . . He testified that he felt the differences between the investigators of the insurance company and the . . . State of Kansas provided as good [of a] contradiction to each other as we were, or better contradiction to each other than we were going to get from Mr. Emerson. Meisenheimer characterized his thoughts about the value of retaining Emerson as marginal or nominal. He stated that the theory of defense he intended to present at trial was, we don't know what happened, but whatever happened, Miss Ferguson did not set fire to the restaurant. The district court found that at trial, Meisenheimer relied upon his twenty years of experience as an attorney and represented his client with her best interests in mind, and stated that it was of the opinion that Francis Meisenheimer is an extraordinarily well-qualified attorney, with great expertise in criminal cases and jury trials. The district court concluded that Meisenheimer's performance did not fall below the standards required by Strickland, Chamberlain, and Graham, . . . that [Ferguson] was not prejudiced, and that the outcome of her trial was not affected by that performance. Again we find competent evidence supporting the district court's conclusion that trial counsel employed legitimate trial strategy in regard to investigating the fire and obtaining the use of an arson investigator. Ferguson's contention in this regard fails. At oral argument before this court, Ferguson's counsel entered an appearance but appellate counsel for the State did not. At oral argument, appellate counsel for Ferguson stated that Ferguson's trial counsel, Meisenheimer, was ineffective because he had no idea how to defend an arson case. In support of that contention, appellant's counsel made assertions about Meisenheimer that were not argued below and did not appear in the appellant's briefs as required by appellate practice Rule 6.02 (2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 34). Appellant's counsel alleged that when Meisenheimer appeared before the district court for the 60-1507 hearing, he lied to the court in order to justify his failure to procure an arson expert for the defense. Because appellant's counsel appeared unopposed without making these assertions in the briefs or below before the district court, the State had no opportunity to counter or comment, resulting in prejudice. The ethics of making such a grave accusation while allowing opposing counsel no opportunity to respond are questionable, at best. In our opinion, employing a strategy of situational advantage and surprise tactics exceeds the acceptable bounds of zealous advocacy. A review of the record on appeal fails to convince this court that Meisenheimer deliberately misled the district court at the 60-1507 hearing. In the future, appellate counsel are reminded to set forth all arguments within the briefs, citing the record for support in compliance with Rule 6.02 (2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 34) and Rule 6.03 (2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 36). The Preface to the Kansas Rules on attorney conduct states that attorneys should strive to demonstrate respect for the legal system and those who serve it. 2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 310. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the district court is affirmed. ABBOTT, J., not participating. BRAZIL, S.J., assigned. [2]