Opinion ID: 203677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Call Promised Mental Health Expert

Text: Petitioner further alleges that his trial counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient in failing to present the testimony of a particular psychologist, Dr. Paul Spiers, despite promising the jury in his opening that both [p]sychologists and psychiatrists would testify in support of petitioner's insanity defense. This failure prejudiced him, petitioner argues, because Dr. Paul Spiers, a psychologist who examined him, would have provided petitioner with his only defense to charges arising from the assault upon Alecia Moore. Specifically, unlike Dr. Rosemarin, who testified regarding Yeboah-Sefah's diminished mental capacity at the time of the attack on Jameel but was unable to form an opinion regarding petitioner's mental state during the attack on Moore, Dr. Spiers had concluded and could have testified that petitioner lacked criminal responsibility for his actions on October 25, 1992 with respect to his assaults on both Alecia and Jameel. Therefore, Yeboah-Sefah's trial counsel's unreasonable failure to call Dr. Spiers, in breach of his promise to the jury, constituted deficient performance that prejudiced the defense. The SJC heard this claim and rejected it on the merits, holding that trial counsel's failure to call Dr. Spiers was not a manifestly unreasonable tactical decision on trial counsel's part. Boateng, 781 N.E.2d at 1220. The court reasoned that because Dr. Spiers' diagnosis regarding Yeboah-Sefah's condition conflicted with Dr. Rosemarin's and Dr. Whaley's, Dr. Spiers' testimony had the potential to confuse the jury, and thus, was reasonably omitted. [15] Id. at 1219-1220. The SJC also held that there was no prejudice as a result of the decision, noting that while Dr. Spiers' testimony might have provided [Yeboah-Sefah] with a more complete defense in the sense that he was of the opinion that [Yeboah-Sefah] was not criminally responsible for either of the attacks on Jameel or Moore, it is unlikely that the jury, who rejected [Yeboah Sefah's] insanity defense as a defense to the murder of Jameel, would have accepted it regarding the assault on Moore that occurred just before. Boateng, 781 N.E.2d at 1220. We find that this decision was not an unreasonable application of Strickland. [16] The SJC, however, did not explicitly address petitioner's claim that it was the failure to call Dr. Spiers in light of counsel's promise to do so in his opening statement that rendered his performance ineffective. In other words, despite the pros and cons of calling Dr. Spiers, petitioner argues that counsel's failure to follow through was itself deficient. See Anderson v. Butler, 858 F.2d 16, 17 (1st Cir.1988) (noting that little is more damaging than to fail to produce important evidence that had been promised in an opening). Because the state court was presented with, but did not expressly resolve this portion of petitioner's claim, we assume, without deciding, that de novo review applies. See Fortini, 257 F.3d at 47 (holding that preserved federal constitutional claims that were never addressed by the state courts would be reviewed de novo on habeas). Applying Strickland de novo, we are unable to conclude that trial counsel's reference to psychologists and psychiatrists in his opening statement coupled with the failure to call a particular psychiatrist deprived petitioner of the effective assistance of counsel. This court ... has invalidated convictions because of broken promises [in an opening statement]. Sleeper, 510 F.3d at 40 (citing Anderson, 858 F.2d 16; United States v. González-Maldonado, 115 F.3d 9 (1st Cir.1997); and Ouber, 293 F.3d 19). However, considering trial counsel's reference to psychologists and psychiatrists in the context of the record, we find that the statement did not contain an explicit promise that the defense would call both psychiatrists and psychologists to the stand, let alone a specific promise to call Dr. Spiers. [17] Rather, counsel told the jury that [p]sycholgists and psychiatrists will talk about the medical affects [sic] of [Yeboah-Sefah's] medication upon him, and that the jury would hear testimony by experts during the course of [the] trial assessing petitioner's capacity. Thus, the only actual promises made by counsel therein were not in fact broken. Over the course of the trial, jurors did in fact hear the testimony of both a psychiatrist (Dr. Rosemarin) and a psychologist (Dr. Whaley) regarding the effects of petitioner's medications upon him and his mental capacity at the time of the crime. Even if counsel's statement could be construed as an implied promise that the defense would call a psychologist, it still would not amount to the kind of specific, significant and dramatic promise upon whose breach our case law supports invalidating a conviction. [O]ur cases that premise a habeas writ on an unfulfilled promise during opening argument generally require greater specificity in the promise and greater contemporaneousness between the promise and jury deliberations. Phoenix, 233 F.3d at 85. [18] In this case, the promise, which was made in an opening statement six days before the end of trial, can hardly be considered contemporaneous with the jury's deliberations. Cf. Anderson, 858 F.2d at 17 (finding ineffective assistance of counsel where the jury began deliberating the following day after counsel's opening, in which counsel promised to present a defense based on expert testimony that he never produced). Moreover, a general statement that jurors would hear from psychiatrists and psycholgists can hardly be construed as specific. Although petitioner attempts to characterize the statement as a promise to call a particular psychologist, Dr. Spiers, that proposition is unsupported by the record. [19] We find that counsel was not professionally unreasonable and thus, not ineffective in withholding the testimony of Dr. Spiers, despite the statements made in his opening. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Petitioner, therefore, cannot satisfy Strickland, and we must reject this claim.