Opinion ID: 1476684
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Efforts to secure testimony of defendant's stepfather, Walter Williams

Text: Defendant faults defense counsel for not contacting his stepfather (Walter) simply because counsel anticipated a denial of abuse allegations.
Harris told Fairchild during preparation for the penalty phase that he was afraid of his stepfather, who frequently engaged in fights with his wife, Mattie. Harris said that he and Walter never really talked, but he knew that Walter didn't like him. He added that his mother had instructed his stepfather to beat defendant daily, thus Walter too was responsible for defendant's childhood abuse. Mattie, on the other hand, told Fairchild that Walter was not really involved with the boys.
At the PCR hearing, Call was asked why he never spoke with Walter. Call's explanation focused on defendant's accusation that his stepfather was involved in the abuse defendant received as a child. Call stated that by the time he learned from the institutional records of the possible abuse defendant suffered when growing up, Mattie had already told us, you know thatin fact, I think she actually spoke with the press at one point and said that Ambrose was not abused, something along that line. He continued: But neither Mattie Williams, nor do I suspect that Walter Williams would have, either one of them, would they have substantiated a history of abuse. At the penalty phase, on cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Fairchild about whether she interviewed Walter: Q: You also interviewed Walter Williams, did you not? A: No, I did not. Q: You never spoke to him? A: No. I asked to speak with him. Q: Did he refuse? A: No, he didn't refuse. I asked Mattie if I could speak with her husband, and she said, he doesn't want to talk to you. Q: Now, Miss Fairchild, how old was Mr. Williams at the time that you wanted to talk to him? ... A: I don't know his age. I would imagine he's close to Mattie's age, which would be sixty. ... Q: And you thought that in a matter of this importance that you needed Mattie Williams' permission to speak to Walter Williams about a matter that involved his stepson's life? A: Yes. Q: So you never made an attempt to speak to Walter Williams yourself? A: No. On redirect, defense counsel tried to elicit from Fairchild why she did not make any visit to the Williams household to talk with Walter despite Mattie's refusal to allow her to do so. The prosecutor objected because he believed that defense counsel wanted Fairchild to admit believing Mattie could be violent, knowing of her conviction for murder in the late 1970's. Such testimony would have circumvented the trial court's ruling prohibiting the jury from being informed of that conviction without opening up the time limitation the defense had imposed on itself for its mitigation strategy. That aside, Mattie's past is relevant to judging her propensity for violence in assessing whether Fairchild, or defense counsel, should have shown up, unwelcome, at Mattie and Jerry's door. Call also testified that Jerry told Fairchild that Walter did not abuse his stepsons. In fairness, the role that Walter played in punishing his stepsons is unclear. A 1964 report by a school psychologist, obtained by PCR counsel, indicates that Harris called Walter a harsh disciplinarian and that Mattie confirmed that Walter participated in punishing defendant. On the other hand, Mattie conveyed pride during an interview with Fairchild that she was the one who disciplined her children, and that Walter had very little to do with them. For our purposes, it is most significant that defendant has failed to submit any evidence to show what Walter was willing to say on the stand so we could assess whether it would have substantially affected jury deliberations. Nardone's report of her interview with Walter is uninformative. It says only that Walter would have been happy to have spoken with either or both Mr. Call/Mr. Scully and Ms. Fairchild. Finally, as in the case of defendant's mother, PCR counsel did not ask the PCR court to hear testimony from Walter Williams, according to counsels' brief. In sum, there is no evidence that trial counsel acted unreasonably in not pursuing Walter after their discussion with Mattie. Furthermore, defendant has not provided any information to the Court about how Walter's participation in the case would have substantially affected jury deliberations.