Opinion ID: 6109557
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Law Governing Duties of Counsel in Presenting Penalty Phase Mitigation

Text: Mr. McFadden argues the motion court clearly erred in rejecting his claim defense counsel were ineffective for failing to call lay witnesses Lisa Thomas, Tanesia Clark, Elwyn Walls, Sean Nichols, and Willibea Blackburn, and for failing to call expert witnesses Dr. White, Dr. Draper, and Dr. Gelbort during the penalty phase. Because Movant is challenging counsel's failure to call certain witnesses during the penalty phase, a 'viable defense' is one in which there is a reasonable probability that the additional mitigating evidence those witnesses would have provided would have outweighed the aggravating evidence presented by the prosecutor resulting in the jury voting against the death penalty. Deck, 381 S.W.3d at 346 . In a death penalty case, trial counsel has an obligation to investigate and discover all reasonably available mitigating evidence, Davis v. State, 486 S.W.3d 898 , 906 (Mo. banc 2016) , including, medical history, employment and training history, family and social history, prior adult and juvenile correctional experience, and religious and cultural influences.  Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 , 524, 123 S.Ct. 2527 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (emphasis omitted). But the  'duty to investigate does not force defense lawyers to scour the globe on the off-chance something will turn up; reasonably diligent counsel may draw a line when they have good reason to think further investigation would be a waste.'  Strong, 263 S.W.3d at 652 , quoting, Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 , 383, 125 S.Ct. 2456 , 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005). In the real world containing real limitations of time and human resources, criminal defense counsel is given a heavy measure of deference in deciding what witnesses and evidence are worthy of pursuit. Twenter, 818 S.W.2d at 635 (citation omitted). Counsel will not be found ineffective for choosing to pursue one reasonable trial strategy to the exclusion of another. Davis, 486 S.W.3d at 912 (citation omitted). At the postconviction hearing, defense counsel testified that, before deciding their mitigation defense, they conducted a thorough investigation of Mr. McFadden's childhood, development, criminal background, and environment by talking with his family and friends and by having Dr. Draper review this information. They also assessed the strength of each of the witnesses' testimony at Mr. McFadden's previous trials. Because of the weakness of prior expert testimony about mitigation issues, defense counsel made a strategic decision to build their mitigation defense using six lay witnesses who had done well on both direct and cross-examination at Mr. McFadden's previous trials. The testimony of each of these lay witnesses centered around defense counsel's theme for mitigation-that Mr. McFadden grew up in a violent neighborhood, lacked guidance growing up, and had a chaotic childhood in which he did not have consistent parenting and was shuffled around from home to home. Defense counsel did not believe it would be helpful to call the additional lay witnesses, as each had serious weaknesses or was duplicative. Counsel further decided not to again call expert mitigation witnesses who previously had been ineffective and were subject to serious impeachment and whose testimony risked overshadowing the message they wanted to present through lay witnesses.