Opinion ID: 1369544
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Uncovering impeaching information

Text: In this same point, Storey also claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to uncover the impeaching information and obtain independent microscopic hair testing to support a motion to recall the guilt mandate and to present this evidence at the retrial to support life. . . . The exculpatory hair evidence, which Storey refers to, relates primarily to sexual assault and was only presented at the guilt phase of the trial in 1991; the evidence was not presented at the penalty phase because Storey's counsel successfully excluded all reference to sexual assault during the 1999 penalty trial. Before addressing this claim directly, it is important to recognize the overriding trial strategy that precluded further investigation into this evidence. Ms. Frey's body was found naked below the waist. However, there was no conclusive evidence of sexual assault. Two pubic hairs were found on Ms. Frey's body, but they could not be conclusively linked to Storey. The hairs also could not eliminate Storey as a suspect. During the 1999 trial, Storey's counsel excluded any argument or evidence that Storey sexually assaulted Ms. Frey. The motion court held that the record reflects that counsel was effective in obtaining an order excluding the State from arguing sexual assault. Storey now claims that trial counsel was ineffective for not obtaining additional testing of the pubic hairs. In this 29.15 proceeding, mitochondrial DNA found in the two pubic hairs was compared with Storey's mitochondrial DNA. [4] The new results do not positively identify Storey, but he still cannot be excluded as a suspect based on the hairs because he matches them. The motion court held that this investigation actually reveals the wisdom and prudence of trial counsel in deciding not to engage in such additional testing.. . . In this case movant sought DNA testing of the hairs. That DNA testing found a `match.' `Therefore, Walter Timothy Storey is not excluded as the contributor of the two questioned hairs.' As to Storey's claim, that counsel failed to find impeachment evidence against the hair experts, counsel made a much wiser choice when she eliminated all reference to the evidence and the entire testimony of those experts. Storey has not shown that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness by eliminating all reference to sexual assault rather than conduct further testing or by impeaching the experts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390-91, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Storey has not overcome the strong presumption . . . that trial counsel was effective. . . . Tokar, 918 S.W.2d 753, 761 (Mo. banc 1996). Storey has not overcome the presumption that counsel's alleged omissions were sound trial strategy by not further testing this evidence. Id. at 766. Trial strategy is not a ground for ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93, 109 (Mo. banc 1994). Storey has not shown prejudice because he has not shown a reasonable probability that had counsel pursued further testing, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Williams, 529 U.S. at 391, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Regardless of the two hairs and all of the tests done on them, Storey is linked to this murder because he left a bloody handprint in Ms. Frey's room and his blood on a t-shirt. He also confessed to the crime. Trial counsel was effective enough to have all references to sexual assault excluded from the 1999 trial even though Ms. Frey was found naked from the waist down. Storey has not shown that the result of the proceeding would have been different had the sexual assault evidence been allowed and impeached at trial or had the mitochondrial DNA tests been conducted earlier. Id