Opinion ID: 2444929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Scott's Seventh Claim

Text: Next, Scott argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not appealing the trial judge's ruling that limited scope of the cross-examination of the State's psychiatric expert witness, Dr. Weiss, who testified adversely to Scott's defense of extreme emotional distress. [34] Scott contends that his counsel should have been allowed to cross-examine Dr. Weiss about testimony Dr. Weiss gave in a previous (unrelated) Pennsylvania case. In that case, Dr. Weiss testified that an accurate psychiatric evaluation can be made only if there is a trusting relationship between the therapist and the patient. Scott argues that because he and Dr. Weiss did not have a trusting relationship, Dr. Weiss could not have evaluated him accurately, and counsel should have been allowed to develop that fact in cross-examination. Scott's counsel did not err by not raising this argument on appeal. In Jones v. Barnes , the United States Supreme Court held that although a defendant has the final authority to make certain fundamental decisions such as whether to plead guilty or to take an appeal, the defendant does not have a constitutional right to compel his counsel to raise issues that counsel, in exercising his own independent and professional strategic judgment, decides not to present. [35] Scott's counsel stated in his affidavit that he did not argue this issue because [he] did not believe that there was any chance that [this Court] would reverse based on the circumstances of the ruling. Moreover, Scott's trial counsel did, in fact, cross-examine Dr. Weiss on the underlying issue of whether an accurate evaluation required a patient to trust the psychiatrist. Dr. Weiss' response was that in Scott's case, that trust was not required. Scott's appellate counsel did not perform deficiently by choosing not to raise this particular argument on direct appeal, nor has Scott demonstrated actual prejudice. The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion by denying Scott's claim.