Opinion ID: 1134803
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Issue 8: Was There Defective Legal Representation During the Trial's Penalty Phase?

Text: Pirtle relies on three arguments in his contention there was defective legal representation during the penalty phase. Two of his argumentsdefense counsel's failure to investigate and impeach the State's informants and defense counsel's improper jury instructionsare merely reassertions of errors alleged during the guilt phase. These issues, therefore, will not be reexamined. The one remaining argument not already examined is Pirtle's assertion that his counsel was ineffective by failing to introduce scientific studies about cocaine kindling. According to Pirtle, these studies would have shown how persons with a kindled brain could fly into an explosive rage. Pirtle Brief at 193. This evidence was already before the jury. Defense counsel presented evidence of the alleged effects of cocaine kindling on Pirtle during the guilt phase. Dr. Lipman, who was the last defense witness, testified extensively about kindling and his belief that Pirtle was unable to premeditate the killing because his brain had been kindled by cocaine abuse. While the studies themselves concerning the effects of cocaine kindling were excluded, Dr. Lipman was permitted to refer to these studies to support his opinions about the impact cocaine abuse may have had on Pirtle. This evidence was before the jury in the penalty phase, and defense counsel relied on it in both the guilt and penalty phase closing arguments. Counsel used this testimony to highlight how drugs and mental illness had influenced Pirtle's actions. Pirtle's challenge to counsel's performance in the penalty phase fails on several grounds. First, as noted above, counsel presented expert testimony on diminished capacity and referred to that evidence in both the guilt and penalty phases. Second, although the studies excluded from the guilt phase provide a general clinical description of cocaine kindling, they do not deal specifically with Pirtle himself and were properly excluded by the trial court. The expert was able to refer to and rely on the studies even though they were excluded. And, the jury rejected the cocaine kindling theory in the guilt phase. For counsel to take a new approach to this issue in the penalty phase cannot be said to be ineffective. Finally, these studies are not mitigating evidence. [M]itigating evidence is not defined as any evidence, regardless of its content or relevance, that would disincline the jury to impose the penalty of death. Mitigating evidence is that which in fairness and mercy, may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability. State v. Bartholomew, 101 Wash.2d 631, 647, 683 P.2d 1079 (1984) ( Bartholomew II ) (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 903 (5th rev. ed.1979)). Pirtle, 127 Wash.2d at 671, 904 P.2d 245. Descriptions of cocaine kindling do not constitute evidence sufficient to lessen Pirtle's moral culpability for the crimes he committed. Accordingly, counsel's failure to reoffer these studies during the penalty phase is not sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict or to establish his attorneys' failure to act as counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052.