Opinion ID: 1090851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Failure to Discover Impeachment Evidence

Text: ¶ 117. Russell argues that [t]here was a large amount of evidence that was available to impeach the State's witnesses, yet defense counsel failed to investigate and find this evidence, let alone use it at trial. Russell specifically states that defense counsel should have impeached Smith with Russell's statement to MHP Officer Rogers concerning Smith's connection to Officer Cotton. Russell also states that defense counsel should have impeached Smith with his letter stating his bizarre view that Officer Cotton's stabbing was related to the KKK. This may have been helpful except that Smith's version of the stabbing varied little from the version provided by Russell in his trial testimony, and Russell now asks us to find Smith a credible witness pursuant to his recantation of his trial testimony found in his unsworn statements. ¶ 118. Russell also makes the same general statements about Christopher Womber and Officer Lee but suggests no specific impeachment evidence. Since it appears that Womber has also partially recanted his trial testimony via affidavit, we must also now find him credible, according to Russell.
¶ 119. Russell states that he was incompetent and defense counsel was ineffective for failure to properly deal with this issue. Russell cites as evidence of this an overdose of some kind of medication Russell took during trial. On October 4, 1990, before any testimony was given on that day, Russell told the circuit judge that he had taken something like an overdose of medication and it has gotten me very drowsy. Russell said he had taken nineteen of some kind of pill the night before, he had been to the hospital that morning and the doctor said he was all right this morning. The circuit judge questioned Officer Radford, who was responsible for moving Russell to and from the court. Officer Radford gave a summary of what the doctors who had examined Russell had done and found. The circuit court then informed Russell that the trial would proceed. After the noon recess, Russell took the stand in his defense. The next day the circuit court stated as to the Russell's conduct the previous day that he had stayed awake throughout the trial and appeared to be coherent and able to assist in the same degree that he had assisted at all other times and was certainly responsive to questions while he was on the stand. Defense counsel Stuckey stated that Russell was drowsy in the morning on the day in question but later in the day they had a thorough discussion of Russell's decision to testify. ¶ 120. Russell states that defense counsel should have spoken for Russell, instead of having him speak; they should not have taken the word of Officer Radford as to what the doctors who examined Russell after the overdose had found; other doctors who had examined him had found some inclination for suicide; and Russell was under pressure and was depressed at the time. ¶ 121. Russell quotes both Dr. Gilbert McVaugh, a psychologist, and Dr. Charlton Stanley, a psychologist, as to comments made on Russell's suicide risk. The significance of these findings or comments is questionable, as both Dr. McVaugh and Dr. Stanley found Russell competent to stand trial. ¶ 122. Russell argues that defense counsel should have secured the assistance of an independent expert to determine Russell's state of mind. It is not clear whether Russell is referring to the day after he took the overdose or before the trial in general. While the circuit court could actually have consulted with the medical personnel that treated Russell after his overdose, or at least postponed Russell's testimony until the next day, in light of the record made of the events of that day, we cannot say defense counsel was ineffective for failing to demand some additional competency examination during the trial. ¶ 123. Russell cites Bouchillon v. Collins, 907 F.2d 589 (5th Cir.1990), where defense counsel allowed Bouchillon to plead guilty without having him examined by any kind of mental health professional even though he knew that Bouchillon was a combat veteran with a long history of mental problems and substance abuse. Russell's case can be distinguished on its facts. Russell was examined and declared competent before his trial. This issue is without merit.
¶ 124. Russell makes a general argument that defense counsel failed to prepare, file and present various motions that were critical to the defense. As for specific motions, Russell states that this is the subject of greater discussion below.