Opinion ID: 3052221
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Call a Psychiatrist

Text: Brown’s defense counsel knew that the lithium issue would be an important part of their case, and their expert witness, Dr. Maiuro, a psychologist, advised them that he was not qualified to testify about lithium. He recommended that they retain a psychiatrist who was. Nevertheless, Brown’s lawyers not only failed to obtain the services of a psychiatrist to testify as an expert at the penalty phase, they never even consulted one. This failure was objectively unreasonable under thenapplicable prevailing professional norms. According to the ABA Guidelines at the time of trial, in preparation for the penalty phase, counsel should consider, BROWN v. UTTECHT 7619 “expert witnesses to provide medical, psychological, sociological or other explanations for the offense(s) for which the client is being sentenced, to give a favorable opinion as to the client’s capacity for rehabilitation, etc. and/or to rebut expert testimony presented by the prosecutor.”1 Defense counsel’s primary mitigation argument at the penalty phase was that Brown suffered from a mood disorder for which he did not receive adequate medical treatment—treatment that could have lessened his symptoms and improved his impulse control. The testimony of a psychiatrist was necessary to show that Brown’s disorder could have been effectively managed medically and to rebut the testimony of Dr. Brinkley that Brown did not suffer from a mood disorder for which lithium was appropriate. Counsel was on notice that a psychiatrist would be needed to testify about the proper medical treatment of Brown’s disorder. Lin Marie Hupp, one of Brown’s attorneys, testified at the evidentiary hearing that defense counsel understood the importance of the lithium issues because “[h]aving something that is physiologically based is sometimes easier for jurors to understand . . . that you can give somebody a pill for and fix them is sometimes easier for jurors to understand than just . . . the person is a bad person.” Hupp’s testimony demonstrates that the lawyers understood that if they showed that Brown’s disorder could be medically treated, it would enable the jurors to comprehend the seriousness of the disorder, understand that it contributed to his conduct, and thus recognize its mitigating effect. Additionally, William Schipp, the staff social worker, explained to Brown’s attorneys the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists, so they understood that Dr. Maiuro, a psychologist, would be unable to testify about the proper medical treatment of Brown’s disorder. Moreover, Dr. Maiuro personally advised the defense that he was unable to 1 American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, 11.41(C) (1989), http:// www.abanet/org/deathpenalty/resources/docs/1989Guidelines.pdf. 7620 BROWN v. UTTECHT testify about medical matters, recommended that they consult a psychiatrist, and gave them referrals. Perhaps the best evidence that defense counsel understood that it was crucial for them to hire an expert psychiatrist is the fact that they attempted to do so when, after receiving Dr. Maiuro’s advice, they contacted Dr. Brinkley and tried to enlist his services. At the evidentiary hearing, none of the defense attorneys offered a reason for their failure to seek a psychiatrist either months before trial or after Dr. Brinkley informed them that he was unavailable because he was testifying for the State. Kern Cleven testified that he and his colleagues knew about Brown’s mood disorder six to eight months before trial and that “we were aware that we would like to have another kind of an expert . . . a psychiatrist.” When Cleven was asked why they did not contact one, he said: “I can’t for the life of me think of why it was that late in the game and we didn’t have a psychiatrist on board yet. I wish I could provide you with a reason why that was, I just can’t.” He also recalled that there was no impediment to contacting another psychiatrist to testify once they knew that Dr. Brinkley was unavailable. Terry Lee Mulligan testified that he did not recall there being “a specific decision made” or “conversations about” consulting any other psychiatrists. Given the overwhelming evidence that defense counsel knew that it was necessary to consult a psychiatrist and present his expert testimony in order to establish that Brown had a disorder that could and should have been treated with lithium, and given that counsel can offer no reason why they failed to consult and present the testimony of a psychiatrist, I would hold that counsel’s failure to retain such an expert was unreasonable under existing professional norms at the time and thus amounted to deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The majority suggests strategic justifications for defense counsel’s decision not to present the testimony of a psychiaBROWN v. UTTECHT 7621 trist at the penalty phase. Although we are highly deferential to counsel’s strategic decisions at trial, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, counsel did not advance at the evidentiary hearing any of the explanations the majority gives for their failures. When counsel is unable to provide us with strategic reasons for trial decisions, we are not permitted to engage in “post hoc rationalization.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 526-27 (2003). Instead, we must evaluate counsel’s performance by the standard established in Strickland—“reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. Because there is no reasonable explanation for counsel’s failure to consult and retain a psychiatrist, the majority’s attempted rationalizations are unavailing. The majority claims that defense counsel decided that they would hire a psychologist instead of a psychiatrist because “a psychiatric evaluation wouldn’t provide as much useful information as a psychological evaluation.” Maj. Op. at 7607. This is a puzzling conclusion given that defense counsel knew well in advance of trial that Brown’s medical treatment for his mental illness would be a critical mitigation issue and a psychologist would not be qualified to testify on that subject. Moreover, at the habeas corpus evidentiary hearing, Schipp testified that initially defense counsel decided to pursue a psychological evaluation for the reason cited by the majority. However, he offered no explanation as to why, after psychological testing showed that Brown had a mental disorder that could be treated with lithium, counsel did not consult a psychiatrist. At that point, all of the psychological tests in the world could not have produced the one “useful” piece of evidence that was necessary—expert testimony that Brown’s disorder could and should be treated with lithium. Additionally, the fact that defense counsel attempted to hire Dr. Brinkley belies the explanation that they did not believe a psychiatrist would be useful. Nor, as the majority suggests, did Brown’s defense counsel decide not to seek an expert psychiatrist in order to avoid a 7622 BROWN v. UTTECHT continuance. Maj. Op. at 7609. None of Brown’s lawyers testified that seeking another psychiatrist would have required a continuance; indeed the first time this explanation was offered was in the State’s appellate brief—unsurprisingly with no citation to the record.2 Moreover, no one suggests any reason why seeking another psychiatrist would have required a continuance. Defense counsel sought to obtain Dr. Brinkley’s services for the penalty phase on the first day of the guilt phase proceeding. Either they believed that they could hire Dr. Brinkley at that time to testify as an expert witness without creating a need for a continuance, or they believed that the testimony of an expert psychiatrist was more important than the timing of the penalty phase. If it was the latter, then failing to contact another psychiatrist after Dr. Brinkley advised them of his unavailability was obviously unreasonable. If it was the former, there is no reason why a different psychiatrist would have required more time than Dr. Brinkley. In that case, no continuance would have been necessary at all had they acted promptly. In any event, the psychiatrist whose services defense counsel obtained would not have had to testify until the penalty phase. Counsel could have contacted a different psychiatrist on the same day that Dr. Brinkley refused and that psychiatrist would have had just as much time to prepare his testimony as Dr. Brinkley. Nothing about Dr. Brinkley’s refusal of the request to serve as a defense witness raised any question as to the need for a psychiatrist or as to the merits of the mitigation argument. He simply advised counsel that he was unavailable because he had been hired by the prosecution. This should, if anything, have made it even more obvious that the defense needed a psychiatrist of its own. Even had defense counsel believed that they would have been required to seek a continuance, this belief was not sup- 2 Defense counsel considered seeking a continuance for unrelated reasons at one point during the trial, but the decision to obtain Dr. Brinkley’s services (or those of some other psychiatrist) did not prompt them to consider one. BROWN v. UTTECHT 7623 ported by any inquiry on their part. According to Schipp, defense counsel did not request him to contact any other psychiatrists to ask whether they could be ready in time. Mulligan also testified that his records indicated no further attempt to contact any psychiatrist after he learned that Dr. Brinkley was unavailable, although Dr. Maiuro testified that he probably recommended a few psychiatrists to defense counsel. Dr. Maiuro also stated that the defense did not contact him for additional referrals. The testimony shows that defense counsel abandoned their search for a psychiatrist after their first call to Dr. Brinkley failed, and that they did not inquire into whether another psychiatrist would be available or whether there would have been a need for a continuance. “[S]trategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691. Although the evidence overwhelmingly shows that defense counsel’s failure to hire a psychiatrist was not due to their desire to avoid a continuance, even if that had been their explanation, it would have been unreasonable. The majority argues that the defense wanted the jury to deliberate over the Christmas holiday and wanted to give the State less time for penalty phase preparation. Maj. Op. at 7609. As a preliminary matter, Cleven’s testimony reveals that these were minor concerns at most. He testified that the Christmas holiday was “a silly point” and “not a major consideration for us.” He also admitted that “there was nothing remotely scientific” about the speculation that the jury might be more merciful over the Christmas holiday and there were no “focus groups or trial jurors or anything else” that supported any such thesis. If the Christmas holiday were a major consideration, which it was not, the defense’s armchair juror psychology would not be entitled to deference because it was not the result of proper investigation. Additionally, Cleven testified that he did not think that giving the State more time to prepare was “much of a consideration.” 7624 BROWN v. UTTECHT The majority also claims that defense counsel did not call another psychiatrist because they feared that he would render an unfavorable opinion and did not want to take the risk that they would be compelled to turn over a damaging report to the State. Maj. Op. at 7608-09. Not only is that argument unsupported by the record because no defense attorney testified that fear of an unfavorable report was the reason for their decision, but it is also nonsensical given that the lawyers actually attempted to hire Dr. Brinkley. The majority does not explain why counsel would try to hire Dr. Brinkley with no concern that he would render an unfavorable opinion, but, after he informed them that the State had hired him, would suddenly develop fears of a damaging diagnosis and elect not to contact another psychiatrist. Moreover, the record shows that defense counsel had a policy not to obtain a written report from their experts precisely in order to avoid such unwanted discovery and potential impeachment on cross-examination. That policy is a far more reasonable (and constitutional) way of handling the risk of potentially unfavorable written opinions from experts than simply avoiding experts altogther. In short, the decision not to call a psychiatrist was not the result of reasoned strategic decisions, no matter how many illogical post-hoc rationalizations the State and the majority may advance. See Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 526-27 (“The ‘strategic decision’ the state courts and respondents all invoke to justify counsel’s limited pursuit of mitigating evidence resembles more a post-hoc rationalization of counsel’s conduct than an accurate description of their deliberations prior to sentencing.”) Defense counsel’s failure to call an expert in psychiatry was, as the Supreme Court once put it, “the result of inattention, not reasoned strategic judgment.” Id. at 534. Consequently, I would hold that Brown’s defense attorneys’ performance was deficient in this respect. I would also hold that Brown was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance. The lack of expert testimony from a psychiatrist had a devastating impact on Brown’s mitigation BROWN v. UTTECHT 7625 efforts at the penalty phase. In the defense’s opening statement, Cleven told the jurors that Dr. Maiuro would explain to them how Brown’s disorder was “not properly diagnosed or properly treated.” However, after the State’s highly damaging cross-examination of Dr. Maiuro, and the testimony of Dr. Brinkley, in which he testified that Brown did not have a mental disorder that required lithium treatment, and without an expert psychiatrist of his own, Mulligan had no choice but to concede in his closing argument that the defense had not shown that Brown should have been treated with lithium, the only treatment it had suggested. Moreover, during his closing argument, the prosecutor was able to undermine Dr. Maiuro’s testimony by arguing: Dr. Maiuro really didn’t have enough information to be able to talk about whether the defendant should or should not have been on lithium . . . Dr. Maiuro is not a medical doctor, so he does not prescribe lithium to people. He does not have to make the medical analysis of whether lithium is appropriate. That’s not part of his role as a psychologist. So he was kind of out on a limb in that part of his testimony. And I think you recognized that once you heard from Dr. Brinkley. Dr. Scher’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing in the habeas proceeding demonstrates how helpful a properly qualified psychiatrist would have been for the defense: such a witness would have corroborated Dr. Maiuro’s testimony that Brown suffered from a serious mood disorder and rebutted Dr. Brinkley’s conclusions regarding lithium. As to the first, Dr. Scher testified that based on her personal interview of Brown and review of his records, Brown suffered from bipolar disorder. She also testified that Schick and Dr. Maiuro’s diagnoses of Brown as manic were consistent with her diagnosis. As to the second, Dr. Scher testified that if Brown had been taking lithium prior to the murder, it “would have con7626 BROWN v. UTTECHT trolled the degree of impulsivity and the amount of stimulation he had.” Dr. Scher testified that it was her opinion that if Brown had been on lithium and properly treated, he would have been “less likely” to have committed the murder. Dr. Scher’s testimony also could have been used to impeach Dr. Brinkley because she testified that psychiatrists are supposed to do a personal interview before making a diagnosis and noted that Dr. Brinkley had failed to do so. Dr. Scher also testified that Dr. Brinkley unreasonably dismissed the fact that prior treatment providers had diagnosed Brown as manic depressive.3 The majority argues that defense testimony by an expert psychiatrist would not have significantly changed the mitigation case because Dr. Brinkley’s testimony did not undermine the defense’s central theory and did not directly contradict Dr. Mauiro’s diagnosis. Maj. Op. at 7608. As explained above, however, this is simply not correct. Dr. Brinkley’s unchallenged testimony cast doubt over the entire mental illness argument by undermining Dr. Mauiro’s diagnosis and eliminating from consideration the lithium issue, which was the most tangible way for the jury to understand the magnitude of Brown’s illness. Dr. Brinkley did not have to contradict Dr. Mauiro’s diagnosis directly or challenge any of the testimony about Brown’s family background: the doubts he raised about Brown’s mental disorder and his undisputed testimony about lithium were enough to devastate the mitigation theory. In this case, defense counsel’s failure to call a psychiatrist left the jury with no opportunity to consider the role that med- 3 We need not belabor the point that the majority raises of whether Dr. Brinkley was more qualified than Dr. Scher because we have no way of knowing which psychiatrist defense counsel would have found. Maj. Op. at 7610. Even if Dr. Brinkley had a longer curriculum vitae than the defense’s psychiatrist, the fact that the defense expert would have interviewed Brown would have more than made up for whatever credential deficit there may have been. BROWN v. UTTECHT 7627 ical treatment with lithium could have played in controlling Brown’s behavior, nor did the jurors hear any contradiction of Dr. Brinkley’s devastating testimony that Brown did not have any disorder that could be treated with lithium. There is a reasonable probability that, had the jury heard the testimony of a psychiatrist, like Dr. Scher, who would have testified that Brown did have a mental disorder and that lithium treatment would have made him less likely to commit the crime with which he was charged, at least one juror would have concluded that Brown’s treatable disorder was a mitigating circumstance that warranted a life sentence rather than death under Washington law.