Opinion ID: 2786325
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dual Defense Theories

Text: In 2006, as part of his petition for habeas relief in the federal courts, Clayton claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for arguing both that Clayton was not the murderer and that, even if Clayton did kill Deputy Castetter, Clayton’s brain injury precluded him from forming the necessary intent and deliberation. Clayton III, 2006 WL 1128803, at -8. The District Court noted that this Court had rejected this claim, in part, because this Court earlier had reached the conclusion that Clayton “did not have a good defense under either theory.” Id. at  (citing Clayton II, 63 S.W.3d at 206-07). The District Court held there was “ample evidence” to support this conclusion. Id. at . 6