Opinion ID: 6330957
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Residual Doubt” Evidence at Sentencing

Text: Burns argues that his trial counsel could have introduced evidence that Burns did not actually fire a shot that hit Dawson. This would support his contention that, had that been presented (or available) at sentencing, it would have made the jury less likely to sentence him to death, rather than to life in prison. The State responds that this issue was not included in the Nos. 11-5214/14-6089 Burns v. Mays Page 6 COA and thus is not reviewable in this appeal. Burns’s brief on appeal, which is no model of clarity, allows two possible constructions. Under one, Burns points to his counsel’s failure to present evidence during the guilt phase that Burns’s shot did not hit Dawson (notwithstanding the felony murder convictions) and attributes to that failure (i.e., that absence of evidence) his sentencing counsel’s inability to argue a lesser culpability theory at sentencing. That is not a claim of ineffective assistance during the sentencing phase, and it is not within the COA. Under the other construction, Burns claims that his counsel should have introduced evidence at sentencing (despite its absence from the guilt phase) that, contrary to the jury’s verdict, Burns did not actually shoot Dawson. This is commonly referred to as “residual doubt” evidence and this claim necessarily fails because Burns has no constitutional right to present residual doubt evidence at sentencing. Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517, 525 (2006). It is true that a state’s death penalty statute must permit the defendant to introduce mitigating factors, including “consideration of a defendant’s comparatively minor role in the offense[] or age.” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 608 (1978). But the Supreme Court has also made it clear that it “ha[s] not interpreted the Eighth Amendment as providing a capital defendant the right to introduce at sentencing evidence designed to cast ‘residual doubt’ on his guilt of the basic crime of conviction.” Guzek, 546 U.S. at 525. The antecedent question, therefore, is whether this evidence—had his counsel attempted to introduce it at sentencing—would have been residual-doubt evidence. Clearly, it would have been. Burns himself, in his briefing here, frames his argument as one that addresses his guilt rather than a mitigating factor: “It was an unreasonable application of clearly established law to conclude that, had Burns’s attorneys cast doubt on whether he killed Dawson and shot Thomas, this would not have influenced the jury’s sentencing decision.” Evidence offered to undermine the prosecution’s case, which led to the conviction, is the essence of residual-doubt evidence and the Court has never established that a capital defendant such as Burns has a constitutional right to introduce such evidence at sentencing. Guzek, 546 U.S. at 525. Because the Court has never established such a right, counsel did not err by failing to pursue the introduction of that residual-doubt evidence at sentencing, and Burns cannot Nos. 11-5214/14-6089 Burns v. Mays Page 7 demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel in this respect. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 692 (1984) (defining ineffective assistance of counsel as a showing that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and that the “deficiencies in counsel’s performance [were] prejudicial to the defense”). B. Cross Examination and Background Evidence at Sentencing Burns’s other claims of ineffective assistance are that his counsel, at sentencing, failed to appropriately cross-examine certain witnesses, failed to call certain other witnesses, and failed to present evidence that accurately showed Burns’s background. Burns’s specific arguments regarding the witnesses are that his counsel: (1) should have impeached Thomas’s identification of Burns as one of the shooters; (2) should not have questioned Mary Jones, a witness to the murders, in a way that led her to identify Burns, but once she made that identification, should have impeached her testimony; and (3) should have called additional witnesses to rebut Jones’s identification of Burns as the shooter. As we have already explained, if these accusations are directed to counsel’s conduct during the guilt phase, then they are not included in the COA. And if these accusations are directed at counsel’s conduct during sentencing, the substance of that conduct clearly goes to guilt rather than mitigation and is therefore residual-doubt evidence, which the capital defendant has no constitutional right to present at sentencing. Burns’s last claim of ineffective assistance does sound in mitigation: that his sentencing counsel failed to adequately investigate his background or present an accurate portrayal of him to the jury, including the many hardships he suffered and overcame. But the record reflects that counsel did investigate and was told by Burns’s parents that Burns had a normal childhood. Also, some witnesses whom counsel wanted to call were told by Burns’s mother not to testify. Therefore, the information relayed to counsel from Burns’s parents told a different story from the one Burns presents today. A fair reading of the record shows that Burns’s sentencing counsel did “a fair amount of investigation in preparation for the mitigation phase.” West v. Bell, 550 F.3d 542, 555 (6th Cir. 2008). Counsel met with Burns’s mother and father on several occasions and talked to Burns’s parents about his background, his family history, any problems he had as a child, and his Nos. 11-5214/14-6089 Burns v. Mays Page 8 education.1 Counsel hired a private investigator to find supporting witnesses, evaluate them, and persuade them to testify on behalf of Burns. And, after Burns’s mother prevented other family members from assisting counsel’s investigation, counsel procured mitigation witnesses from the jail where Burns was held. The result was that counsel’s investigation did not uncover anything that “should have prompted further investigation.” Jackson v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., 622 F. App’x 457, 464 (6th Cir. 2015). Burns’s parents did not say anything to counsel that suggested a traumatic childhood or that problems during Burns’s childhood influenced his actions. In fact, the evidence obtained suggested the opposite: Burns was an honor roll student; he was involved in church; and the mental health report revealed no mental health issues.2 To be sure, during post-conviction proceedings, it was revealed that Burns’s father had a second family. But sentencing counsel already knew that Burns’s father had a second family and counsel did not think that fact required further investigation because Burns’s mother exercised more influence and control over Burns than did his father, who, according to sentencing counsel, had little influence over Burns. Under Strickland, we defer to informed decisions such as the one sentencing counsel made here. 466 U.S. at 691. Burns’s counsel was also concerned about opening the door for the State to introduce evidence about Burns’s criminal history.3 This limited the background information that counsel At the post-conviction hearing, Burns’s mother testified that she met with counsel on several 1 occasions, but she could not recall whether they discussed Burns’s family history or background. 2 At the post-conviction hearing, Burns’s counsel testified that in capital cases, mental health reports typically include an accompanying letter that indicates whether the defendant suffers from a mental illness. If it is determined that the defendant suffers from a mental illness, the letter will indicate that, even if the mental health report finds the defendant competent to stand trial. Here, the mental health report found Burns competent to stand trial, and the accompanying letter did not indicate that Burns suffered from mental illness caused by past trauma. 3 Counsel’s concern proved prescient. During the sentencing phase, counsel called Phillip Carter, Burns’s brother, as a character witness who testified regarding his relationship with Burns, Burns’s religious devotion, and his general character. The State approached the bench, asking to introduce evidence about Burns’s criminal history to impeach Carter’s credibility. After deliberations with the judge outside the jury’s presence, Burns’s counsel, to avoid opening the door for the State to present damaging evidence of Burns’s criminal history to the jury, agreed not to present further testimony about Burns’s general good character. Nos. 11-5214/14-6089 Burns v. Mays Page 9 could introduce without risking the State’s providing character witnesses who could be harmful to Burns’s case. Burns’s counsel instead adopted a strategy of focusing on Burns’s religious background and other signs of good character. Burns, 979 S.W.2d at 279. In conducting this assessment, with “a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments,” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, we must recognize that Burns’s criminal history was not meager—it included multiple arrests for burglary and illegal gun possession, multiple charges for burglary and theft, and a theft conviction, all of which occurred after Burns turned 18. Counsel’s deliberate decision not to pursue further investigation to prevent introduction of this damaging evidence is a legitimate, reasonable, and well-recognized strategy. See Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 186–87 (1986); Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 794 (1987) (counsel need not “mount an all-out investigation into petitioner’s background” if supported “by reasonable professional judgment”). Hence, a difference of opinion regarding which approach would have been the better strategy at sentencing is not sufficient to support an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. “Because advocacy is an art and not a science, and because the adversary system requires deference to counsel’s informed decisions, strategic choices must be respected in these circumstances if they are based on professional judgment.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 681. Moreover, “[c]ounsel’s actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on information supplied by the defendant.” Id. at 691. Finally, Burns argues that sentencing counsel should have completed a more thorough investigation to develop mitigation evidence. But this ignores the fact that Burns’s mother limited the extent of counsel’s investigation by preventing family members and friends from assisting that investigation. In fact, she made herself such an obstacle to the investigation that counsel had to resort to procuring mitigation witnesses from the jail where Burns was held. Counsel was far from unreasonable—and, in fact, was commendably diligent—considering Burn’s mother’s interference with the investigation. All told, Burns’s sentencing counsel was not objectively unreasonable in how they conducted the mitigation investigation or in their strategic decision not to pursue a narrative that Nos. 11-5214/14-6089 Burns v. Mays Page 10 risked opening the door to character evidence that counsel believed could have harmed Burns in the eyes of the jury. Therefore, Burns cannot demonstrate ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel.