Opinion ID: 1770262
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to investigate Bouchard's mental stability

Text: Appellant finally argues that Rather's failure to investigate Bouchard's potential mental illness constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant argues that if Rather had investigated and discovered the severe depression Bouchard was apparently suffering from, he could have used that in cross examination to discredit Bouchard's testimony. Dr. Wagner at the evidentiary hearing testified that the type of depression he believed Bouchard suffered from could cause him to misperceive events and circumstances and to distort both current and past events. However, the trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected this argument and so do we. Before trial Rather had access to an examination of Bouchard performed by Dr. Blouse. Dr. Blouse concluded that Bouchard had no mental illnesses and that Bouchard was faking his problems. Rather decided not to investigate Bouchard's mental state any further because he wanted Bouchard to be seen as capable of being the leader of the murder plot. He feared that if Bouchard were believed to be incompetent, the blame would fall solely on Appellant, since she was the only other person present at the murder. In this regard, Rather gave his best effort to strongly cross-examine Bouchard in an attempt to bolster his client's defense. Considering all of the facts in play  including Appellant telling Rather facts that were not terribly inconsistent with those testified to by Bouchard  we cannot say that Rather's strategy was deficient or fell below the prevailing professional standards. The trial court and Court of Appeals correctly gave Rather's trial strategy the deference it deserved and on this issue we concur.