Opinion ID: 222088
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Call Dr. David to Testify

Text: The district court denied on the merits Greenway's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call Dr. David to testify. We agree that counsel's performance was not ineffective. Greenway's counsel initially intended to call Dr. David to testify at the sentencing hearing, and counsel asked the trial court to exclude incriminating statements Greenway made to Dr. David about the murders. When the trial court declined to limit the cross-examination of Dr. David, defense counsel decided not to call him. This was a reasonable strategic decision. In his interview with Dr. David, Greenway told Dr. David that he and his co-defendant were discussing committing a burglary in the weeks leading up to the murders because they were out of work and needed money. Greenway admitted that he shot the victims in the head, execution-style. He also described the murders as a big adventure, and that he felt like he was the master. Had Dr. David testified, the state would have cross-examined him about these inculpatory statements, and such testimony would have been highly prejudicial to the defense. Our precedent has repeatedly recognized similar decisions as being a reasonable strategy. See Wong v. Belmontes, ___ U.S. ____, 130 S.Ct. 383, 386, 175 L.Ed.2d 328 (2009) ([I]t is necessary to consider all the relevant evidence that the jury would have had before it if [defendant] had pursued the different path  not just the mitigation evidence [defendant] could have presented, but also the... murder evidence that almost certainly would have come in with it.) (emphasis in original); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 834 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that it was reasonable for defense counsel to forego expert testimony because it would have opened the door to precisely the type of cross-examination that [defendant] sought to avoid by refusing to call psychiatric experts). Moreover, Dr. David's testimony would not have added much to Greenway's case. Defense counsel proffered that, [Dr. David] would testify that in his opinion ... [Greenway had] a low I.Q., that [Greenway] had developed an immature personality, [but that] Mr. Greenway[did] not fit within any kind of characterlogical [sic] disorder ... such as a psychopath or sociopath. He went on to say that Dr. David would agree with Dr. Saslow that Greenway was functioning at an 11-or 12-year-old level, and would testify that Greenway could be rehabilitated. Thus, much of Dr. David's potential testimony would have been cumulative of the testimony provided by Dr. Saslow, while the drawbacks of calling Dr. David were substantial. Defense counsel was therefore not ineffective by his strategic decision not to call Dr. David. See also Raley v. Ylst, 470 F.3d 792, 801 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that a strategic choice not to call an expert will not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if that choice was reasonable under the circumstances).