Opinion ID: 2323099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Charles S. Cash

Text: Cash was a Houston Police Department Officer who specialized in the investigation of Asian gangs and organized crime. He investigated and later arrested Swan for the Agama Systems robbery. When Cash entered Swan's apartment to make that arrest, he found Swan with a .9 millimeter on a nearby table, a .9 millimeter between his legs, and a shotgun nearby. He also found a .38 Derringer in a nearby bathroom, as well as several boxes of ammunition. Cash testified that Swan pled guilty to aggravated robbery.
The defense called the following seven witnesses in the penalty phase of Swan's trial: (1) Rodney Feazell, (2) Alvin Hudson, (3) Ralph Tucker, (4) Susan Tucker, (5) Karen Faye Eaton, (6) Jennifer Fenimore, and (7) Catherine Tucker. Each witness's testimony is summarized below.
Feazell was a Probation and Parole Officer for the Delaware Department of Corrections. Feazell supervised Swan in 1996 after Swan was transferred from Texas. Feazell testified that Swan had no disciplinary or adjustment problems under his supervision. But, on cross-examination, the State showed that Swan had violated the conditions of his supervision with impunity on several occasions.
Hudson was a Corrections Officer at the Sussex Correctional Institution in Georgetown, Delaware. Hudson worked in the maximum security housing unit where Swan resided, and testified that he had supervised Swan for the past year. Hudson described Swan as follows: [S]ince he's been there, he's pretty much been to hi[m]self, doesn't really socialize with a lot of people. He's quiet. Never hear nothing from him. Hudson testified that Swan was employed as a tier janitor. Hudson explained that prisoners could only obtain that job if they did not require supervision and that Swan always fit that description.
Swan's father, Ralph Tucker, testified that he and Swan's mother, Patricia Swan, were approximately seventeen years old when she gave birth to Swan. They were not married. Tucker testified that Swan lived with his maternal grandmother and Patricia during his early years and that he spent every other weekend with Swan. Tucker described Patricia Swan as a little wild. Tucker recalled that Patricia Swan would leave [Swan] in the car a lot and unattended, going in other people's houses and stuff with her friends and partying. Tucker also recalled that Ralph Swan told him that one of his mother's boyfriends abused Swan: the man [l]ocked [Swan] in closets and stuff like that there while they partied with the rest of their friends. Tucker testified that Patricia Swan disappeared with Ralph Swan when Ralph was approximately eleven or twelve years old. Tucker had no contact with Swan for the next thirteen years, until he made arrangements for Swan to return to his home in Delaware. Tucker testified that he and his wife, Cathy, as well as their sons, Joshua and Corey, would continue to visit and communicate with Swan if he received a life sentence. But, if Swan was executed, the impact on the family would be devastating.
Swan's aunt (Ralph Tucker's sister), Susan Tucker, testified that if Swan was permitted to live, he could absolutely have a positive impact on his family. Susan Tucker also testified that if Swan was executed, it would put her in grave danger, as she suffered from multiple sclerosis. Susan Tucker testified that the family would experience that void again, as they had when Swan disappeared with his mother.
Swan's other aunt (also Ralph Tucker's sister), Karen Faye Eaton, also testified. Eaton vaguely recalled how Swan's mother treated him: His mother had some issues. She wasshe took him places where we didn't know where he was. We weren't always sure where he would be. Eaton testified that she visited Swan and communicated with Swan by letter. Eaton testified: He's my Bible study partner. He's my coach, my counselor. He ... helps me build my faith. He keeps me strong. Eaton also testified that Swan had told her that he started a Bible study group in prison. Eaton testified that she could not imagine the impact that Swan's execution would have on her and Swan's family.
Swan's cousin, Jennifer Fenimore, testified that she corresponded with Swan by letter. Fenimore also testified that she believed that Swan would have a positive impact on her and Swan's family if he was not executed. Fenimore stated: I would like to see him live.
Swan's stepmother (Ralph Tucker's wife), Catherine Tucker, also testified. Catherine Tucker testified that she knew Swan for one year before he disappeared with his mother. Catherine Tucker recalled that Swan was very sweet and never wanted to go home when he was with us and that Swan lived in her house when he moved back to Delaware after his prison term in Texas. Catherine Tucker also testified that since Swan was incarcerated for Warren's murder she and her husband visited Swan just about every weekend and also communicated with Swan by phone and letter. Catherine Tucker also described a change in Swan that she noticed since his imprisonment: He's very spiritual. He's helped many people [in prison]. He has his own congregation there now. Catherine Tucker testified that her family would be devastated if Swan was executed and that Swan's grandmother can't even talk about it without breaking down. Catherine Tucker also read a letter that Swan had sent her for Mother's Day: Hey. Thought you might like something for Mother's Day. God has opened my eyes to many things through all of this. One of them is that you visit me in prison. You're kind. You're understanding. You're supportive. You give me good advice. You stood firm by my side when I gave up and pushed you away. What I'm trying to say [is that] in my eyes and in my heart, you are my mom. I see a little of God's plan for removing the one that I had from my life. God has changed my life and by doing that he has changed your life and everyone around me too. I hope that one day you will love Him and take Him as serious as I do. God bless. Happy Mother's Day, Mom.
The trial judge then instructed the jury on the law that applied in the penalty phase of Swan's trial. Thereafter, the State gave its closing statement. The State asked the jury to consider the following circumstances as aggravating: (1) the impact of Warren's murder on his family and friends, (2) Warren was defenseless, (3) the murder was committed without provocation, (4) Warren was murdered in front of his wife and son, (5) the murder was vicious, brutal, and random, (6) Swan had a prior violent criminal history, (7) Swan did not show any remorse, and (8) Swan posed a danger to society. The defense then gave its closing statement, focusing on residual doubt and explaining that Swan did not show remorse because he did not commit the crime. The defense also discussed Swan's childhood: Swan was raised in an abusive home, no positive role model, and he was abandoned as a teenager.... We could never imagine being locked in [a] closet while your mother or your father were outside drinking and partying.... The defense also stated that Swan had proven to be a model prisoner. The State then presented a rebuttal closing statement, and the jury was dismissed to deliberate. Approximately three hours later, the jury returned, recommending by a vote of seven to five to impose the death penalty.
In his sentencing opinion, the trial judge first explained that the Delaware capital punishment statute provided that Swan would be eligible for capital punishment if at least one of twenty-two statutory aggravating circumstances was established beyond a reasonable doubt. [6] The trial judge found that one of those statutory aggravating circumstances was present in Swan's casethat the murder was committed while Swan was engaged in the commission of a robbery or burglary. [7] The trial judge then stated that he would impose the death sentence if he found by a preponderance of the evidence, after weighing all of the relevant evidence in aggravation or mitigation, that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. [8] The trial judge explained that under Delaware law the jury's role was only to submit a recommendation, but that the statute required the judge to consider the jury's recommendations in arriving at the sentencing decision. [9] The trial judge stated that the jury's sentencing recommendations were an important factor in his final decision. The trial judge then recounted the relevant facts, emphasizing the brutal and senseless nature of Kenneth Warren's murder: The home is a place of safety and security. It is a place where ordinary people should be able to enjoy ordinary things without fear of harm from intruders. The trial judge concluded that [t]he deadly intrusion of Norcross and Swan into the home and family of Kenneth Warren [wa]s an aggravating factor of the first magnitude.... This already weighty factor becomes heavier still when one understands that this is not a case where burglars unexpectedly found someone at home. The defendants wore masks and carried pistols in obvious anticipation of encountering persons. The trial judge did not view the crime as a mere robbery gone bad, but rather as a ruthless act of human predation. The trial judge then focused on the testimony of Kenneth Warren's family, friends, and associates, and concluded that [t]he impact of Kenneth Warren's death on those around him [wa]s an aggravating circumstance, particularly since the defendants knew they were destroying a family when they murdered him. The trial judge found that Kenneth Warren was a well-respected member of his community, and that Kenneth Warren had great promise, given his young age and impeccable reputation. The trial judge concluded that Kenneth Warren's high regard in the community [wa]s also an aggravating factor. The trial judge next focused on Swan's criminal history, recounting the facts of the crimes for which Swan was convicted in Texas. Finding that Swan's resulting prison term in Texas did not teach him a lesson, the trial judge concluded that Swan's Texas crimes and the close proximity in time of the Warren murder to Swan's release from prison were aggravating factors. The trial judge also emphasized the significance of the items found during the search of his apartment after Warren's murder: a briefcase containing a mask, a.32-caliber revolver and ammunition. The presence of those items, the trial judge found, suggested that Swan was contemplating further criminal activity, which, the trial judge concluded, constituted an aggravating circumstance. The trial judge next explained that Swan had made no statements to the police and did not exercise his right to allocution at his penalty hearing. The trial judge found no direct evidence of remorse. The trial judge noted the testimony of Swan's co-defendant's wife, who had overheard Norcross and Swan reminiscing in a light hearted fashion about the murder with no expression of regret. The trial judge found that that lack of remorse was an aggravating factor. In sum, the trial judge found one statutory aggravating factor and identified seven non-statutory aggravating factors. The trial judge then considered the mitigating circumstances presented. The trial judge recognized that Swan was born out of wedlock, but noted that his father did not abandon him. The trial judge also recounted that although Swan was in his mother's custody, his father provided support and exercised his right to visitation. The trial judge found that Swan had a good family on his father's side. The trial judge determined that evidence of Swan's childhood was scant because his mother disappeared with him when he was eleven years old. Because of that time gap, the next information about Swan related to his arrest in Texas when he was twenty years old. The trial judge concluded that [b]ecause of this limited information, [he] [could] not conclude that Swan's upbringing was so bad as to constitute a mitigating circumstance. Focusing on Swan's relationship with his family, the trial judge next found that Swan's father, aunts and cousins were good, decent people who were deeply affected by his circumstances. The trial judge found that Swan had maintained contact with his family and that his relationship with them was one of mutual affection. The trial judge concluded that that was the good side of Ralph Swan and was a mitigating circumstance. The trial judge also found that Swan was a model prisoner both in Texas and Delaware, and concluded that Swan's ability to function well in prison and even contribute to prison welfare was a mitigating circumstance. The trial judge summarized his findings as follows: The circumstances of the crime and the criminality of [Swan] are aggravating circumstances of overwhelming weight. They are not counterbalanced... by the relationship Swan has with his father's family and his ability to function well in prison. Based on that analysis, the trial judge imposed the death sentence.
On direct appeal to this Court, Swan raised several arguments, including that the trial judge erred in allowing the State to introduce various out-of-court statements made by Norcross, and that the Delaware death penalty statute is unconstitutional. This Court did not find merit to any of Swan's arguments on direct appeal and affirmed Swan's convictions and death sentence. [10] After this Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, the United States Supreme Court denied Swan's petition for writ of certiorari. [11]
Swan moved for a new trial and for postconviction relief in the Superior Court. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction judge denied the new trial motion. Swan appealed, and this Court remanded the case for the postconviction judge to include consideration of the new trial issues along with issues raised in the postconviction motion. [12] The postconviction judge then held additional hearings over five days. We summarize the evidence that was presented in connection with Swan's new trial and postconviction motions.
The postconviction proceedings revealed that defense counsel had intended to call Regina Pineda, the DNA analyst who had authored the report that analyzed the blood samples taken from the Warren home and Kenneth's pants. Defense counsel did not speak with Pineda until after the defense's opening statement. Then, during the trial, the prosecutor told defense counsel that Pineda had told him that the report was erroneous and that he could no longer exclude Swan as a contributor. Defense counsel contacted Pineda, who explained that she could not exclude Swan as a contributor so long as one assumed that there was a third contributor to the sample. Based on that conversation, defense counsel decided not to call Pineda as a witness. At the postconviction proceedings, two witnesses testified about the DNA evidence. First, Pineda testified that her reports were not erroneous. Then, Pineda explained that she could not exclude Swan if there was a third contributor, but that the possibility of a third contributor was not scientifically supportable. Pineda further explained that even if there was a third contributor, no conclusionexculpatory or inculpatorycould be drawn. Dr. Richard Shalera forensic science specialistalso testified for Swan. Shaler agreed with Pineda that there was no scientific evidence to support the conclusion that there was a third contributor to the sample. Swan also introduced his Texas prison records from four years before the crime. Those records were not introduced at trial, even though they revealed that Swan had a preexisting left shoulder deformity that suggest[ed] previous trauma or surgical removal. At the postconviction hearing, defense counsel acknowledged that any information that would have indicated to us what caused Mr. Swan's scar on his shoulder would have been helpful. Adam Norcross also testified at the postconviction proceedings. Norcross claimed that he had committed the crimes with the help of a friend named Wayne and that Swan was not involved. Norcross stated that he used Swan's car on the evening of the murder, dropping him off at his kick boxing gym before leaving for Clayton, Delaware. Norcross testified that Wayne was injured during the crimes but was afraid to go to the hospital. Norcross recalled that Wayne appeared to be dying so Norcross pulled the car to the side of the road and shot and killed Wayne to stop his pain. Norcross denied ever having attributed the crime to Swan and stated that Matthew Howell and Bridget Phillips either lied or combined Norcross's statements with newspaper stories to supply their testimony at trial. Norcross testified that he feared that Swan would turn him in for the crime. The postconviction judge found that Norcross's testimony was not credible and that it would not have been believed by the jury or raised a reasonable doubt as to Swan's guilt. [13]
The postconviction proceedings revealed that several witnesses could have provided testimony to strengthen Swan's mitigation case. The State rebutted some of that evidence. Documentation also was introduced at the postconviction proceedings. We now summarize that evidence.
Griffin is Swan's maternal half brother; that is, Patricia Swan was both Swan's and Griffin's mother. Griffin, who is six years younger than Swan and had not seen Swan in approximately twenty years, testified that defense counsel did not contact him at the time of Swan's trial. Griffin testified about the conditions under which he and Swan grew up. Specifically, Griffin and Swan were subjected to relentless mental, verbal, and physical abuse, they were locked up in rooms ... like caged animals, and the only consistent part of their lives was merciless beatings. Griffin also testified that Swan, as Griffin's older brother, tried to protect Griffin from the beatings. Griffin recalled that Swan was once punished for that effort by being hit in the head with a cast iron skillet. Griffin recalled that Swan was asleep for a long time after that blow to the head. Griffin and Swan were subjected to sexual abuse as well, and Griffin's mother and her friends often abused drugs and alcohol in front of Griffin and Swan.
Griffin-Surratte is Swan's step-aunt. Her brother is Chuckie Griffin, the father of Charles E. Griffin, Jr. Griffin-Surratte described her brotherSwan's stepfatheras follows: He's violent. He[] does drugs even to this day. He drinks. He loves to beat women. He's a mean, mean, nasty person. Griffin-Surratte testified that Chuckie Griffin was a member of a local motorcycle gang. Griffin-Surratte described Patricia SwanSwan's motheras follows: She's mean. Mean, nasty, always liked to fight. Was not a good mother at all. According to Griffin-Surratte, Patricia Swan was a drug user and hung around members of local motorcycle gangs. Griffin-Surratte recalled that she would often visit the apartment shared by Chuckie Griffin, Patricia Swan, Ralph Swan, and later Charles Griffin, Jr. The apartment was often the venue for wild drug parties. At those parties, Griffin-Surratte explained, there was drugs being done, a lot of fighting, a lot of hitting, a lot of yelling. Swan witnessed these activities. Griffin-Surratte also described instances when Patricia Swan physically abused Swan, recalling that she always observed bruises or cuts on Swan's head or body.
Reverend Weaver was the senior pastor of the Crossroads Presbyterian Church in Middletown, Delaware and Swan's friend when the two were in the second and third grade. Weaver testified that during their friendship he observed bruises on Swan's body, bruises Weaver described as very significant. Weaver recalled that Swan would show them and tell him that he received them from Patricia Swan.
Swan's father, Tucker, who had testified at the penalty phase of Swan's trial, provided additional testimony at the postconviction proceedings. Tucker testified that he had seen Patricia Swan under the influence of drugs and alcohol while she was pregnant with Swan, and that Patricia Swan associated with members of a local motorcycle gang, including Griffin, while she was raising Swan. When Swan was still a young boy, Tucker observed Patricia Swan physically abuse Swan and that he also observed bruises on Swan's body. Swan told Tucker that Griffin physically abused him too and that Patricia Swan had once hit Swan in the head with a frying pan. Tucker testified that he did not provide this information to the jury at the trial because he was never asked about it.
Armstrong is a board certified neuropsychologist, who administered a full battery of neuropsychological tests to measure Swan's brain function. Armstrong concluded from those tests that Swan exhibited a diffuse pattern of brain injury, consistent with fetal alcohol exposure, childhood abuse and neglect, and head injuries. Armstrong testified that those neuropsychological deficits impaired Swan's functioning in numerous ways and that those deficits intensify when Swan is under physiological or psychological stress. Swan's deficits, Armstrong testified, were present in 1996. Armstrong also administered other tests, from which she concluded that Swan was not attempting to exaggerate his symptoms.
Dudley is a board certified psychiatrist, who conducted a forensic evaluation of Swan that included clinical interviews with Swan and several of his family members. Dudley believed that Swan provided reliable information in the interviews, and concluded that Swan's childhood history was among the worst and most clinically significant physical and psychological abuse he has encountered. Based on his observations, Dudley opined that Swan was tortured instead of nurtured during his childhood. Dudley diagnosed Swan with post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic depression, and cognitive disorder NOS, and explained that those disorders impaired Swan's judgment and decision-making.
The State presented Steven Samuel to rebut Armstrong's and Dudley's conclusions. Samuel, a licensed psychologist in the state of Pennsylvania, interviewed Swan twice and administered a number of tests. Samuel concluded that Swan's scoring profile was consistent with malingering, that is, that Swan tried to look very, very disturbed on the test[s]. Samuel opined that he could not agree with Armstrong's and Dudley's conclusions because Swan demonstrated malingering, and had been in prison a long period of time before the tests were administered. Samuel also concluded that he could not definitively opine about Swan's condition at the time of the murder: [Swan's] records are replete with information about his personality, his character, his legal history and so on, but there's nothing to support the conclusion that he had a psychiatric or a cognitive disorder at [the] time [of the murder]. As for the alleged neuropsychological deficits, Samuel opined: I don't believe those deficits would have interfered with his behavior on that day.
Swan presented documents showing that he lived in an unstable home during his youth. For example, Swan attended three different kindergartens and eleven different schools in eleven years. After missing numerous days of school in the first and second grade, Swan was required to repeat the second grade. The documents also demonstrated a pattern of inconsistent achievement. Texas Department of Corrections records from 1993 revealed that Swan seem[ed] to be [at a] [h]igh [r]isk for suicidal ideation. Those records also revealed that Swan had his skull x-rayed after being struck in the back of the head with a tire tool.
The postconviction judge denied Swan's motions for postconviction relief and a new trial. [14] Swan appealed, and after oral argument, we concluded that a remand was required. We directed the postconviction judge to analyze Swan's claim that his counsel was ineffective in failing to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent decisions in Williams v. Taylor, [15] Wiggins v. Smith, [16] Rompilla v. Beard, [17] Porter v. McCollum, [18] and Sears v. Upton, [19] and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's recent decisions in Jermyn v. Horn [20] and Outten v. Kearney. [21] We also directed the postconviction judge to specifically address whether Swan had demonstrated that defense counsel's failure to investigate and present certain mitigating evidence resulted in prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. [22] Thereafter, the postconviction judge issued an Opinion on Remand, [23] in which the postconviction judge first addressed and distinguished the cases cited in the remand order. [24] The postconviction judge concluded that Swan had not shown that defense counsel's performance was deficient. Second, the postconviction judge concluded that Swan had not shown prejudice, because there was not a substantial likelihood that the vote would have favored life imprisonment if the jury had been presented with the post-conviction evidence. [25] The postconviction judge recognized that he, as the trial judge, made the final determination and, [h]aving heard all of the evidence during the guilt and penalty phases of the trial and all of the post-conviction evidence ... the new evidence would not have altered [the court's] conclusion that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and justified the imposition of the death penalty. [26]