Opinion ID: 1476684
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Call Defendant's Father

Text: Defendant argues that neither defense counsel nor Fairchild interviewed his father, James Peter Harris, (Mr. Harris) in person. His father only received one brief phone call from the defense team. Defendant asserts that trial counsels' minimal efforts to obtain testimony from his father rendered their assistance ineffective.
PCR counsel have submitted an affidavit from Mr. Harris, which contains what he told Lois Nardone. Mr. Harris now attests that he would have testified if asked. Specifically, he says he would have informed the jury that he and Mattie had a very troubled marriage, that she would leave her young children alone during the day, and that he had reason to believe that [she] was prostituting herself to make up gambling losses. He attests that his son complained to family members about abuse he received from his stepfather. And, defendant's father states that he would have asked the jury to spare [his] son's life because [he] love[s] his son and [doesn't] think he ever had a chance at a normal life. Defendant thus argues that that his father's testimony would have engendered sympathy for [defendant], revealed him to be a person loved by his family and likely `substantially affected the jury's deliberations.' On this issue, the State relies primarily on testimony by Call, whose recollection was refreshed by his notes. Call essentially read from his notes. They indicated that he spoke with Mr. Harris in March and April 1995, and that Mr. Harris informed Call that he suspected his son was abused, but that he had no first-hand knowledge of it. Mr. Harris also told Call that his doctor had advised him not to get involved in the case because of his heart problems, and that, essentially, he did not want to testify.

Accepting Call's testimony at the PCR hearing, defendant's claim fails. Call testified: A: ... Peter Harris was the defendant's natural father who left the home at agewhen [defendant] was three, and had little to no significant contact with him after that. During a conference with [defendant] on February 26, 1995, he indicated that his father, James Peter Harris. Was in town, so to speak, and that he wascould be contacted through his sister, Christine Hellams. ... I spoke to Mr. Harris [defendant's father] on that date, this was March 9th, and when I asked him how he was, and he indicated not so good. I have heart problems, gout, diabetes, about every problem in the world, and he would have been about 63 as of our conversation. When asked, Mr. Harris indicated to Call that he did not have first-hand knowledge of abuse. Call's testimony continued: And during [a] telephone conference on April 19 of 1995, [defendant's father] indicated that he really didn't wish to be involved in the case. He indicated he had a bad heart, and had been advised by his doctor that he shouldn't get involved since it would be too upsetting. And it was abundantly clear at that point, that ... [defendant's father] simply did not wish to testify. Furthermore, Call testified that Mr. Harris did not show up for any day of defendant's almost fifty-day trial, bolstering Call's opinion of Mr. Harris's lack of interest. We note that the PCR court found Call credible, but even without granting the PCR court's finding any deference, we reach the same conclusion because defendant provides no reason to doubt Call's testimony. Call clearly is reading from his notes during the PCR hearing, and there is no suggestion being advanced that Call fabricated those notes. Call's decision not to pursue Mr. Harris any further was reasonable given what he knew about the relationship between defendant and his father. Contrary to defendant's argument, Mr. Harris would not have been able to engender sympathy for [defendant] and reveal[] him to be a person loved by his family. Mr. Harris would have been subject to cross-examination about abandoning his family when defendant was three, and his lack of relationship with defendant. Numerous records, as well as Fairchild's interviews with Mattie, defendant, and defendant's brother portray Mr. Harris as an alcoholic who did not care about his family, and the documents submitted by defendant confirm that depiction. In addition, Call had other reasons to doubt the potential worth of testimony from Mr. Harris. If Mr. Harris testified that he loved his son, trying to reveal [defendant] to be a person loved by his family, the State could have cross-examined Mr. Harris about his absence from defendant's life, and thus, brought out that his feelings for his son do not themselves reveal anything positive about defendant given the absence of a relationship between them. See Loftin I, supra, 146 N.J. at 432, 680 A. 2d 677 (Handler, J., dissenting) (noting that family testimony is helpful if it demonstrates defendant's bond with family members); accord State v. Stevens, 319 Or. 573, 879 P. 2d 162, 168 (1994) (impact of execution on family shows that defendant has the capacity to be of emotional value to others. In that inference, a juror could find an aspect of defendant's character or background that could justify a sentence of less than death.); King & Norgard, supra, 26 Fla. St. U.L.Rev. at 1146 (If ... mitigation is to allow the jury to get a complete picture of the defendant, surely the way that he has impacted the people in his life is a relevant consideration to whether he deserves to live or die.). Further, the records submitted by the defense in this PCR proceeding, albeit not known to Call at the time, objectively demonstrate that Mr. Harris would not have been able to provide compelling testimony. Institutional records convey that defendant and his mother did not know the whereabouts of defendant's father at least through 1969. Also, Mr. Harris's neglect of his family and defendant undermine the argument that Mr. Harris's testimony had the potential to be effective. He could not have shown that defendant had a positive impact on his life. Finally, we find it of little import that the defense did not talk to Mr. Harris in person. Mr. Harris communicated to Call his strong desire not to be involved. That he did so during a telephone call that Call placed to him does not transform Call's interaction with him into ineffective assistance. Moreover, defendant cannot show prejudice for the same reasons counsel had to doubt the value of Mr. Harris's testimony: Mr. Harris had no significant relationship with defendant. In conclusion, defendant has failed to satisfy either prong of Strickland in respect of counsels' decision not to pursue further the involvement of his father.