Opinion ID: 1133920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The Method of Presenting Mitigation

Text: Hertz claims that Rand was ineffective for failing to present the mitigation he did address during trial in an effective manner. He points to the failure of Rand to specifically mention the statutory mitigators individually in his opening or closing statements to the jury at the penalty phase. Hertz also stresses that the State enumerated seven aggravators during its opening statement at the penalty phase that it intended to present to the jury. Hertz alleges that Rand should have enumerated each mitigator individually and required that the jury be instructed on them in that manner so as to have presented more mitigators than the State enumerated as aggravating factors. In the order denying postconviction relief, the trial court addressed the issue of enumerating the mitigators and concluded that: Even if the mitigation evidence presented had been enumerated as argued on postconviction relief, it has been repeatedly held by appellant [sic] majorities that a laundry list of enumeration of mitigation aspects, factors or circumstances relating to a defendant's character, record and background is not required to supplant the standard Section 941.141(6)(h) approved jury instruction form. Such a specific enumeration may raise a spectre of impermissible double consideration of the same mitigation aspects, factors or circumstances and create real risk of misleading a jury into not considering some mitigation aspect with respect to a defendant's background, character, or record that it has heard because it has not been included in any enumeration. The standard jury instructions do not instruct a jury that aggravators are statutory or that certain mitigators are statutory and others nonstatutory. The mitigation presented would not have been provided any more impact or weight for its consideration if it had been given multiple enumeration for multiplicative matching purposes with respect to the State's aggravators. The jury was not left with the impression that the mitigation they could consider was limited nor that mitigation not specifically designated as statutory could not impact or be weighed against the State's statutory aggravators. Furthermore, counsel made it clear and ably argued that any mitigator could outweigh all of the aggravators argued by the State. With respect to Hertz's general argument regarding counsel's method of presenting mitigation, these methods are clearly trial strategy. This Court has established that strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel's decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct. Howell v. State, 877 So.2d 697, 703 (Fla.2004) (quoting Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000)). Rand testified at the evidentiary hearing that he attempted to convey Hertz's powerful life story through both an extensive history book admitted into evidence and live testimony of witnesses. Explaining his decision to present the background in this manner, Rand testified: I felt like Mr. Hertz had a story to tell in the penalty phase that was very compelling. I wanted the jury to have the underlying facts and the support for the argument we were making. I thought it was important that they have the ability to look hands-on at the bits and pieces of the life. By the same token I felt that the argument that we were making was one that needed not to bog down in minutia, in detail, in papers, in trivia. So I tried to give the jury both. I tried to give them the minutia and the paper on the one hand in a form that they could take with them into the jury room, and I tried to create a mental image in their mind through argument of what this says and refer to it. . . . After weighing all postconviction testimony, the trial court did not find Rand's performance ineffective and we agree.