Opinion ID: 2752896
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dr. Vicary

Text: 21 Case: 13-12421 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 22 of 34 The Florida Supreme Court rejected Mr. Tanzi’s claim that “trial counsel was ineffective for presenting the testimony of Dr. Vicary as a mental health expert and for failing to provide Dr. Vicary with a videotape of Tanzi’s confession.” Tanzi II, 94 So. 3d at 491. The Florida Supreme Court held that Mr. Tanzi did not establish deficient performance or prejudice with respect to trial counsel’s presentation of Dr. Vicary as a mental health expert. Id. at 491–92. Although the Florida Supreme Court did not separately address if trial counsel was deficient for failing to provide Dr. Vicary with a videotape of Mr. Tanzi’s confession, the court held that Mr. Tanzi failed to show prejudice as to this issue. Id. In support, the Florida Supreme Court found that trial counsel’s presentation of Dr. Vicary’s testimony was a “reasonable strategic decision” despite the fact that he “was subject to impeachment based upon [his] misconduct in altering his notes during the Menendez brothers’ trial in California.” Id. The court emphasized that “Dr. Vicary was the only defense mental health expert that had diagnosed Tanzi with bipolar disorder, a serious mental health disorder that could serve as mitigating evidence.” Id. at 492. The Florida Supreme Court also noted that trial counsel attempted to “minimize the damage to Dr. Vicary’s credibility by first filing a motion in limine to exclude this evidence and then by addressing the misconduct issue during direct examination.” Id. 22 Case: 13-12421 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 23 of 34 In hindsight, there may be room to debate whether trial counsel’s presentation of Dr. Vicary was a wise decision given his impeachment and the sentencing court’s rejection of Dr. Vicary’s bipolar diagnosis. See Tanzi II, 94 So. 3d at 498 (Pariente, J., concurring in result) (questioning defense counsel’s decision to call Dr. Vicary as an expert in this case, but concluding any error was not prejudicial). But there is no room for fairminded jurists to debate the reasonableness of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision. Strickland recognized that “[i]t is all too tempting . . . and it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel’s defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable.” 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. When assessing attorney performance, Strickland “requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Id. The Florida Supreme Court did just that. Its conclusion that defense counsel made a “reasonable strategic decision” to present Dr. Vicary, despite defense counsel’s awareness of the impeachment issue, was based on an evaluation of trial counsel’s performance from trial counsel’s perspective at the time of trial. The reasonableness of the state court’s conclusion is strongly supported by the fact that Dr. Vicary was the only expert who diagnosed Mr. Tanzi with bipolar disorder. Id. at 492. A diagnosis of bipolar 23 Case: 13-12421 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 24 of 34 disorder has been recognized by the Florida Supreme Court as a powerful mitigating circumstance in other cases. See, e.g., State v. Pearce, 994 So. 2d 1094, 1102 (Fla. 2008) (granting capital defendant a new penalty phase where trial counsel was found ineffective based, in part, on failure to investigate and present evidence of bipolar disorder); Orme v. State, 896 So. 2d 725, 735–36 (Fla. 2005) (granting a new penalty phase where defense counsel failed “to investigate and present the fact of [defendant’s] diagnosis of bipolar disorder”). For all of these reasons, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that trial counsel was not deficient in his presentation of Dr. Vicary as a mental health expert was well within the bounds of reasonableness under AEDPA. The Florida Supreme Court also concluded, “[g]iven the aggravation and mitigation evidence in this case, there is not a reasonable probability that the result would have been different absent Dr. Vicary’s testimony.” Tanzi II, 94 So. 3d at 492. The court emphasized that “Dr. Vicary’s testimony was particularly helpful in establishing mitigation due to his diagnosis of bipolar disorder and his description of the difficulties facing bipolar children.” Id. Further, the Florida Supreme Court explained, “[w]hile Dr. Vicary’s credibility may have been lessened by the disclosure of his misconduct in the Menendez case as well as Dr. Vicary’s admission that, although he had read a transcript, he had not viewed Tanzi’s videotaped confession, the overall presentation of Dr. Vicary’s testimony 24 Case: 13-12421 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 25 of 34 does not undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. Considering the totality of the mitigation evidence (both adduced at trial and in the state postconviction proceeding) against the substantial evidence in aggravation, see Porter, 558 U.S. at 41, 130 S. Ct. at 453–54, we cannot say the Florida Supreme Court’s decision on this issue is an unreasonable application of Strickland. See Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 785 (“The pivotal question is whether the state court’s application of the Strickland standard was unreasonable.”).