Opinion ID: 1655090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether Defense Counsel failed to properly investigate the case.

Text: ¶ 45. Woodward argues that his trial counsel investigated the case themselves, instead of hiring a trained investigator. Woodward contends that his attorneys were not trained investigators and that their failure to seek funds to hire an investigator constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Woodward argues that counsels' deficiencies denied him an important element of his defense team. ¶ 46. Woodward asserts that neither of his attorneys were suited to the task of gathering all the necessary information in this case. However, Woodward does not state what information a trained investigator would have discovered that his counsel failed to discover. Woodward also does not indicate how the outcome of his trial would have been different, had a trained investigator been hired. This Court has consistently held, [a] defendant who alleges that trial counsel's failure to investigate constituted ineffectiveness must also state with particularity what the investigation would have revealed and specify how it would have altered the outcome of trial, Nelson v. Hargett, 989 F.2d 847 (5th Cir.1993), or how such additional investigation would have significantly aided his cause at trial. Merritt v. State, 517 So.2d 517, 518 (Miss.1987). Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 776 (Miss. 1995). See also Brown v. State, 798 So.2d 481, 495 (Miss.2001). Woodward has failed to show that his counsels' performance was deficient and he has no claim of actual prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. This issue is without merit.