Opinion ID: 1090851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Alleged Destruction of Exculpatory Evidence

Text: ¶ 57. Russell cites a Response from the MDOC which states that, as of March 2001, all MDOC Penitentiary Internal Audit records prior to 1993 were purged in 1996 due to age and demand of storage space. Russell states that this raises an additional presumption that the documents in question were exculpatory. First, Russell cites no authority in support of this presumption. Second, it does not appear that any such presumption should arise on the basis of the material that Russell has cited on this issue, which is not exculpatory. ¶ 58. The State has the duty to preserve evidence, but that duty is limited to the evidence which might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's defense. Northup v. State, 793 So.2d 618, 623-24 (Miss.2001) (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2534, 81 L.Ed.2d 413, 422 (1984)). When evidence is lost or destroyed, we use a two-part test to determine if a defendant is entitled to a new trial: First, it must be determined whether the evidence would have played a significant role in the defendant's case. To play a significant role, the exculpatory nature and value of the evidence must have been apparent before the evidence was lost. The second part of the test requires that the defendant have no way of obtaining comparable evidence by other means. Northup, 793 So.2d at 623-24 (citations omitted). In Trombetta, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the government agents had acted in good faith and in accordance with normal practices, or whether a conscious effort was made to suppress the exculpatory evidence. 467 U.S. at 488, 104 S.Ct. at 2533, 81 L.Ed.2d at 422. The intentional spoliation or destruction of evidence raises a presumption, or, more properly, an inference, that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the case of the spoliator. Such a presumption or inference arises, however, only where the spoliation or destruction was intentional and indicates fraud and a desire to suppress the truth, and it does not arise where the destruction was a matter of routine with no fraudulent intent. Northup, 793 So.2d at 623-24 (citations omitted). ¶ 59. It is questionable as to whether the evidence at issue meets any of requirements stated above. Based on what Russell has supplied, the inmate statements are not particularly significant, but, if they were, a better source of comparable evidence has always been available, namely Russell. Russell has had numerous opportunities to tell the story on the record he asks us to believe his allegations concerning the gangs and the connection to Cotton and the murder plot on his life, and that he has never done it. Finally, it appears that the evidence was destroyed as a matter of routine, the office weeding material because of space consideration. ¶ 60. Russell states that this evidence, meaning, apparently, the inmate statements and affidavits, strongly supported his version of events. He states that this evidence, and the evidence of Officer Cotton's involvement in the case against Russell, would have helped support the defense contention that Russell acted in self-defense. Russell raised self-defense at trial, apparently based on Russell's belief that Officer Cotton carried a knife and was attempting to pull it during their confrontation, and the jury was instructed on that issue; it was not the self-defense theory that he attempts to rely on now.
¶ 61. In addition to the numerous exculpatory inmate statements that Russell claims he never received, Russell also claims that the MDOC conducted a pattern of intimidation to keep other inmates from coming forward with helpful information. Russell cites two unsworn statements from Vance and Smith. Russell further cites affidavits from inmates John Michael Tiller, Alvin Luckett and James Robinson. Tiller saw nothing of the stabbing and only saw Officer Cotton being wheeled out on a stretcher after it was over. Luckett testified to Russell's gang troubles and Officer Cotton's illegal dealings, which was known by the defense at the time of trial, but nothing as to the stabbing. Robinson said he saw Officer Cotton attack Russell with meal trays. This did not contradict Russell's testimony that he was out of his cell with a shank at the time.
¶ 62. Russell makes a general argument here that summarizes some of his previous arguments. The primary point of the argument is that the State suppressed evidence that would have supported his self-defense claim that Officer Cotton was going to allow the GDs to kill him. For Russell to have been acting in self-defense, he would have to have known about this plot himself. Though Russell did raise the issue of self-defense at his trial, he never raised this particular issue. He did attempt to introduce evidence of gang violence, but he never alleged that it was all part of a plot involving Officer Cotton and an attempt to kill him in revenge for interference in GD business. Russell could have told this story to MHP Officer Rogers or at trial but he did not do so. As to the argument that his reluctance to be truthful was the result of physical intimidation, Russell makes no credible argument as to why he would feel any safer now than in 1989 or 1990. It is difficult to see why MDOC officials would have wanted the version of the stabbing that Russell did tell made public any more than the version Russell is now espousing.
¶ 63. Russell states that the State suppressed the inconsistent statements made by Smith and hid from the defense the fact that he was testifying only out of fear. Russell does not identify these inconsistent statements. Russell has attached two unsworn statements from Smith, which amount to an attempt to recant his trial testimony, but these statements did not exist at the time of either trial. ¶ 64. Russell next states that the State did not disclose earlier statements made by various officers that were subsequently fashioned into the story that the MDOC wanted told at trial. Once again there is no specificity as to which statements, and no attempt to identify the officers.
¶ 65. Russell states that there was substantial evidence that [Officer] Lee was drunk while he was on duty. Russell states that this evidence should have been available to him for impeachment purposes. Russell cites to an affidavit of George Gowan, Exhibit KK. This exhibit shows a blank page with the notation no such exhibit on it.
¶ 66. Russell argues that the State made some kind of deal with Smith, or Smith was clearly expecting a benefit from his testimony, and Russell should have been informed about this. A review of Smith's unsworn statements reveals nothing about any expected benefit. What is stated is that Smith testified the way he did at the first trial because he feared for his life, as Russell argues under subpart B of this issue. Russell implies that Smith was rewarded for his testimony in 1990 with some kind of beneficial plea agreement in July of 1993, after Russell's second sentencing hearing in which Smith did not testify. ¶ 67. Russell also argues that there was ample impeachment material concerning Smith that should have been revealed. This is apparently the material brought up by Russell under Issue VIII. The issue is discussed in more detail there, but the impeachment Russell was deprived of, if any, does not appear to be significant. Even if Smith were impeached, his version of the stabbing was corroborated at trial by other witnesses and Russell.
¶ 68. Under this issue Russell mentions the threatening of witnesses, the alteration of documents to show that the stabbing occurred earlier than reported in the official version, and the unnecessarily large number of MDOC officers present at trial. As for intimidation of witnesses, this was discussed in more detail above under Issue V, subpart B. As for alteration of documents, Russell argues that the stabbing of Officer Cotton happened an hour or two earlier than officially reported, so the MDOC was to blame for Officer Cotton's death because it did not get him to a hospital in a timely manner. Russell seems to be arguing that his criminal culpability should be less severe because of this alleged delay, but cites no authority to support this. He relies on the affidavit of inmate James Ball, who stated that it took a long time to get Officer Cotton any help; Officer Lee's first report stating that the stabbing occurred at 1645 hours, with help arriving at 1652 hours; Officer Lee's subsequent report stated that the stabbing occurred at 1852 hours, with help arriving at 1856 hours; Officer Lee's Use of Force Report states that the incident occurred at 1845 hours; the fact that the last meal of the day is not served after 6:00 p.m. in prison; that Correctional Officer James Bovan did not know the approximate time of the stabbing and refused to guess in his interview concerning the stabbing; that a portion of Officer Roy Horton's interview dealing with time was deleted with white out; Officer Rayford Jones started to give an earlier time for the stabbing and then corrected himself; and the Bolivar County Hospital Code Blue Record shows Officer Cotton was administered atropine at 6:00, before the stabbing allegedly occurred. ¶ 69. After reviewing these materials, we find the following: Ball's affidavit is too vague to mean much one way or the other; Officer Lee's conflicting reports could as easily be a typographical error as a coverup; we decline to take judicial notice about meal time in Parchman to judge whether the meal in question was being served late or not; a refusal to guess a time for the stabbing is not necessarily sinister; if any information on time was deleted from Roy Horton's interview, it was a time before the stabbing occurred; we will not speculate as to what Officer Jones was trying to say except that he first was summoned to Cotton's aid at 17:54 hours, which does not fit the State's or Russell's scenario; and the Bolivar County Hospital's Code Blue Record does not say atropine was administered to Officer Cotton at 6:00, but at 8:10 and at 8:15. There is a notation 600 next to atropine, but it does not refer to time, as there is a similar notation of 3450 next to epinephrine. ¶ 70. Finally, as to the massive security presence in the courtroom, Russell was a prison inmate who had killed a guard and had previously escaped, or had attempted to, while at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson. Several of the witnesses were also prison inmates. If a trial ever merited a substantial security presence, this was it.
¶ 71. Russell next argues that the State suppressed physical evidence because no autopsy was performed on Officer Cotton. An autopsy is not required by law in a murder case in this state. See Evans v. State, 725 So.2d 613, 657-58 (Miss.1997) (construing statutes listing officials who could request or authorize autopsy). Russell did not raise this issue as part of an insufficient evidence claim on direct appeal. Russell's arguments about what might have been found if an autopsy had been done on Officer Cotton are speculation. ¶ 72. Russell next states that the shank that was alleged to have been used in the crime had no blood on it, but was not produced for trial. The shank which allegedly killed Officer Cotton was introduced by the State at trial. ¶ 73. Russell next argues that the clothes that [he] was wearing that were supposed to have been drenched in blood were not produced for trial, even though this would have helped the defense show that there was only blood on the legs. It is not clear as to whether Russell is arguing that the clothes were not produced in discovery or were not introduced at trial by the State. At trial defense counsel objected when the State attempted to introduce the shirt Officer Cotton was wearing when he was stabbed, and the circuit court sustained defense counsel's objection. At that point, defense counsel stated: Your Honor, before we bring the jury back in, if she intends to introduce the prison outfit that Willie Russell had on to exhibit the blood, we might as well take that up now. The State answered: I don't intend to introduce that. Russell may not now complain about the failure to introduce his bloody clothes, since his trial counsel was ready to object to it being introduced.
¶ 74. Russell once again refers to Smith's testimony, which Russell alleges was false and procured by threats or bribes of leniency from the State, depending on which of Russell's issues is being considered. Once again, Russell's only has Smith's unsworn statements in support of this recantation. This issue is without merit. J. ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF OTHER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. ¶ 75. Russell does not refer to any specific evidence here. If this is an issue, it is without merit. VI. WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT, BUT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. ¶ 76. Russell makes this argument as a kind of general statement, supported by case law but absent any specifics.
¶ 77. This statement is made as a general conclusion without specifics.

¶ 78. Smith was serving time in Parchman for burglary on July 18, 1989. He was a floorwalker that day, describing his duties as cleaning floors and passing out food trays. He stated that Officer Cotton had asked him to pass out food trays in Zones 2 and 3. He said that he started passing the trays over and looked around and saw Officer Cotton and an inmate involved in an incident. Smith stated that he had already passed out trays in Zone 2 and was in Zone 3 and that Officer Cotton was trying to lock the door between Zone 2 and 3 at the time of the attack. He felt glass come past me and he then looked around and saw Russell stabbing Officer Cotton in the back with a knife. ¶ 79. Smith's testimony is confusing, but he stated that Officer Cotton and Russell fought, went up some stairs and fought again, where Russell stabbed Officer Cotton again, this time in the chest. Officer Lee came to Officer Cotton's aid and hit Russell with a nightstick, while Officer Cotton ran into the guard tower. Smith did not know where Russell came from before the stabbing. ¶ 80. The State wanted to produce Smith's testimony at Russell's second sentencing hearing but claimed that he was unavailable. The State sought to introduce Smith's testimony through transcript of his testimony in the first trial. Over the defense's objection, the testimony was introduced. On direct appeal defense counsel argued that the State had not sufficiently shown that Smith was unavailable. We found this issue to be without merit. See Russell, 670 So.2d at 827-29. ¶ 81. Russell argues first that defense counsel should have impeached Smith with a letter Smith wrote to Officer Cotton's mother. It appears that the letter is undated, and we will assume that defense counsel had access to the letter before the 1990 trial, since no one makes a contrary argument. Russell states that Smith's letter says the KKK was behind Officer Cotton's death, and he could have been impeached with this inconsistency. We have attempted to read the letter in question. It is a poor copy and nearly illegible. Even if the letter says this it seems to amount to meager impeachment, and no one suggests that Russell did not stab Officer Cotton. ¶ 82. Russell next mentions a letter that Smith wrote to Warden Booker. It is not clear whether Russell is alleging that defense counsel had or should have had this letter at the time of trial or not. Once again the letter is nearly illegible. Smith seems to be trying to say that he knows how some officer was killed and how the inmate got out of his cell and how he got the weapon, but details are not given. ¶ 83. Russell next states that defense counsel did not attempt to impeach Smith with Smith's internal affairs interview. Defense counsel did ask Smith at trial that if Smith told internal affairs that Russell just lost control during the attack, is that probably correct. Smith said yes. Defense counsel asked Smith about another part of the interview where Smith said that Russell was only intending or trying to scratch Officer Cotton. Smith said that was correct. Russell does not say how else defense counsel should have tried to impeach with this particular item. ¶ 84. Russell is correct that Smith mentioned glass coming past him during his testimony and defense counsel failed to ask him about this. Whether this glass had any relevance to this case is speculation. ¶ 85. Russell next argues that Smith could have been impeached by his testimony on the number of times Officer Cotton was stabbed. Since the number of times Officer Cotton was stabbed is known, showing Smith was incorrect on this appears to be of little value. ¶ 86. Russell next argues that Officer Lee said he did not see Smith in Zone 3 while Smith said he was there during the stabbing. A review of the interview Russell refers to shows that Officer Lee said he did not see Smith in Zone 3. Once again this would have been marginal impeachment. ¶ 87. Russell next argues that Officer Nathan Allen said that when he came into the building after the stabbing, Smith was locked up. Officer Allen's interview with investigators does say this. This is marginal impeachment.
¶ 88. Russell next argues that Smith told a pack of lies at Russell's first trial. Russell's authority for this assertion is Smith's unsworn statements attached as Exhibits NN and SS to this Petition. In this affidavit, Smith states that Officer Cotton hit Russell with a food tray and a big set of keys and was trying to force Russell into Zone 4, where the GDs were waiting for him; that this gang was after Russell because he had interfered in their business; that guards or someone beat Smith and forced him to testify as he did in 1990, and that testimony was false; he wanted to tell the truth at the second sentencing hearing in 1993 because he was not under any of the heavy pressures that he was under in 1990. This statement somewhat follows Russell's new version of the stabbing, but it is not an affidavit and, pursuant to statutory requirements, we give it no credence. Furthermore, because Smith would have been subject to withering cross-examination concerning his general criminal background and lack of proof to support his changed story that he was beat up, in connection with the lack of any sworn affidavit, Smith's story would be very easily impeached.
¶ 89. At Russell's second sentencing trial on March 2, 1993, the State argued that Smith was not available, and therefore it should be able to introduce his transcript from the first trial into evidence. Sandy Sanders, an employee of the District Attorney's Office, testified that she began issuing subpoenas in January 1993 for witnesses in this case. She issued a subpoena to Parchman, then found out Smith had been transferred to the correctional facility in Greene County. She issued a subpoena there, only to find that Smith had been released on July 10, 1992. There were apparently no restrictions on Smith's release. Sanders was told Smith got on a bus for Jackson, so she contacted the Hinds County Sheriff's Office, which was unable to locate him. ¶ 90. There is no dispute that Smith was actually in the Yazoo County Jail on September 28, 1992, after his arrest on forgery charges, and that he remained there until April 6, 1993, when he pled guilty to two counts of forgery. Smith received five years on one forgery count, with 4½ years suspended and six months to serve, which he had already served by that time. Smith was sentenced to complete the Restitution Program on the other count. ¶ 91. He was released on April 6, 1993, failed to report to the Restitution Program, stole a one-ton truck on May 28, 1993, and was arrested and placed in the Yazoo County Jail on May 31. His suspended sentence was revoked on June 24, 1993, and a hold was placed on Smith in Yazoo County for the MDOC at that time. Smith pled guilty to one count of grand larceny in July 1993 and received a four year sentence with one year suspended. ¶ 92. Russell first argues that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to determine Smith's whereabouts prior to the second trial. There is no way to determine now why defense counsel did not find Smith. However, it is evident that Smith's reliability as a witness would be questionable at best due to a number of factors and the lack of an authenticated affidavit which would cast further doubt on what his testimony would be. ¶ 93. Russell then argues that since the same assistant district attorney prosecuted Russell in March 1993 and Smith at his guilty plea hearing four months later, the State knew where Smith was in March 1993 and lied to the court about his availability. According to Russell, the State's motive to keep Smith off the stand at the second sentencing trial was the knowledge that he would testify truthfully the second time. Russell also implies that the dismissal of a burglary charge against Smith in July 1993 was a reward of some kind for some earlier testimony. ¶ 94. The State answers that Smith flat-timed his sentence and was released without restriction in July 1992, and the State would have no reason to know of Smith's whereabouts until he was sentenced to their custody in April 1993. ¶ 95. Russell states that at the time of the second trial, it is clear that the State would not have got the same testimony from Mr. Smith, and the story that the jury heard would have been very different. Once again there is no authority for this except Smith's unsworn statement. If Smith testified in fear of his life at Russell's first trial because of threats from MDOC personnel, there is no reason to believe that these threats would not have been as viable in 1993 when Smith was still in custody. While Smith was available at the second trial, there is no credible evidence that his testimony would have been different, that the defense would have been able to do a better job of impeaching him, or that the State's failure to find him was part of some deliberate plot. We find that this issue to be without merit.

¶ 96. Russell argues that by agreeing to have an MDOC security officer present with Russell and defense counsel after Russell took an overdose of pills, defense counsel violated Russell's attorney-client privilege. MDOC Officer Radford stated to defense counsel that Russell could present a security risk to defense counsel and others. Officer Radford suggested to defense counsel that he, Radford, be present during conferences between defense counsel and Russell. Defense counsel agreed on the trial court's assurance that nothing stated by defense counsel to Russell or vice versa would be repeated. ¶ 97. Russell now argues that this was a per se violation of his attorney-client privilege, for which no actual disclosure of confidential information or showing of prejudice was necessary. Defense counsel stated in an affidavit that it was not their idea to have security in these conferences, though they agreed to it at the time. Russell argues that he never did anything to justify this security measure, and it was a result of defense counsel's inexperience and failure to build a relationship of trust. He states that he could not speak freely to his attorneys at this point, and that defense counsel could not properly prepare Russell for his testimony. They had a conflict of interest on this issue because they might have been liable for sanctions from the Bar for this action. Russell argues that even if security was necessary, alternative means were available. ¶ 98. Russell cites numerous cases on this subject, but none have a similar fact situation to that of Russell's in this case. Russell never alleges that any confidential communication was revealed by Officer Radford to the State and used against him. Russell only states that he could not speak freely in front of Officer Radford, but this security measure was first implemented on the day Russell testified. Defense counsel stated on the record that they had talked to Russell off and on for several months previously about whether he would testify. Russell does not say what was left unsaid in the one thirty to forty minute conference, presumably with Officer Radford present, on the lunch break before Russell took the witness stand. The circuit court stated that these communications were confidential, and if any breach had occurred, then there would certainly be a violation of Russell's rights, but we are unaware of any authority supporting a presumption of a breach or a violation of Russell's right. Russell also alleges that less intrusive security measures were available, but does not elaborate. We find that this issue is without merit.
¶ 99. Russell alleges that defense counsel acquiesced in a requirement that Russell be forced to commit perjury on the stand. Defense counsel unsuccessfully tried to introduce evidence concerning Officer Cotton's illegal dealings with inmates and gang threats against Russell. Russell then took the witness stand and testified in accordance with the trial judge's rulings. Defense counsel alleged on direct appeal that these rulings were erroneous. We found the issues to be without merit. See Russell, 607 So.2d at 1113-16. ¶ 100. Though Russell argued that he should have been able to introduce evidence concerning Officer Cotton's dealings and gang threats, neither he nor defense counsel ever connected these factors at the first trial to say that in combination, these factors amounted to a threat on his life. The State argues that this is merely a backhanded way of trying to raise an issue that has already been decided. We agree. Where a defendant tries to introduce evidence, fails, and then testifies in accordance with the trial court's evidentiary rulings, this is not perjury and is not ineffective assistance of counsel. This issue is barred by res judicata under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21(3) (Rev.2000).

¶ 101. Russell argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase, and that we must review the totality of the circumstances and the cumulative effect of counsel's lapses. Russell cites, along with Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the Ninth Circuit and Texas opinions in Harris ex rel. Ramseyer v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir.1995); Wenzy v. State, 855 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.Ct. App.1993); and Ex parte Welborn, 785 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). The State answers that some errors will have isolated effect and others may be pervasive, and the test Russell suggests is simply wrong. ¶ 102. The proper standard for determining if counsel was constitutionally ineffective is as follows: In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove that his attorney's performance was deficient, and that the deficiency was so substantial as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. This Court looks at the totality of circumstances to determine whether counsel's efforts were both deficient and prejudicial. Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance [is] highly deferential. There is a strong but rebuttable presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Only where it is reasonably probable that but for the attorney's errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different, will we find that counsel's performance was deficient. Holly v. State, 716 So.2d 979, 989 (Miss. 1998) (citations omitted).
¶ 103. Russell states that both defense counsel were trying their first capital case when defending Russell, and therefore there is a presumption of prejudice. Russell cites Copas v. Comm'r of Correction, 234 Conn. 139, 662 A.2d 718 (1995); Rose v. State, 675 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1996); Commonwealth v. Perry, 537 Pa. 385, 644 A.2d 705 (1994). None of these cases stand for the proposition that counsel can be presumed ineffective because of lack of experience in trying a particular kind of case. The charge of ineffective assistance of counsel must be tested against established legal precedent set out in Issue X.A., supra. This issue is without merit.
¶ 104. We will not presume to determine whether defense counsel's relationship with Russell was meaningful or not. We cannot know whether Russell told defense counsel everything he should have told them, but this course of action is finally in the hands of Russell. Russell is raising once again the issue of violation of privilege previously discussed under IX.A., and for that reason this issue is also without merit.
¶ 105. Russell argues that his defense counsel should have secured adequate funds to investigate his case. Russell cites the affidavits of defense counsel, which both state: The degree of funding in capital cases in my district was very limited in 1990. Russell then apparently acknowledges that the lack of investigative funds is in large part attributable to the lack of funding in the district at the time. Russell next says that defense counsel spent only approximately twenty hours total on the investigation for both phases of this criminal trial. Russell gives no source for this allegation. Russell next alleges that what investigation defense counsel did was inadequate and incompetently done, but once again this allegation has no source. Absent more detailed evidence as to what was available in the district in question versus what defense counsel actually requested or got in expert funds, we find this issue without merit.
¶ 106. Russell states that the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that, upon a proper showing of need, the defense is entitled to all experts reasonably necessary for an effective defense. Russell cites Johnson v. State, 529 So.2d 577 (Miss.1988), where we found no error in the trial court's denial of funds for a fingerprint expert to challenge the State's fingerprint evidence.