Opinion ID: 1401004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Further Interviews

Text: I also disagree with the conclusion counsel was unreasonable for failing to probe deeper into Wilson's mental health history through additional witness interviews. Wilson argues counsel's investigation was insufficient because counsel failed to uncover the information contained in the post-conviction affidavits of Wilson's mother, girlfriend, brother, and sister. Dr. Reynolds's post-conviction affidavit additionally suggests this information would have been helpful to a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Strickland imposes only the obligation to conduct a reasonable investigationnot a perfect one. 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The record indicates counsel gathered information from a number of people who knew Wilson. For example, counsel provided Dr. Reynolds with statements from a close friend of Wilson's family, a fellow church-member, and two of Wilson's former teachers. All testified on Wilson's behalf at trial. Counsel also provided Dr. Reynolds with statements from two additional individuals who knew Wilson, but the record does not reveal the substance of their information. And counsel had access to information from Wilson's mother through Dr. Reynolds, who personally interviewed her. Wilson's mother testified at trial and apparently provided counsel with names of individuals who might testify on his behalf. The record does not reveal that counsel failed to pursue any of these leads. Compare Burger, 483 U.S. at 794, 107 S.Ct. 3114 (finding no ineffective assistance where counsel interviewed all potential witnesses who had been called to his attention), with Mayes, 210 F.3d at 1290 (finding ineffective assistance when counsel never contacted any mitigation witnesses). From all of these witnesses, counsel obtained significant mitigating information about Wilson's life demonstrating a constitutionally adequate investigation. That counsel used this information to present a constitutionally adequate mitigation defense is shown by the following two points. First, counsel presented a full picture of Wilson to the jury. Counsel proffered the following evidence: (1) Wilson's friends and family knew him as a kind, caring, church-going person; (2) Wilson's father, a drug addict and alcoholic, abandoned the family when Wilson was young; (3) Wilson's mother was a strong positive influence; (4) a Sunday school teacher close to Wilson died of cancer, which extremely upset Wilson; (5) Wilson was exposed to significant gang activity growing up, and in one incident Wilson was shot in the leg; (6) Wilson's home, where he was living with his mother, was torched by a rival gang; (7) Wilson's brother was in jail; and (8) Wilson lived with his sister in North Carolina for some time and did very well when removed from the environment of his violent neighborhood. The bulk of the affidavit testimony Wilson offers in his habeas petition simply repackages the information counsel actually presented to the jury. This repetition suggests counsel did a reasonably thorough job of uncovering the major contours of Wilson's family and social history. This is certainly not a case where counsel sat idly by, thinking investigation would be futile. Second, all of the witnesses who provided mitigation evidence at trial were also in a position to observe the kind of strange behavior Wilson now asserts his counsel should have uncovered through additional interviews. Yet the record does not show that anyone during counsel's investigation mentioned Wilson's extreme conduct or otherwise provided information to counsel that should have led to such inquiries. Because counsel had information from a wide range of people with knowledge of Wilson's family and personal history, none of whom mentioned a serious mental health issue beyond that diagnosed by Dr. Reynolds, it was reasonable for counsel not to interview additional witnesses. Counsel had no reason to think additional witnesses would offer helpful non-cumulative testimony. See Rompilla, 545 U.S. at 389, 125 S.Ct. 2456 (Questioning a few more family members and searching for old records can promise less than looking for a needle in a haystack, when a lawyer truly has reason to doubt there is any needle there.). To the extent counsel was obligated to seek out any behavioral evidence of mental illness, counsel fulfilled his obligation by engaging Dr. Reynolds and providing him with access to Wilson's mother, other witnesses, and Wilson's records. Counsel could reasonably have expected Dr. Reynolds to obtain any information he needed about Wilson's behavior from Wilson's mother, who lived with Wilson and was very close to him. If Dr. Reynolds thought further interviews would be helpful, he could have suggested them to counsel, but we have no information that Dr. Reynolds did so. That Dr. Reynolds later found information provided by additional family members helpful in corroborating his own conclusions does not make the initial investigation unreasonable; reasonableness is evaluated based on the information available to counsel at the time. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Wilson's mother's post-trial affidavit claims counsel never personally interviewed her prior to trial. Failure to interview a witness prior to her testimony at trial can in some circumstances constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See Hooper, 314 F.3d at 1171. In this case, however, counsel's failure to personally interview the mother was not unreasonable. Counsel had access to her testimony through Dr. Reynolds and reasonably relied on Reynolds's interviews. It is well-settled counsel may rely on the efforts of co-counsel, investigators, and experts in preparing for trial, e.g., Clark, 425 F.3d at 286, and that the failure to conduct personal interviews is not necessarily deficient performance, ABA Guidelines 11.4.1(3) (interviewing potential witnesses). In fact, ABA Guideline 11.4.1(3) instructs capital defense counsel to conduct interviews of potential witnesses in the presence of a third person or rely on an investigator or mitigation specialist so there is someone to call as a defense witness at trial. This is precisely the course Wilson's trial counsel followed. [10] Perhaps the most cautious of counsel would always interview each member of the defendant's family as well as other close contacts, but the Supreme Court has declined to make prudence the measure of constitutionally effective counsel. [I]n considering claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we address not what is prudent or appropriate, but only what is constitutionally compelled. Burger, 483 U.S. at 794, 107 S.Ct. 3114 (internal quotations omitted). [C]ounsel need not interview every possible witness to have performed proficiently. Young v. Sirmons, 486 F.3d 655, 680 (10th Cir.2007). Counsel need only conduct a reasonable investigation. I cannot say that counsel's investigative efforts in this casewhich included collecting information from Wilson's mother, teachers, and others close to the familywere unreasonable, particularly because counsel's investigation evidently uncovered the bulk of the mitigating information Wilson's new affidavits offer. On this record, counsel had no reason to think additional interviews would provide helpful non-cumulative evidence, and counsel's failure to conduct additional interviews was not constitutionally ineffective. Finally, the affidavit evidence the majority claims would have been helpful in the mitigation case is, at best, a two-edged sword. [11] See Bryan, 335 F.3d at 1216 & n. 21; Cannon v. Gibson, 259 F.3d 1253, 1277-78 (10th Cir.2001). The majority claims the affidavit evidence could have supported a finding of schizophrenia, which might have elicited sympathy from the jury. Perhaps. On the other hand, though, the jury could have drawn a negative picture about Wilson's gang involvement and the murder itself. Wilson's brother describes his own gang involvement and how Wilson became involved along with him. He said he and Wilson both put on our gang face when we went out the front door and talked of Wilson being targeted by rival gangs. Aplt. Add. 5. The brother also said Wilson knew that the gang considered him a police rat and his reputation was permanently ruined. I never heard anything specific, but I am sure there was teasing and serious pressure to do this crime. Id. Wilson's sister said she believed Wilson was being pulled into the gang scene by at least his ninth grade year of high school. I remember [Wilson] got real suspicious and paranoid after he joined the gang.... I know that [Wilson] was present when some of his fellow gang members were killed. Aplt. Add. 6. She also corroborated the idea the gang thought Wilson was a rat: I knew that [Wilson] had been arrested on another offense prior to his trial.... [Wilson] fumbled with the decision of what to say to police because the gang saw it as ratting out one of their own.... [Wilson] told me that the [ sic ] he was in danger with the gang. The gang threatened him and made it clear he had to prove he was with them. I believe [Wilson] was pressured and coerced into the Quick Trip crime. Id. Finally, Wilson's girlfriend refers to Wilson having trouble in prison because of a rumor he snitched on two Bloods until word was out [Wilson] was back on the same side. Aplt. Add. 4. The affidavits present a disturbing picture of the murder in this caseWilson was in trouble with his gang because of the perception he had snitched in a prior case, and Wilson got involved in the crime to prove his loyalty. If Wilson's counsel were aware of this background, he had good reason not to give the prosecutor the opportunity to confirm it by allowing Wilson's girlfriend, sister, and brother to testify. This negative affidavit information is further indication Wilson was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to interview these witnesses or to present their testimony at trial.    In sum, I cannot conclude that after counsel interviewed a number of people who knew Wilson and obtained an initial mental health diagnosis from Dr. Reynolds, it was unreasonable for counsel not to pursue the mental health investigation further. Counsel conducted a reasonably extensive inquiry into Wilson's background. Nothing in the record indicates reasonably competent counsel could not have concluded he had all the relevant information available. I therefore agree with the district court's conclusion that the OCCA's adjudication of Wilson's ineffectiveness claim was reasonable.