Opinion ID: 1217589
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Cook's Background

Text: The warden also argues that the habeas court erred by finding counsel was deficient for failing to adequately investigate Cook's background. As outlined above, trial counsel took several important steps to investigate Cook's family background, and much of the habeas court's order catalogues the results of counsel's investigation. Counsel testified that he interviewed a number of Cook's family members and friends and traveled to Tennessee to conduct interviews. As discussed above, counsel also obtained funds to hire a social worker who provided them with detailed findings concerning Cook's background. The habeas court's order and Cook's argument in response to the warden's appeal focus primarily on the alleged impact further investigation into Cook's background would have had on the preparation of mental health evidence, an issue we have already addressed at length above. We further note that trial counsel actually did present testimony at trial concerning Cook's background in the form of lay testimony from his family. His mother described the fact that she and Cook's father divorced, that Cook first lived with his father, that his father remarried, and that Cook then came to live with her. She testified that Cook at first got along very well with his stepfather but that the two eventually fell into conflict. She explained that Cook was forced by his stepfather to do excessive chores, that his stepfather constantly found fault with him, and that there was physical violence between the pair [s]everal times. She recounted how she divorced Cook's stepfather and then became unable to afford her house. Finally, she informed the jury of her feelings about Cook's background as follows: I just feel that as a mother maybe I have  I have failed him. Cook's father, whose testimony is discussed further below, also informed the jury that he believed he had failed Cook as a father, although he admitted to the jury that he believed Cook had a good upbringing. One of Cook's sisters testified that she visited Cook each week, and she asked the jury to spare his life because she loved him. Counsel testified in Cook's habeas proceedings that they considered presenting the testimony of another of Cook's sisters, but they concluded that she would not make a good witness. Counsel could conceivably have introduced additional testimony of the sort highlighted in the habeas court's order showing how Cook's parents had not always provided him a stable and happy home life and how his mental health and behavioral problems could have been more aggressively addressed. However, we do not find that the lay testimony concerning Cook's background that counsel actually presented was unreasonable in light of the circumstances, particularly because so much of the additional lay testimony Cook now proposes could have alienated the jury and led to unfavorable cross-examination and the presentation of unfavorable witnesses by the State. Accordingly, we hold both that trial counsel did not perform deficiently in preparing and presenting evidence of Cook's background and that counsel's failure to present additional evidence of the kind Cook now proposes did not create prejudice sufficient to warrant the success of his overall ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See id. (holding that the combined effect of trial counsel's various professional deficiencies should be considered).