Opinion ID: 1649620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Failure to interview Brown's half-uncle.

Text: ¶ 21. Brown also claims that it was professional error for trial counsel not to interview Roy Chester Fox who purportedly could have testified that the sheriff had previously made payment of money and other inducements to witnesses in criminal proceedings. Brown argues that this would have helped impeach the testimony of Coleman Jones. This Court has stated that `at a minimum, counsel has a duty to interview potential witnesses and to make independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case.' Ferguson v. State, 507 So.2d 94, 95 (Miss.1987) (quoting Nealy v. Cabana, 764 F.2d 1173, 1177 (5th Cir.1985)). However, the Ferguson Court did not find that failure to do so constituted ineffective assistance, as the defendant could not meet the second prong of Strickland by showing that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for counsel's deficient performance. Gilley v. State, 748 So.2d 123, 130 (Miss. 1999). The affidavit of Roy Chester Fox is not specific and states only that the sheriff has a reputation for corruption in the community. It seems dubious that attacking the sheriff's character would have been allowed as a method of impeaching Jones's testimony; and therefore, it cannot be said that the testimony of Roy Chester Fox would have altered the outcome of the trial. This issue is without merit.