Opinion ID: 2756888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial court’s hearing on remand

Text: {¶ 44} On August 28 and December 4, 2006, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, at which Gary Van Brocklin and Thomas Zena, Herring’s trial attorneys, and Dorian Hall testified. Documentary evidence was also presented. Hrdy did not testify at the hearing.
{¶ 45} Van Brocklin had been lead counsel at Herring’s trial. Van Brocklin testified that after the defense had a difficult time obtaining a mitigation specialist, the Office of the Ohio Public Defender had identified Hrdy as a 13 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO possible mitigation specialist. Hrdy was then contacted and hired as the defense mitigation specialist. {¶ 46} Counsel’s first meeting with Hrdy in early September 1997 was four-and-one-half hours long. Van Brocklin recalled, “Mr. Hrdy was to obviously investigate and determine if we could find mitigation for Mr. Herring in the event that there was a conviction of capital specifications.” Van Brocklin could not recall whether defense counsel met with Hrdy again or only discussed the case over the phone. {¶ 47} Van Brocklin stated that Hrdy never told defense counsel that “he in any way fell short of the mark” and always represented himself as an expert. Van Brocklin said, “I believed at the time that he had done all of the work necessary to look into Mr. Herring’s background.    I believe, that had Mr. Hrdy requested additional time, we would’ve immediately filed a motion for it, and I’m quite confident that Judge Durkin would’ve allowed us the time.” {¶ 48} Van Brocklin also stated that Hrdy had had sufficient time to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation. Hrdy was hired in August or September 1997, and the start of the trial was delayed because a mistrial was declared during jury selection. The trial then eventually commenced on January 5, 1998, and the mitigation proceedings began on February 14, 1998. {¶ 49} Van Brocklin testified that he and Zena “knew a lot of negative information” about Herring “through our own investigation and through criminal records and those kinds of things that were supplied to us during the lengthy discovery process.” Van Brocklin could not recall specific information that they had known about Herring’s background because the case files had been transferred to the public defender’s office. Yet Van Brocklin had known that Herring had a prior juvenile record and that members of his family had criminal records. Van Brocklin also recalled that a subpoena had been issued for Herring’s confinement records to show that he had behaved himself during incarceration. 14 January Term, 2014 But defense counsel decided not to use that information because the records showed Herring’s involvement in “a death threat or a fight.” {¶ 50} Van Brocklin also stated that the defense had hired Dr. Darnall. Dr. Darnall provided defense counsel with “a report that didn’t work well, or was not very definitive.” He did not perform any testing for neurological impairment. {¶ 51} Van Brocklin stated that he and Zena decided to present “positive mitigation evidence.” He also stated, “I hammered home in argument    that Mr. Herring had not been convicted as a principal offender in this matter.” Van Brocklin explained that the decision to present positive evidence in mitigation had “a lot to do with the fact that we had picked two juries, and the second jury was far more conservative that the first jury panel was, and both Tom and I did not think that negative information would have worked with that particular jury panel.” He added, “I thought that any kind of information that you would give the second jury panel that Mr. Herring had been involved in a life of crime would simply be more ammunition for them to find a death verdict.”
{¶ 52} Zena had been co-counsel at Herring’s trial and had the primary responsibility for preparing mitigation. Zena testified that the defense initially was prepared to engage a different mitigation specialist, but after that person could not take the job, trial counsel hired Hrdy. Zena did not believe that they developed a theory of mitigation with Hrdy. Zena stated, “I think we said let’s see what we have and try to put the best foot forward to save [Herring], whatever that might be.” As to Hrdy’s role, Zena said that although “it’s the lawyer’s responsibility to present the mitigation,” people in Hrdy’s position are called mitigation specialists because it is their job to “go out and find and give ideas on how they think something should be presented.” 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 53} Zena stated that he and Van Brocklin had talked to Hrdy on the phone as Hrdy’s mitigation investigation progressed. Counsel did not have a timetable for getting information from Hrdy. Zena testified: [I]t was like if you need anything, call us, and we had our normal discussions. If there’s anything you’re having trouble with or need, call us. And I don’t think there was ever a time when we weren’t accessible to him. I know every time he tried to reach me, I was. Likewise, he was accessible. {¶ 54} Zena testified that he had met Herring’s mother on a few occasions and got to know Herring’s sister. Zena stated that he spoke to Herring’s mother about “arranging a meeting with anybody she thought would be helpful with mitigation, and we met at their home.” Herring’s mother never told Zena that she had been a drug addict during a large part of Herring’s life. {¶ 55} Zena also had spoken to Herring about mitigation. He stated that Herring told him nothing negative about the family, because Herring “is a person that did not accent the negative about any family member or himself.” Zena stated, “When we got to the mitigation phase, he was cooperative in the sense of knowing we—what we were going to do, but he was not forthcoming with any information.” But Herring did not put any restrictions on trial counsel’s presentation of mitigation evidence. {¶ 56} Zena stated that he and Van Brocklin made a “conscious choice to    put on good things about him” and to emphasize that Herring was not a principal offender. Zena explained that this was “an awful case as cases go.    This was mayhem in a bar where people wound up dead, people wound up shot, bullets all over the floor.” Moreover, the victims were innocent bystanders who 16 January Term, 2014 were not “involved in any transgressions with any of the individuals who came in.” Thus, Zena said that the goal was “separating [Herring] out as a non principal offender, not responsible for the death of anyone, and showing whatever I could of the other side of him.”
{¶ 57} Defense exhibit A was Van Brocklin’s billing statement, submitted in February 1998, for serving as Herring’s defense counsel at trial. Hrdy’s billing statement and its cover letter were attached. Hrdy’s letter included the observation, “This has been a most difficult case to find mitigation on as you well know[.] I know you did the best you could with the little I provided.” Hrdy’s billing statement showed that he sent a bill to counsel for time and expenses totaling $1,501.30.
{¶ 58} Hall explained the responsibilities of a mitigation specialist in conducting an investigation. Hall stated that Hrdy’s invoice showed that he had completed approximately 30 hours of work. Hall did not believe that this was an adequate amount of time to properly conduct a mitigation investigation for Herring.