Opinion ID: 2790291
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interviews with Doe

Text: J.B. had only one interview with Doe himself, during which he barely asked any questions about his upbringing. J.B. admitted that his interview with Doe was perfunctory: “I 14 D.S., on the other hand, admits that he “learned that [Doe] had been subjected to some sort of physical and sexual abuse while he was incarcerated . . . .” Somehow, this vital piece of information was never passed along to J.B. nor pursued further by D.S.; “no further investigation was made into issues relating to [Doe]’s incarceration . . . , including any issue relating to sexual victimization.” DOE V. AYERS 23 do not recall whether I discussed with [Doe] the abuse from his Uncle [J.C.], but if I did, it was on a superficial level.” He also acknowledged that this failure affected his penalty-phase presentation, because “the testimony elicited at trial reflected the extent of the abuse of which I was aware.” D.S. also spent a few sessions interviewing Doe. While Doe did speak positively about some aspects of his childhood, and said that “he would call everyone [in his family] basically sane,” Doe did mention – without disclosing its full extent – the physical abuse he suffered at the hands of his uncle. D.S. himself expressed the suspicion that Doe “avoid[ed]” or “ignor[ed]” his problems. He expressly informed J.B. that his interview of Doe was merely a preliminary inquiry into Doe’s personal and family history, noting that this “information was provided by [Doe] himself and is [in] no way meant to be a complete list of information available . . . .” As a psychologist later retained by habeas counsel explained, based on professional experience, there are often reasons why a person who has been chronically abused and neglected might well decline to disclose the details of difficult and embarrassing personal history. That Doe did not volunteer more about the trauma he experienced during his childhood and in prison did not absolve J.B. of the need to conduct an adequate mitigation investigation, especially since Doe did identify (and D.S. recognized), if not in elaborate detail, a number of avenues for further investigation that would have proved fruitful. The district court was correct in concluding that the deficiencies it found in J.B.’s penalty-phase performance were not excused by the alleged failure of Doe (and his family) to be completely forthcoming. “[Doe] never put any 24 DOE V. AYERS limits on [the] penalty phase investigation,” J.B. acknowledged. Nor did he make false statements to J.B. or D.S. or obstruct their investigation. Doe simply did what most capital defendants – and most people – do, and did not volunteer deeply painful, shameful information when not pressed for details. Trial counsel has an affirmative duty not to simply accept the facts as they might be presented at first blush, but rather to “unearth[] for consideration” at the sentencing phase “all relevant mitigation information.” Wallace v. Stewart, 184 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Caro v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Daniels, 428 F.3d at 1209 (holding that counsel’s failure to investigate was not excused even by his client’s refusal to communicate). Anderson v. Calderon, 232 F.3d 1053, 1094 (9th Cir. 2000), cited by the state, is not to the contrary. There, the defendant “did not disclose information relating to” the issues that later became central to habeas counsel’s mitigation presentation: evidence of the physical and emotional abuse the defendant suffered during childhood. Id. Thus, counsel had no clue as to the existence of these occurrences. In contrast, Doe and his family members and friends did disclose some evidence relating to childhood abuse and neglect, mental health problems, substance abuse, and even victimization in prison – all of the issues later drawn out by habeas counsel. Although no one delivered to J.B. a fully developed mitigation presentation, that does not excuse his failure to pursue the leads he did receive.15 Nor does Babbitt 15 Additionally, the Anderson court merged the deficient performance and prejudice analyses, denying the failure to investigate claim largely on the basis that presentation of the undiscovered mitigating evidence would have undercut a very intentional (and to the court, persuasive) defense DOE V. AYERS 25 v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1998), help the state. There, we noted that “[o]ther courts have held that ‘counsel is not deficient for failing to find mitigating evidence if, after a reasonable investigation, nothing has put the counsel on notice of the existence of that evidence.’” Id. (quoting Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 920 (4th Cir. 1997)). By contrast, J.B. failed to conduct a reasonable investigation despite being on notice. [A]lthough counsel is not required “to investigate every conceivable line of mitigating evidence no matter how unlikely the effort would be to assist the defendant at sentencing[,]” they are in no position to decide, as a tactical matter, not to present mitigating evidence or not to investigate further just because they have some information about their client’s background. Moreover, . . . the presence of certain elements in a capital defendant’s background, such as a family history of alcoholism, abuse, and emotional problems, triggers a duty to conduct further inquiry before choosing to cease investigating. strategy, which included the argument that his “venerable mother [was] wronged and imprisoned because of a crooked judge . . . [and that] this terribly unjust episode explains and mitigated [his] crooked youthful turn in the road.” Id. It is far from clear that even Anderson’s apparent failure to reveal any useful information to his defense team would, on its own, have supported the court’s conclusion. 26 DOE V. AYERS Earp, 431 F.3d at 1175 (citing Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 525, 527, 533 (2003)).