Opinion ID: 3187215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: evidentiary hearing in state habeas court

Text: On April 23, 1998, the state court held an evidentiary hearing on Ledford’s amended habeas petition. Ledford submitted affidavits from 13 lay witnesses and three experts. He called trial counsel Little and Thames as witnesses. Ledford also submitted copious records, including his medical records, substance abuse treatment records, school records, court records, Georgia Department of Corrections records, Georgia Bureau of Investigation records, his inmate file, Dr. Johnston’s autopsy report, and Mrs. Ledford’s social services file.
Ledford introduced 13 affidavits from friends and family members to show available mitigating evidence at the penalty phase that his trial attorneys failed to present. While several trial witnesses had offered testimony regarding Ledford’s background and upbringing, these affidavits provided more detail. Most of the affiants were never asked to testify at trial. 19 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 20 of 103 According to the affidavits, Ledford had a rough childhood. He grew up in a poor, rural, mountain community in Georgia with six sisters7 and little supervision. Ledford’s father abused drugs and alcohol, was frequently absent, and when present, sold drugs out of the family home. Ledford’s mother was typically away at work, leaving Ledford either unsupervised or with his father. Ledford’s home was very unstable, and he would frequently stay with neighbors or other family members. Ledford’s father would occasionally enter into a drunken rage, chase the children around with a gun, and threaten to kill them. On one occasion, Ledford’s father held a gun to his head and threatened to kill himself in front of Ledford. On another occasion, he chased Ledford’s mother down the street and shot at her. He frequently beat the children, leaving bruises and welts. While Ledford was a sweet, loving, and well-behaved child, he had no supervision. As a result, he began abusing drugs and alcohol at a very young age. Ledford’s sister recalled that he vomited from drinking when he was eight years old. Ledford’s father gave him drugs during his childhood. Eventually, Ledford would use any drug made available to him, including acid, crack, and cocaine, and was heavily into drugs as a teenager. On one occasion, Ledford accidentally shot off his finger while high. Despite his addictions, Ledford desperately wanted to 7 As of January 2007, all six of Ledford’s sisters had children, five of Ledford’s sisters were married, and four of Ledford’s sisters worked to earn a living. 20 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 21 of 103 get sober. At one point, Ledford told his mother that he would kill himself if he did not get help. Ledford had several positive relationships with his neighbors and family members. He would frequently help neighbors with their chores, babysit for neighbors, commit acts of chivalry for his sisters, and was generally happiest when helping others. He expressed an interest in joining the Peace Corps. In 1989, Ledford’s close friend was murdered, which he took “very hard.” Ledford was not very smart and had trouble with school. He had trouble reading, failed the first grade, and was twice held back a grade. During middle school, an older woman frequently signed him out of class so that they could drink together. Ledford dropped out when he was 16, during his freshman year of high school. When he was 17, Ledford worked at a carpet mill counting spools of carpet. He also worked at a lumber mill where he loaded lumber into a mill to be cut. He was fired from the lumber mill because the foreman caught him smoking marijuana. In the months leading up to Dr. Johnston’s death, Ledford began acting very strangely. He was heavily abusing drugs and became increasingly irrational and paranoid. Family members were shocked that Ledford killed Dr. Johnston. 21 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 22 of 103
Dr. Herendeen’s affidavit concerned his role as the expert psychologist at Ledford’s trial. According to Dr. Herendeen, on October 28, 1992, Ledford’s trial attorneys contacted him and asked him to evaluate Ledford for his upcoming death penalty trial. On November 8, 1992, Dr. Herendeen evaluated Ledford and briefly interviewed six of his family members. Dr. Herendeen was provided with some records but never received a medical history. Dr. Herendeen performed a Rorschach evaluation and processed the results though a computer program, which indicated that Ledford required neuropsychological testing. While it was unusual for the computer to report such a finding, further tests were not performed. Dr. Herendeen testified that he did not have Ledford’s school records, and he would have performed a comprehensive intelligence battery if he had had more time. Dr. Herendeen believed that he had insufficient time and information to adequately assess Ledford’s mental functioning. He testified that Ledford’s attorneys never discussed their trial strategy with him, never asked how Ledford’s mental health might impact the intent required to commit murder, never discussed the existence of an intellectual disability, and never went over the questions for his direct examination. 22 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 23 of 103
On November 10, 1992, the second day of trial, Dr. Herendeen prepared a draft report of Ledford’s mental health, which he gave to counsel Little and Thames. According to the report, Ledford was cooperative, capable of reading and understanding test items, and had an eighth-grade reading level, a third-grade spelling level, and a seventh-grade arithmetic level. After he dropped out of school, Ledford held several unskilled jobs where he would “work on the job long enough to get a paycheck,” but would then get “drunk or messed up” and lose the job. At the time of his arrest, Ledford was living with his grandmother and “taking care of her.” D. Affidavit and Supplemental Affidavit of Dr. Marc Zimmermann On February 20, 1998, Marc Zimmerman, a licensed clinical psychologist, evaluated Ledford for five hours and concluded that Ledford is intellectually disabled. Dr. Zimmerman administered the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition (“WAIS-III”). Ledford scored 76 on the verbal scale and 65 on the performance scale, yielding a full-scale score of 69, which indicates “significantly subaverage general intellectual function, and is within the range of mental retardation.” Ledford’s WAIS-III score was consistent with Dr. Zimmerman’s clinical impressions. 23 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 24 of 103 Dr. Zimmerman administered additional neuropsychological evaluations and screening tests. Dr. Zimmerman testified that (1) the Short Category Test, which is a non-verbal test of learning ability, indicated that Ledford suffered from some degree of brain damage, (2) the Screening Test for the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery indicated that Ledford suffered from “significant neurological deficiencies,” and (3) the Benton Visual Retention Test, which measures cerebral dysfunction, indicated that Ledford suffered from a type of brain dysfunction that is seen in the intellectually disabled. Dr. Zimmerman recounted Ledford’s school records, which indicated that he was held back in first and third grades, received failing grades in fourth grade, and failed all subjects in high school before dropping out. Ledford had a “sketchy” work history, performing low level jobs that required minimal skill. Zimmerman found that Ledford “showed a substantial inability to demonstrate daily living skills at an age appropriate level.” Zimmerman concluded that Ledford suffered from “significant deficits in the adaptive skill areas of social/interpersonal skills, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, and health and safety.” Dr. Zimmerman identified several potential causes of Ledford’s intellectual disability. He opined that (1) Ledford’s abuse of drugs and alcohol significantly retarded his developmental functions; (2) organic brain damage caused by two head injuries resulting in unconsciousness may have contributed to the 24 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 25 of 103 development of Ledford’s intellectual disability; (3) Ledford’s intellectual disability may be congenital, as records indicated that Ledford’s mother had tested at the borderline or mild range of intellectual disability; and (4) Ledford’s unsupervised upbringing in a low socio-economic class may have contributed to his deficient intellectual development. On April 20, 1998, Dr. Zimmerman evaluated Ledford for approximately five hours and performed additional neuropsychological testing. Ledford achieved a composite IQ score of 66 on the Kaufmann Adult and Adolescent Intelligence Test. Dr. Zimmerman opined that under the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Test, Ledford’s brain dysfunction was diffuse and could not be localized in a particular area of the brain, which Dr. Zimmerman stated was typical of mental retardation. E. Affidavit of Dr. Susan Fiester On July 31, 1997, Dr. Susan Fiester, a psychiatrist, examined Ledford for six hours. At the outset of her affidavit, Dr. Fiester noted the following with respect to Ledford’s background: (1) Ledford suffered “significant birth trauma,” having been delivered by Caesarean section and having almost died at birth; (2) Ledford suffered more than 15 episodes of head trauma throughout his life, many of which involved significant trauma and loss of consciousness; (3) many of Ledford’s family members suffered from substance abuse problems and psychiatric illness; 25 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 26 of 103 (4) Ledford himself had substance abuse problems and suffered “severe consequences” from his drug use, including job loss; and (5) in 1992, Ledford typically ingested eight to ten milligrams of Xanax per day, but had only taken two milligrams on the day of the murder. 8 Dr. Fiester concluded that, due to Ledford’s acute intoxication and Xanax withdrawal, it was “highly unlikely, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that [he] formed an intent to kill his victim.” Dr. Fiester opined that Ledford should have received more comprehensive neuropsychological testing by Dr. Herendeen and other professionals prior to trial. Dr. Fiester opined that Ledford’s rough childhood, academic problems, birth trauma, head trauma, and genetic predisposition to psychiatric and substance abuse disorders should have been presented as mitigating factors during the penalty phase. F. Testimony of Sam Little (Trial Counsel) Sam Little, one of Ledford’s trial attorneys, testified that prior to 1992 he had tried over 100 cases in state and federal court, including some murder cases. Ledford was his first death penalty case. In preparation for the penalty phase, Little interviewed Ledford, Ledford’s family members, Dr. Herendeen, Dr. Perri, members of law enforcement, and other witnesses. Little hired a private investigator to identify witnesses and investigate Ledford’s background, family 8 It is not clear from the record whether Dr. Fiester discovered this information from her review of background documents, from Ledford himself, or from some other unknown source. 26 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 27 of 103 members, and history of substance abuse. The private investigator interviewed Ledford, who provided names of people who were familiar with his childhood and substance abuse problems. Based on Ledford’s disclosures, the private investigator interviewed approximately 15-20 non-family witnesses. Little asked Ledford’s friends and family members to write down what they knew about Ledford, including his upbringing and family relationships, so that he could obtain information that he “couldn’t find out from just talking to them cold.” Little received written statements from all of Ledford’s adult family members, including Ledford’s mother and sisters. Little read all the statements and learned that Ledford had a very tough childhood, with the onset of substance abuse problems at a very early age, caused primarily by the introduction of drugs and alcohol by his father and other family members. No family member ever informed Little that Ledford’s birth was difficult or traumatic. One of Ledford’s sister’s written statements provided vague information regarding head injuries Ledford had suffered. Little testified that there was nothing “critical” or “significant” about the head injuries, otherwise he “would have looked into it.” After determining that self-defense was not a viable option, counsel Little decided that Ledford’s primary defense would be that he involuntarily developed alcoholism when he was eight years old and, therefore, was involuntarily 27 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 28 of 103 intoxicated on the day he killed Dr. Johnston. Little knew that voluntary intoxication was not a defense to murder. Thus, it was critical to demonstrate that, because of his childhood, Ledford was involuntarily intoxicated on the day of Dr. Johnston’s murder. Little wanted to show the jury that Ledford was “so far out of it [that he did] not know what he was doing.” Little vetted the strategy in detail with attorney Mike Mears, a capital trial expert. While Mr. Mears did not seem to like the strategy, he also appeared to believe that it was “the only thing [Little] had going.” To prove Ledford’s defense, Little retained Dr. Herendeen as an expert witness. Little informed Dr. Herendeen of Ledford’s involuntary intoxication defense and asked him to evaluate Ledford. While Little contemplated retaining another expert to evaluate Ledford’s “mental situation,” he decided not to, as “the whole thing was about the involuntary intoxication.” Still, Little asked Dr. Herendeen to evaluate Ledford’s general mental health. Dr. Herendeen met with Little and Ledford’s family members before trial. Dr. Herendeen never indicated to Little that he needed more time or additional records to complete his evaluation of Ledford. G. Testimony of Matthew Thames (Trial Counsel) Matthew Thames, Little’s co-counsel, testified that prior to 1992, he had practiced law for four or five years, doing about five to ten civil trials per year. He 28 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 29 of 103 had never handled a murder case. Thames and Little conducted independent research. Thames agreed that the only plausible defense was to demonstrate that Ledford had a bad upbringing and history of chronic substance abuse, which would be applicable to all phases of the trial. In fact, the bulk of the background and substance abuse evidence was introduced in the guilt phase in order to get “that evidence out to the jury as soon as possible.” Thames agreed with Little that Mrs. Ledford’s penalty phase testimony was sufficiently compelling, such that calling more witnesses would be unnecessarily cumulative and potentially detrimental. Counsel Thames held the primary responsibility for retaining and preparing a mental health expert for trial. At an October 7, 1992 strategy meeting, Mr. Mears provided Little with Dr. Herendeen’s name. On October 27, 1992, Little wrote a note to Thames, informing him that Mr. Mears suggested they contact Dr. Herendeen. By that point, Thames and Little had attempted to contact at least one other mental health expert. That expert could not provide an opinion beneficial to Ledford. On October 28, 1992, approximately two weeks before trial, Thames contacted Dr. Herendeen, told him their theory of the case, and asked him to evaluate Ledford. Thames wanted to elicit testimony that would apply to both the guilt and penalty phases. After speaking with Dr. Herendeen, Little and Thames 29 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 30 of 103 were “very impressed.” The state trial court authorized funds to retain Dr. Herendeen. To prepare for trial, Thames reviewed Dr. Herendeen’s draft report with him, went over which points would be covered at trial, took notes, and generally prepared him to testify. Dr. Herendeen never told Thames that he needed more time to evaluate Ledford or prepare his testimony. Thames testified that he and Little agreed that their general trial strategy was to not object to “every little thing,” but only to “the big things,” as they both believed that frequent objections leave a bad impression with the jury. VIII. STATE COURT’S EVIDENTIARY RULING AND DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITION On October 8, 1998, the state habeas court issued a two-page order ruling that the lay witness and expert witness affidavits were all inadmissible and would not be considered. 9 The only admissible evidence was Little’s and Thames’s testimony and the background documents. On July 27, 1999, the state habeas court denied Ledford’s amended habeas petition. The state habeas court found that the evidence did not show that Ledford was mentally retarded. The court addressed Ledford’s ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claims, as recounted below in relevant part. 9 The state habeas court also held that three juror affidavits were inadmissible. See infra, n.25. 30 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 31 of 103 A. Guilt Phase Ineffective-Assistance Claims The state habeas court found that trial counsel’s decision to object only to flagrant misconduct or error and abstain from frequent objections was strategic in nature, did not amount to ineffective assistance, and, nevertheless, was not prejudicial. The state habeas court found that the medical examiner’s gratuitous testimony was cured by the trial court’s sua sponte instruction that he not continue his statement and, nevertheless, was not prejudicial. The state habeas court concluded that trial counsel’s delay in retaining Dr. Herendeen did not prejudice Ledford’s case because Dr. Herendeen still examined Ledford, interviewed his family members, and obtained test results that mirrored Dr. Perri’s. As to Dr. Herendeen’s alleged unreadiness, the state habeas court found that trial counsel was not deficient because Dr. Herendeen had unfettered access to Ledford’s records, met with trial counsel, and never stated that he needed more time or additional records to prepare for trial. The state habeas court concluded that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to investigate more, and present evidence of, Ledford’s intellectual disability. The state habeas court noted that comprehensive psychological testing and evaluation from Dr. Perri and Dr. Herendeen revealed that Ledford’s IQ fell within the borderline and low average range of intelligence, which indicated that Ledford did not suffer from an intellectual disability. The 31 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 32 of 103 state habeas court found that the neurological tests performed at Central State Hospital did not indicate that Ledford suffered from organic brain damage. The state habeas court found that it was not unreasonable for trial counsel to decide not to further investigate the issue or retain additional expert witnesses. With respect to trial counsel’s allegedly deficient intoxication defense, the state habeas court found that, after conducting research and exploring their options, trial counsel reasonably relied upon the only defense that they believed was viable. The state habeas court assumed arguendo that trial counsel had failed to argue that Ledford’s intoxication tended to negate his intent to commit murder and concluded that this hypothetical deficiency did not prejudice the outcome of the trial because (1) there was “ample evidence in the record to support the jury’s implicit conclusion that Ledford was not intoxicated on the day of Dr. Johnston’s murder,” and (2) the trial court nevertheless instructed the jury as to the relationship between intent and intoxication. B. Penalty Phase Ineffective-Assistance Claims The state habeas court concluded that trial counsel Little and Thames were deficient neither in investigating Ledford’s background nor in presenting mitigating evidence in the penalty phase. The state habeas court found that trial counsel spent a considerable amount of time investigating potential mitigating evidence that might prove helpful at the penalty phase. The state habeas court 32 Case: 14-15650 Date Filed: 03/21/2016 Page: 33 of 103 found that trial counsel interviewed family members and asked them to submit written statements containing everything they knew about Ledford, including his background and family life. The state habeas court found that trial counsel hired a private investigator to gather facts about Ledford’s background. The state habeas court concluded that trial counsel properly relied on the reports of Dr. Perri and Dr. Herendeen to determine the best mental health defense in mitigation of the death penalty. The state habeas court also concluded that trial counsel’s decision to call no further witnesses after Mrs. Ledford’s testimony, which made nine to eleven jurors cry, was a tactical one to be afforded considerable deference. IX. DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO APPEAL AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI In 1999, Ledford filed an application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal, which the Georgia Supreme Court denied in 2001. Ledford filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied in 2002.