Opinion ID: 1842460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Epilepsy

Text: Arbelaez argues that his counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase in presenting evidence of his epilepsy. During the penalty phase, counsel presented three witnesses to testify about Arbelaez's problems with epilepsy. Two lay witnesses testified that they had observed Arbelaez taking epileptic medication. One of them, Adelfa Salazar, described a few very strong epileptic seizures he had suffered in her presence. Dr. Raul Lopez, a neurologist, testified that he treated Arbelaez for an epileptic seizure in 1984, four years before the murder. He deemed it very likely that Arbelaez had suffered from epilepsy since birth. He testified that, as a youth, Arbelaez had been treated in Colombia with Mysoline, an anticonvulsion medication used to prevent epileptic episodes. He testified that two other epilepsy medications, Dilantin and Depakote, were prescribed for Arbelaez after the 1984 incident, but that at times Arbelaez was not taking his medications as instructed. Dr. Lopez testified that he received three phone calls from emergency room physicians  one in 1986 and two in 1987  about Arbelaez, who on those three occasions ... had not been taking the medication as instructed. Dr. Lopez admitted, however, that he had no idea how much medication Arbelaez was taking at the time of the murder. Arbelaez argues that counsel should have presented more evidence detailing the state of his epilepsy around the time of the murder in 1988. At the evidentiary hearing, counsel testified that he had pursued the epilepsy issue by consulting with Dr. Lopez. Dr. Lopez informed him that, following an epileptic seizure, an epileptic will not remember the events immediately before the seizure. Because Arbelaez could recall the events surrounding the murder  as illustrated by his videotaped confession, admitted into evidence at trial  counsel concluded that epilepsy had not played a role in the crime. He testified that he adjusted his penalty phase strategy accordingly. The trial court found that counsel had adequately investigated Arbelaez's history of epilepsy and presented it to the jury in the penalty phase. Calling the entire issue a red herring, the court concluded that Arbelaez failed to offer ... any evidence relating to [his] epileptic disorder which could have been presented and was not. Arbelaez has not met his burden of showing that counsel's investigation and presentation of evidence about his epilepsy was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that the challenged action was not sound strategy. Valle, 778 So.2d at 965. The record reveals that counsel did present substantial evidence of epilepsy from three witnesses. The jury heard enough evidence to conclude that Arbelaez had engaged in a lifelong battle with epilepsy and had repeatedly failed, throughout the four years leading up to the murder, to keep the condition under control with medication. Counsel was not deficient in presenting this evidence. Moreover, counsel gave a reasonable strategic explanation for why he did not argue at the penalty phase that Arbelaez committed the crime under the direct influence of his epileptic condition. He explained that Arbelaez's detailed confession did not mesh with Dr. Lopez's assertion that epileptics typically cannot remember the events immediately preceding a seizure. Because of this inconsistency, counsel chose to limit the testimony at the penalty phase to general statements about Arbelaez's epileptic condition. This strategic choice was not deficient. Arbelaez also fails to establish prejudice. Almost all of the epilepsy evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing was cumulative to the evidence presented at trial. The only significant new evidence was that Arbelaez's epileptic disorder had apparently worsened while he was on death row, most likely due to stress. This post-trial evidence is irrelevant to what counsel could have presented at trial. Arbelaez has not presented any then-available evidence whose exclusion undermines our confidence in the outcome of his trial. See Valle, 778 So.2d at 965; see also Provenzano v. Dugger, 561 So.2d 541, 546 (Fla.1990) (holding that defendant failed to establish prejudice where the additional evidence was largely cumulative). The trial court properly denied his claim.