Opinion ID: 1328033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Presentation of Franks's Mental Health Evidence.

Text: (a) Franks claims that trial counsel conducted a deficient investigation and presentation of his mental health evidence. However, he submitted no additional evidence from any mental health expert at the motion for new trial hearing and instead relies on hearsay. There is no indication in the record that Franks has or had any mental health problems or diagnoses other than what was presented by trial counsel during the guilt-innocence phase. Therefore, Franks failed to show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel's alleged failure to uncover and present any additional mental health evidence. (b) Franks also claims that the mental health expert had a conflict of interest because in 1994 he had seen the child victims one time. Trial counsel testified that it was only during trial when Franks told trial counsel his version of events, which included some memory lapses and a statement that at a certain point everything went red, that trial counsel became concerned about Franks's mental state. Trial counsel selected Dr. John Connell, a psychiatrist, with whom they had previously worked and who would be available to evaluate Franks on short notice. Dr. Connell spent about seven hours interviewing Franks and diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder. He testified about this diagnosis at trial, and he informed the jury that this would explain Franks's failure to recall everything that happened on the day of the crimes. Dr. Connell also recited Frank's version of events that day, which was consistent with what Franks had told the jury, and he testified that Franks was not malingering. On appeal, Franks argues that Dr. Connell had a conflict of interest because he had previously treated the child victims in the case; at trial, the prosecutor argued that Dr. Connell had betrayed the children by testifying. However, Dr. Connell explained that he had not treated the children; he had substituted for an absent colleague in a consultant capacity for a few days in August 1994 when the children were in the hospital. He had briefly spoken with both children in August 1994 and prepared a two-page report, but he had not seen either child since that time. He also explained that he had discussed whether it was improper for him to interview Franks with two other psychiatrists and they had concluded that it was not. At the motion-for-new-trial hearing, trial counsel testified that they learned about Dr. Connell's contact with the child victims, but they did not believe that this would be a problem; trial counsel also testified that they had very little time as they needed an expert on short notice. They knew Dr. Connell was available and they had worked with him before. Trial counsel's performance is evaluated under the circumstances confronting counsel at the time and their selection of an expert was made under severe time pressure. Franks has not shown that there was another psychiatrist available who would have been willing or able to interview Franks at the jail, as Dr. Connell did, and testify in court within a week's notice. Moreover, Franks does not take issue with the substance of Dr. Connell's testimony, only with the prosecutor's irrelevant and emotional remark in closing argument. Franks has therefore not shown that trial counsel's selection of Dr. Connell was deficient performance. 9) Alleged Cumulative Error. Because Franks has not shown ineffective assistance of his trial counsel in any area of his trial, his claim that trial counsel's individual and cumulative errors deprived him of a fair trial is without merit.