Opinion ID: 1810649
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Whether Crawford received ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase of the trial.

Text: ¶ 30. Again, Crawford has failed to show any errors, much less a number of errors that might be reversible in their aggregate and, as such, this claim is without merit. See Davis v. State, 660 So.2d at 1261; Wilburn v. State, 608 So.2d at 705.
¶ 31. Crawford claims that counsel was deficient in not creating a trusting relationship with their client and, as a result, their client, Crawford, was prejudiced. Crawford, however, cites no authority for this proposition, save for a case outside of this jurisdiction where defense counsel showed so much dislike for his client that he, in effect, became a second prosecutor. See Rickman v. Bell, 131 F.3d 1150 (6th Cir.1997). Crawford has not alleged such facts here and, therefore, has not made the necessary showing that counsel was deficient and this claim fails. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7.
¶ 32. Crawford alleges that counsel failed to secure adequate funds to engage in proper investigation, which resulted in an inability to obtain the F.B.I. report that has previously been discussed. However, Crawford fails to create a nexus between lack of funds and discovery of this report, as he was able to find it through the Freedom of Information Act on his own. ¶ 33. Crawford also alleges that counsel failed to secure funds for expert assistance. However, Crawford did have experts testify at trial and has failed to include an affidavit from any expert which states what exculpatory testimony they would have provided were Crawford able to afford it. ¶ 34. Crawford does cite authority for the proposition that the state should provide money, when necessary, for expert assistance for those who cannot afford it. However, he cites no authority for the proposition that any of his counsels' efforts in these regards have fallen below any kind of standard. Therefore, he has failed to meet his requirement of showing deficiency on counsels' part. Id.
¶ 35. Under this general heading, Crawford makes a general assertion that counsel failed to ensure that a proper investigation take place. However, he states nothing more and does not allege what counsel did or failed to do in investigating. Therefore, he is unable to show prejudice and his claim is without merit. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7. ¶ 36. Under a sub-heading, Crawford claims that the insanity defense was ineffectively investigated and presented. However, Crawford's main argument is the same argument towards securing funds, which was addressed above. [5] This claim is without merit.
¶ 37. Crawford next complains that counsel was deficient for not litigating Crawford's overall competency and, specifically, his competency while on medication. In fact, Crawford appears to advocate that the lack of a hearing on competency is automatic grounds for a review of a prisoner's petition for post conviction relief using the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence announced by the United States Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Though unwilling to expand Atkins to such an extent, we are certainly willing to agree, for the sake of argument, counsel was deficient for not litigating competency, notwithstanding the fact that Crawford had been found competent for trial in an unrelated matter some 11 months prior and that there had been no documented changes in his condition from that point to the trial now in question. ¶ 38. However, this still only answers half of the question before us. We are still to determine whether Crawford was prejudiced by counsels' deficient performance. As stated above, the applicable standard is whether there exists a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different, meaning a `probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome.' Mohr v. State, 584 So.2d 426, 430 (Miss.1991). ¶ 39. As Chief Justice Pittman recently wrote for the Court in Simon v. State : At this stage in the proceedings, this Court need merely consider whether (the prisoner in question's) petition, affidavits, and trial record render it sufficiently likely that he received ineffective assistance of counsel so that an evidentiary hearing should be held. `Put otherwise, on the papers and record before us, can we say with confidence that at any evidentiary hearing (petitioner) will not be able to show that he has been denied effective assistance of counsel.' 857 So.2d 668, 683 (Miss.2003) (citations omitted). ¶ 40. Showing prejudice is where Crawford fails in this argument. In support, Crawford offers three exhibits, labeled K, L, and F. Exhibit K is an assortment of medical records requested by Crawford from the Northeast Mississippi Medical Center in Tupelo. In his petition, Crawford uses this information to show that he suffered a seizure and was transported to the medical center for treatment and testing. ¶ 41. Exhibit L is a signed affidavit from Lemly D. Hutt Jr., Ph. D. Dr. Hutt is a clinical psychologist who had been treating Crawford for months prior to his unrelated 1993 trial and originally found Crawford competent for trial. In his petition, Crawford alleges that Dr. Hutt, after learning of the seizure and resulting medication, reversed his position and found Crawford incompetent for trial. It is Crawford's position that Exhibit K supports such a proposition. However, such is not the case. ¶ 42. Despite having not seen Crawford since his seizure at the time of the affidavit, Hutt relays information from defense counsel that due to the medication, Crawford appeared groggy and drugged, is experiencing dizziness and is sometimes incoherent. In the remainder of the paragraph, Hutt notes that it was apparent that at that time, the treating physicians were attempting to determine the correct dosage of medication for Crawford. In the subsequent paragraph, Dr. Hutt states [u]ntil I am given an opportunity to re-examine Mr. Crawford and review the results of the tests performed on him as a result of these seizures, I am unable to assess his competency to stand trial with certainty. The closest this document comes to stating that Crawford was incompetent was Dr. Hutt's statement that I can say, based on these facts relayed to me that there is a probability that he is currently incompetent to stand trial. ¶ 43. This Court has already indirectly ruled on the weight that should be given to this affidavit. In the 1993 trial, Crawford's counsel raised the issue of his competency while medicated and used this affidavit along with one from Dr. Mark Webb. See Crawford, 787 So.2d at 1242. As this Court stated, both expressed concerns regarding the effect of both Lithium and Dilantin on Crawford's competency to stand trial. Id. However, the State countered with the testimony of Dr. Reb McMichael, who stated that the levels of Lithium administered to Crawford was barely... therapeutic or lower than therapeutic and that the levels of Dilantin administered was 100 milligrams three times a day and that such was not expected to interfere with his ability to interact with his attorney. Id. This would have put Crawford and counsel for this petition on notice as to the levels of Dilantin that Crawford may have been on, yet there is no affidavit provided in the petition as to the effects of such a dosage on Crawford. ¶ 44. The only evidence that Crawford provides as to his alleged incompetency is in Exhibit F. This exhibit is an affidavit from Crawford's father wherein he states: Additionally, throughout the trial of the instant matter my son was medicated such that it affected the way he appeared in the courtroom. On several occasions Charles was incoherent and unable to respond to simple questions. There were also several days when Charles sat with his head slumped down or his back to the jury. ¶ 45. Other than these three exhibits, Crawford offers this Court nothing more than allegations, arguments, and inapplicable case law. Counsel should have requested that the trial court take note of any changes in Crawford's situation since the previous trial and again rule on his competency based on such changes. Counsel was deficient for not having done so. ¶ 46. However, Crawford must also show prejudice and such is his burden to carry. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Thus, it is now Crawford's burden to show facts which would have changed since the original determination, or to provide an affidavit by a doctor who would have testified as to his incompetency, or perhaps to have simply found how much medication Crawford was on at the time and provided a medical opinion as to the effects of such a level of medication. ¶ 47. However, he has not done so. He has merely provided this Court with proof that he had a seizure and no medication, proof that one doctor was doubtful of his competency, and his father's assertions that his medication affected the way he presented himself at trial. Thus, Crawford has not carried his burden in regards to prejudice. Therefore, this claim fails.

¶ 48. Crawford next alleges his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the indictment handed down by the grand jury in either of two ways. First, he states counsel was ineffective because it failed to object that the indictment was invalid on its face. However, the invalidity of Crawford's indictment was addressed on appeal and Crawford was found not to have been prejudiced by such. Crawford, 716 So.2d at 1050-51. Therefore, in this proceeding, he will be unable to meet the prejudice prong of Strickland. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7. ¶ 49. In addition, Crawford states that his counsel should have challenged the indictment because one of the members of the grand jury was related to a prosecution witness. This Court has already held that absent statutory provision to the contrary, it is permissible for a member of the grand jury to be related to the victim, meaning that such relation, alone, is not grounds for disqualification. Southward v. State, 293 So.2d 343, 344 (Miss.1974). Therefore, we fail to see how it would be any less permissible for one related to a witness to serve on a grand jury. ¶ 50. In addition, in the same letter mentioned earlier, written around the time of trial, Crawford agreed with his counsel's decision not to challenge the indictment on such grounds as the prosecution would probably just go get another. Therefore, Crawford will be unable to meet the necessary showing of deficiency of counsel. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7.
¶ 51. Crawford alleges that it was ineffective for counsel to not file a motion to suppress prior bad acts and convictions. It must first be reiterated that counsel is given wide latitude in its choice and employment of strategies and defenses. Hiter v. State, 660 So.2d 961, 965 (Miss.1995). In addition, when the defense is insanity, either general or partial, the door is thrown wide open for the admission of evidence of every act of the accused's life relevant to the issue of sanity and is admissible in evidence. McLeod v. State, 317 So.2d 389, 391 (Miss.1975). ¶ 52. In this case, the insanity defense was employed and, thus, the door was opened to a wealth of evidence. Crawford has failed to show that any of the evidence that he gives general reference to would be inadmissible in such a context. As such, he has failed to show that counsel was deficient and this issue is without merit. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7.
¶ 53. Crawford alleges that counsel was ineffective because they did not file a written motion to suppress confession statements. However, it is clear from the record that such a motion was made ore tenus, challenging Crawford's statements on such grounds as voluntariness. Crawford fails to cite any cases that stand for the proposition that motions must be made in writing. As such, he is unable to show deficiency on the part of counsel and this claim is without merit. See Id.
¶ 54. Crawford claims that counsel was inefficient for failing to request a bench trial. However, Crawford has cited no authority for the proposition that it is ineffective assistance for counsel not to request a bench trial. Furthermore, while there is a right guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to a trial by jury, there is no right to a trial by bench. [6] As such, Crawford is unable to show deficiency of counsel and this claim is without merit. See id.
¶ 55. Crawford alleges that counsel's failure to appeal the denial of his petition to proceed ex parte to secure funds rendered counsel's assistance ineffective. However, in this petition, Crawford identified the specific expert he wished to obtain and that expert appeared and testified at his trial. His need to proceed ex parte was rendered moot. Since the claim was moot, Crawford is unable to show any prejudice from the failure to appeal the petition and, thus, this claim is without merit. Id.
¶ 56. Crawford asserts that his counsel was ineffective for failure to pursue plea negotiations. However, Crawford provides no evidence that the prosecution even considered tendering a plea offer to him. Therefore, Crawford is unable to show any prejudice and, as such, this claim is without merit.

¶ 57. Crawford alleges that counsel failed to secure adequate voir dire conditions so that the jurors would provide the information necessary to the exercise of defense challenges. However, his arguments essentially boil down to an assertion that counsel was rendered ineffective because it was unable to secure individual sequestered voir dire and the jury became tainted through information concerning prior convictions. ¶ 58. However, Crawford has cited no authority that indicates that the failure to obtain individualized, sequestered voir dire renders counsel's assistance ineffective. [7] Since, Crawford can therefore not show counsel to be deficient for not obtaining such a method of voir dire, this claim is without merit. Id.
¶ 59. Crawford's assertion that counsel failed to ask necessary questions or properly challenge jurors is likewise without merit. As Crawford fails to allege what questions should have been asked or provide case law supporting his contention, he fails to give this court a means by which to measure counsels' performance. Therefore, his claim is without merit.
¶ 60. Crawford asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to rehabilitate jurors who had stated that their opposition to the death penalty would either preclude them from being able to impose such punishment and/or would prevent them from rendering an impartial verdict. However, it is not ineffective assistance for counsel to fail to attempt rehabilitation of jurors when those jurors make it unmistakably clear that they could either not vote for the death penalty or that their attitude towards the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to defendant's guilt. Smith v. Black, 904 F.2d 950, 978-79 (5th Cir.1990). In this case, voir dire showed the prospective jurors' clear and unequivocal denial of the ability to render the death penalty or to remain impartial in a death penalty case. Therefore, it was not ineffective assistance to fail to attempt to rehabilitate them.
¶ 61. Crawford alleges counsel was ineffective in failing to have two jurors removed for cause. However, the record reflects that both jurors were removed from the case and both were removed for cause. This claim is without merit.
¶ 62. Crawford next alleges ineffective assistance through the alienation of jurors during voir dire. Crawford claims that counsel was rude and sarcastic. However, as his only support, Crawford provides a Texas case wherein the prosecutor made several inflammatory remarks and went so far as to ask the jury if he were making them angry. See Miller v. State, 728 S.W.2d 133 (Tex.Ct.App.1987). Since Crawford has failed to allege similar facts in this case, he has failed to show deficiency in counsel and, therefore, this claim is without merit. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7.
¶ 63. Crawford first claims that counsel conceded guilt and, therefore, was ineffective in his opening statement. However, Crawford's version of the facts is incorrect. The record reflects that counsel conceded underlying facts, yet at all times argued that Crawford was not guilty by reason of insanity. This Court has recognized the strategic prudence of admitting underlying facts while denying guilt and found that such conduct does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See Evans v. State, 725 So.2d 613, 706-07, ¶¶ 441-48 (Miss.1997); Wiley v. State, 517 So.2d 1373, 1382 (Miss.1987). ¶ 64. In addition, Crawford claims that he was denied a fundamental right to present a portion of his own opening statement. However, Crawford never alleges that he would have done so if given the option. He simply states that this right was never explained to him. [8] As such, without even addressing the possible ineffective assistance issues, this portion of the claim is without merit.

¶ 65. Crawford alleges that it was ineffective for counsel not to demand a pre-trial hearing on admissibility regarding prior bad acts. However, Crawford fails to cite any case which states that it is ineffective assistance for counsel to fail to insist on such a pre-trial hearing. Thus, the Court is unable to find that counsel was deficient for such failure and this claim is without merit. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7.
¶ 66. Crawford asserts ineffectiveness in failing to object to testimony concerning prior bad acts. The first part of this claim is that counsel failed to object to certain parts of testimony where Crawford alleges that F.B.I. agent Summerlin made inappropriate references to Crawford's prior trials. However, this claim is lacking in merit as a review of the record reflects that the word trial never came out of agent Summerlin's mouth at the points alleged by Crawford. Summerlin use the words upcoming event, instead. This was not evidence of prior bad action as Crawford alleges. ¶ 67. Crawford also asserts that the prosecution elicited inadmissible prior bad act testimony from both Crawford's father and Dr. Russell, the defendant's expert. However, in each instance, the prosecution performed this questioning on the cross examination of a witness that the defendant was using to establish the insanity defense and, as such, prior bad act evidence became admissible for challenging this defense. See McLeod v. State, 317 So.2d at 391. Because all of the above evidence was admissible, Crawford cannot show counsel was deficient and, thus, his claim is without merit. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7.
¶ 68. Crawford alleges that counsel was ineffective for not requiring the trial court to conduct an on the record hearing pursuant to the requirements enumerated in Polk v. State, 612 So.2d 381 (Miss.1992). However, it is apparent that counsel did make a motion in limine to prevent the introduction of DNA evidence and that the court denied the motion, but not before hearing arguments by both sides and taking Polk into consideration. Also, the court's denial of the motion was affirmed on direct appeal. Not only does Crawford fail to allege what counsel specifically should have done, but this Court found that the evidence was properly admitted. Because Crawford has failed to show deficient performance or prejudice, this claim is without merit. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7.
¶ 69. Crawford asserts that counsels' refusal to cross examine the states' expert witness on hair was ineffective assistance. First, Crawford already admitted to being in the barn with the victim, which is all that Crawford has alleged that this testimony showed. As such, he can not show prejudice in this case. In addition, as we have stated above, it is not necessarily deficient for counsel, when employing an insanity defense, to stipulate to underlying facts. See McLeod v. State, 317 So.2d at 391. Crawford has not provided this Court with any case law that finds it per se ineffective to not cross examine and opposing party's expert witness. Because he can not show deficiency or prejudice, this claim is without merit. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7.
¶ 70. Crawford claims ineffective assistance in that counsel failed to secure funds for an independent expert to analyze fingerprints because it is possible that this expert may have discovered exculpatory evidence. Essentially, Crawford is claiming that the outcome of trial might have been different. However, Strickland requires a showing that the verdict would have been different; and therefore, this claim is without merit. Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7; see also Brown v. State, 798 So.2d 481, 506 (Miss.2001) (no ineffective assistance where petitioner does not make showing that verdict would have been different if expert were retained).
¶ 71. Crawford asserts that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to three specific pieces of testimony which, he claims, were designed to and did inflame the jury. He first claims prejudice as a result of F.B.I. agent Jackson's statement that he had a daughter close in age to the victim. When read in context, however, the statement was no more than an indication of his desire to find the victim as soon as possible in hopes that she might still be alive. Failure to object here was certainly not deficient. ¶ 72. Next, Crawford asserts that counsel should have objected to two statements made by F.B.I. Agent Summerlin. One statement referred to Crawford's professed opinion that at one point, it seemed as if the victim was attempting to witness to him. Another statement, actually made by the prosecution asks [a]nd that is when he killed her? While these statements were certainly objectionable, Crawford provides no case law on point or sufficiently analogous to back up his assertions that the failure to object to these individual statements rendered counsels' assistance ineffective. Indeed, the record reflects counsels' vigorous participation during the testimony of Agent Summerlin, making several objections. ¶ 73. In addition, it cannot be shown that Crawford was prejudiced by any of the above statements. Crawford has failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that the jury would have returned a different verdict had these statements been objected to and stricken from the record as this Court requires. See Mohr, 584 So.2d at 430. Because Crawford has failed to show deficiency or prejudice, this claim fails. See Woodward, 843 So.2d at 7.