Opinion ID: 172342
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Catherine Bledsoe's Vouching for Tom

Text: Floyd and Tom's mother, Catherine Bledsoe (Catherine), testified that she told Floyd she knew Tom did not murder C.A., and Floyd agreed with her that Tom did not do it. ROA, Vol. IV, at 776. Specifically, Catherine said, [Floyd] called me and he said that he didn't do it and I says, `Well, I know Tom didn't do it.' Id. Catherine's testimony was not found to be objectively unreasonable by the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court stated: At trial, Catherine Bledsoe related a conversation she had with Floyd shortly after he was arrested and Tom was released, in which she and Floyd agreed that Tom did not kill C.A. Floyd argues that this was inadmissible, damaging, prejudicial testimony concerning Floyd's mother's opinion of Tom's culpability. We agree with the [Kansas] district court's determination that Floyd fails to meet his burden to show that Kurth's representation was constitutionally deficient on this point. 283 Kan. at 100, 150 P.3d 868. The federal district court found the failure to object to Catherine's testimony objectively unreasonable. The district court characterized Catherine's testimony as the credibility call of a mother in a swearing match between two brothers. Mem. and Order at 47. The district court found that not objecting to this testimony was both deficient and prejudicial. The Kansas Supreme Court reasonably concluded that Kurth's failure to object to Catherine's testimony was not deficient. Catherine's testimony could easily indicate that she thought neither of her sons capable of murder. Even assuming Kurth's failure to object to Catherine's testimony was deficient, such a deficiency would not be prejudicial. Finally, the Kansas Supreme Court was not objectively unreasonable under the AEDPA's standards when it determined that the cumulative effect of counsel's deficiencies was not prejudicial to Floyd.