Opinion ID: 213878
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mitigation Evidence Actually Presented to the Jury

Text: Having failed to investigate and present to the jury the circumstances of Samayoa's upbringing, his trial counsel instead relied on three types of mitigating evidence, each of which was not only completely unpersuasive, but likely counterproductive. First, Samayoa's counsel referred the jury to the diagnoses of two psychological experts [6] who had testified before it at the guilt phase of the trial. The experts had told the jury that Samayoa suffered from organic brain damage and could not form the requisite intent to commit first-degree special circumstance felony murder, as defined by California at that time. The jury implicitly rejected the testimony of these experts when it convicted Samayoa, and it did so with good reason. [7] Both psychologists were manifestly inept and lacked credibility. The first, Dr. Meredith Friedman, conceded under cross-examination that she had made a number of errors in calculating Samayoa's test results (including several involving simple arithmetic); that she administered an outdated test to Samayoa and was unaware that the test had been substantially overhauled; that her only formal training in neuropsychological evaluation was a week-long training program for the administration of a test other than the one that she administered to Samayoa; and that a number of Samayoa's test results indicated that he was not brain damaged. This is but a sample of Dr. Friedman's lack of competence and understanding of the subject matter, as a fuller account would require reprinting a fair amount of her cross-examination. [8] The credibility of the second psychological expert upon whom the defense relied, Dr. Saul Saddick, likewise had been destroyed by the prosecution at the guilt phase of the trial. There, one government rebuttal witness testified that Saddick had diagnosed Samayoa with a psychological condition not recognized by the American Psychological Association. Another testified that Saddick had presented to the jury a diagram of the human brain that was upside-down and mislabeled, and observed (perhaps unnecessarily) that a person who could not correctly label a diagram of the brain was not competent to analyze the existence and behavioral implications of brain damage. Moreover, both Dr. Friedman and Dr. Saddick might well have bolstered the prosecution's case for sentencing Samayoa to death by testifying at the trial that they believed him to be a sociopath, a diagnosis that is notoriously unresponsive to treatment, and that any competent defense lawyer would work diligently to avoid introducing into evidence. In short, by the sentencing phase of the trial, Samayoa's counsel must have been aware that when they testified at the trial his psychological experts had been damaging to the defense, and that the jury had implicitly rejected their brain damage theory by rejecting the defense of inability to form the requisite intent. Nonetheless counsel proceeded to rely upon their prior testimony as the key to defendant's mitigation case, and sought to find no other experts who might testify at the sentencing hearing and offer testimony that might truly be mitigating. To rely on the trial witnesses' testimony regarding organic brain damage a second time rather than to seek out and introduce evidence of Samayoa's shockingly abusive childhood almost certainly sealed his fate. The second type of mitigating evidence upon which the trial counsel relied was the testimony of three correctional officers who had supervised Samayoa's work while he was in prison and lukewarmly praised his qualities as a worker. One testified that Samayoa was a very good worker, but later stated that Samayoa was an above-average worker, and when pressed further, an okay worker. Another, testified that [Samayoa] was an average worker, and sometimes even above average. Yet a third correctional officer stated that Samayoa's position as a beverage man in the prison cafeteria indicated Samayoa was a reliable worker, but conceded that he had not actually had any hands-on experience working with Samayoa. Much like the psychological expert testimony, the prison guards' testimony was clearly unhelpful and possibly counterproductive, for to present as his best possible witnesses prison guards who testified that he is a sometimes ... above-average prison worker suggested that there was truly very little to be said on his behalf. Finally, counsel presented the testimony of Samayoa's mother and two sisters. Samayoa's mother identified several old photographs of Samayoa with his family, showed the jury a Valentine's Day card he had sent her from prison reading Sweetheart of the Year, and related that because she had helped turn Samayoa in to the police, she would feel guilty if he received the death penalty. One of Samayoa's sisters, Inez Sykes, testified that she had no regrets about turning him in, and that before she learned that her brother was the murderer she had told her family that she felt a person who'd do something like that deserved anything they had coming to them. She testified that if he received a death sentence, she would understand. His sister Deana testified that Samayoa had a son who was very fond of him, although he rarely saw his father. She further testified that, Samayoa was not fit to be on the street ... but I would not like to see him get the gas chamber. Much like her sister Inez, Deana Samayoa testified that before she learned that her brother was the killer, she had told others that she felt whoever was responsible for the killings deserved to get it. Needless to say, the jury was unlikely to be swayed toward mercy by such testimony. Indeed, one would expect that any juror already willing to consider imposing a death sentence would feel validated in doing so by Inez's testimony that she would understand such a vote, not to mention both sisters' testimony that before learning of Samayoa's guilt they had felt that the perpetrator of his offenses deserved the death penalty. Moreover, the testimony of Samayoa's relatives gave the jury the impression that Samayoa committed his crimes despite coming from a normal and loving family background, when in fact nothing could have been further from the truth. In sum, this pathetic mitigation presentation likely did more harm than good to Samayoa's prospects of a sentence other than death. Trial counsel asked the jury to spare Samayoa's life based upon the prior testimony of psychological experts whose many blunders included basic mathematical mistakes, the administration of an outdated test, the mislabeling of an upside-down diagram of the human brain, and the diagnosis of Samayoa as a sociopath. He also presented the testimony of three prison guards who testified principally that Samayoa was somewhat above-average for a prison worker, and of family members who testified that they loved Samayoa and would feel guilt if he were executed because they turned him in, but would understand if the jury chose a death sentence. At no point did the jury hear a word about Samayoa's depraved and abusive upbringing, and, in fact, it was led to believe by the testimony of his mother and sisters that he was raised in a normal and loving household.