Opinion ID: 1401004
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deficient

Text: Wilson contends his counsel's investigation was unreasonable because counsel did not obtain a diagnosis of schizophrenia, which would have been possible had the defense expert, Dr. Reynolds, done additional testing and interviewed additional witnesses. I disagree, and for three reasons conclude counsel exercised reasonable professional judgment in this case. First, the record does not indicate counsel knew or should have known further investigation was necessary. If counsel had no reason to think the information he had was incomplete and that additional diagnoses were possible, counsel reasonably developed his trial strategy based on the information the expert examination had already produced. Glaringly absent in the record is any statement from Wilson's counsel that he did not have enough time to obtain a further diagnosis. Wilson's counsel did, in fact, submit an affidavitbut only about the dual jury issue. The record before us lacks the single most accessible and helpful source of information to make an informed and non-speculative conclusion about trial counsel's performance. [7] Second, counsel obtained sufficient information about Wilson's mental health to make a reasonable decision about trial strategy, which he acted on at the mitigation phase. Once counsel decided to focus his mitigation strategy on Wilson's high intelligence and capacity for reform, it was reasonable for counsel not to pursue further leads of mental illness. Finally, we have no reason to believe on this record that the amount of time counsel allotted for the investigation unreasonably limited the information counsel was able to discover. Trial counsel developed a theory of mitigation based on knowledge of Wilson's personal history. As I discuss below, the record supports the conclusion counsel adequately put forward a defense based on his theory of the case. During the penalty phase of a death penalty case, effective assistance requires counsel to make reasonable efforts to determine whether a defendant's mental health presents a plausible argument against imposing the death penalty. See Smith v. Mullin, 379 F.3d 919, 942 (10th Cir.2004) (describing mental health evidence as of vital importance to the jury's decision at the punishment phase). In assessing the reasonableness of an attorney's investigation, we consider the quantum of evidence already known to counsel, [and] also whether the known evidence would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 527, 123 S.Ct. 2527. Counsel conducted a constitutionally sufficient inquiry into Wilson's mental health, and the record does not reveal that counsel had additional information that should have led to further testing or further witness interviews.
Wilson argues trial counsel faltered by failing to order further mental health testing and by failing to personally interview several family members. Neither claim has constitutional merit.