Opinion ID: 1439931
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: presentation of two theories of defense

Text: Trial counsel was not ineffective in arguing that a reasonable doubt of guilt existed and a diminished capacity defense. Missouri courts have long recognized that criminal defendants have the right to present multiple defenses, even if the defenses are somewhat inconsistent. State v. Wright, 352 Mo. 66, 175 S.W.2d 866, 872 (1943). In State v. Lora, the court held that a defendant could not be prevented from offering evidence that he was feeble-minded, thus lacking the mental capacity to commit the crime charged, even though he was also relying on the defense of alibi. 305 S.W.2d 452, 455-56 (Mo.1957). As the Court noted, a defense of mental incapacity and alibi are not necessarily inconsistent. Id. at 455. Proof that an individual does not have the capacity to form intent does not negate an alibi defense. Id. The facts underling both defenses can exist simultaneously. In this case, asserting that a reasonable doubt of guilt exits and that the accused had diminished capacity are not inconsistent, as Clayton alleges. It is not logically inconsistent to argue that the state failed to prove that Clayton was the shooter and that he did not have the mental capacity necessary to form intent for first-degree murder. Both can be equally true and exist at the same moment in time. While pursuing both defenses in one trial might hurt an attorney's credibility with the jury in some cases, there is no per se rule against an attorney arguing both that the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and asserting a diminished capacity defense. The decision to use two defenses turns solely on a question of trial strategy. Making both arguments in Clayton's case was a reasonable choice. A strategic decision is reasonable if it was made with the same skill and diligence another reasonably competent attorney would use under similar circumstances. Sanders, 738 S.W.2d at 858. In this case, Clayton's attorney knew that he did not have a strong case under either theory. Even though there was gunshot residue on Martin Cole's hands, Clayton's attorney knew that Cole had a good alibi for the time of the murder and had no motive to kill the deputy. From his numerous years of felony jury trial experience in the local area, he also knew that juries were very suspicious of insanity defenses and hired experts. Finally, the attorney knew of the conflicting evidence about Clayton's mental capacity that would make a diminished capacity defense tough to sell to the jury. The attorney relied on more than his own hunches and experience in deciding to pursue both defenses. He assembled a mock jury made up people out of the same general community where the case was going to be tried and presented the state's evidence and both defenses to them. Most responded favorably toward the reasonable doubt defense, and the panel members did not report a problem with him presenting both defenses. He also had numerous discussions with two other attorneys about the issue and even discussed the matter with Clayton himself. Under the circumstances, the attorney's decision cannot be characterized as clearly unreasonable. The authorities Clayton cites from other jurisdictions in support of his argument are not helpful. For example, he argues that in Ross v. Kemp, the Supreme Court of Georgia found that the presentation of inconsistent defenses is ineffective assistance. 260 Ga. 312, 393 S.E.2d 244, 245 (1990). That is not quite the holding in Kemp. In Kemp, the defendant had two different attorneys, one retained by his family and one appointed by the court, that were both actively involved in questioning witnesses and arguing to the jury. Id. The attorneys never conferred with each other about strategy prior to trial, they argued inconsistent defenses to the jury, and one of them placed the defendant on the stand without preparing him at all to testify. Id. It was all these factors together that resulted in the finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Obviously, the situation in Clayton's trial was very different. While it may be unusual for an attorney to probe weaknesses in the state's case giving rise to reasonable doubt and also to assert a diminished capacity defense, it is not unheard of or per se unreasonable. In the circumstances of this case, the presentation of both arguments did not fall below the objective standard of reasonableness required by Strickland .