Opinion ID: 1476684
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Efforts to secure mother's participation

Text: Defendant's mother, Mattie, did not testify for him, not even to plead for his life. Harris notes that Call met only once with his mother, and blames Call for ruin[ing] any chance for [her] cooperation by immediately confronting her with accusations of abuse. The State points to the fact that Call did meet with defendant's mother, and that she, as well as defendant's brother, refused to testify for defendant. The State also notes that Mattie similarly was uncooperative with Sheila Fairchild.
Call testified that when he met Mattie, her demeanor was hostile. She immediately announced her intention of not cooperating. Although she eventually did cooperate by providing biographical information, she refused to testify on defendant's behalf. Call stated that she had great concern about her church friends finding out about it, her name appearing in the paper, and eventually she terminated her cooperation with us. According to Call, Mattie stated, I know what you're going to do, you're going to paint me as the terrible mother, and she was intent on not letting that happen. Call tried to convince her otherwise, telling her that his goal at trial would be to emphasize defendant's problems and the family's lack of resources, but his argument met with no success. As Call stated, based on his experience, many mothers are willing to throw themselves on the sword and say, yes, I was a terrible mother in order to save their child; however in this instance, Mattie simply was unwilling to do so. As an alternative tactic, Call asked Mattie to submit to psychological testing, hoping to introduce those results at trial, and he retained both Dr. Sadoff and Dr. Cooke for that purpose. She refused that request as well. Further, when asked why he met personally with Mattie only once, Call stated that she made it abundantly clear that she had no intention of helping her son. His testimony revealed the shocking explicitness with which he put to Mattie defendant's need for her testimony (telling her, you might as well stick a needle in your son's arm right now if you're not going to help us).
This record contains abundant evidence that objectively demonstrates Mattie's difficult nature and steadfast refusal to assist in her son's defense of his life. In her penalty-phase testimony, Sheila Fairchild stated that Mattie became uncooperative after two interviews, refusing a third with Fairchild and refusing to meet with her son's attorneys. When asked if Mattie gave her a specific reason, Fairchild responded: No. She wouldn't tell me why. I asked her why. And when I pressed her, she got rather nasty on the phone. To the extent she was able to interview Mattie, Fairchild described her as very resistant during those [interviews], very reluctant to disclose, share herself with me. In Lois Nardone's certification, she states that she interviewed defendant's mother. However, although she details the content of her other interviews, she does not state what, if anything, Mattie told her, or that she even was successful in speaking with Mattie. We note that PCR counsel did contact defendant's biological father to see if he would have testified had trial counsel asked him. We presume that a similar inquiry would have been made of defendant's mother. Nonetheless, although PCR counsel asked the PCR court to hear testimony from numerous witnesses, there was no request that the court hear testimony from Mattie. Given Call's testimony about Mattie's refusals to help in the case, the corroboration of that refusal and her general lack of cooperation, we conclude that trial counsel did not provide deficient assistance in his efforts to secure testimony or other assistance from Mattie Williams.