Opinion ID: 2775227
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Additional Information About Other Suspects

Text: ¶ 51 Mr. Griffin next points to various sources providing numerous allegations that he claims constitute substantial evidence that others committed the murder. We address them briefly here. A. Mr. Nager’s Similarity to Gas Station Attendant ¶ 52 Mr. Griffin asks this court to remand to supplement the record with additional evidence that Mr. Nager matched a description of the man at the gas station. However, there is sufficient evidence on the record for a determination that trial counsel did not perform ineffectively. At trial, Detective Cosgrove stated that Mr. Sabbah identified Mr. Nager out of a photo lineup and said that he was ―consistent with‖ the man from the gas station. We determine that Mr. Griffin did not suffer prejudice for counsel’s failure to introduce additional testimony that Mr. Nager looked like the man from the gas station. Mr. Sabbah was a primary eyewitness in the case, and the defense elicited testimony that he had selected Mr. Nager out of a lineup. Additional evidence that Mr. Nager fit the description of the station attendant therefore would have been cumulative. B. Mr. Nager Lied About His Location on the Night of the Murder ¶ 53 Mr. Griffin next alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence showing that Mr. Nager lied to police about his whereabouts on the night of the murder. This claim is based on a statement in Detective Cosgrove’s affidavit that during his investigation he ―became aware‖ of additional allegations, including that Mr. Nager ―lied to police about his whereabouts around the time of the homicide.‖ We determine that this allegation is speculative. Detective Cosgrove does not explain in the affidavit how he knows these facts, only that at some point he ―became aware.‖ The detective also does not provide any additional details about where Mr. Nager claimed to be or where he actually was. To satisfy the standard under rule 23B, Mr. Griffin must provide a more specific allegation. 21 STATE v. GRIFFIN Opinion of the Court C. Testimony of Michael Caldwell ¶ 54 Mr. Griffin argues that it was error for defense counsel not to call Mr. Caldwell, who made numerous statements implicating Mr. Martinez and Mr. Nager,49 to testify at trial. This claim fails, however, because at trial the parties stipulated that if called to testify, Mr. Caldwell would have invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Thus, Mr. Griffin cannot demonstrate ineffective assistance because Mr. Caldwell would not have testified even if called. ¶ 55 Moreover, in his affidavit, Mr. Richards explained that they decided not to call Mr. Caldwell for strategic reasons because they ―believed he was not a credible witness.‖ Detective Cosgrove affirmed this determination, testifying at trial that Mr. Caldwell’s story changed numerous times. We have recognized that counsel’s conduct is not unreasonable when he chooses not to call a potential witness whom he deems to be inconsistent and lacking credibility.50 Such a witness represents an unknown for the defense, and counsel could reasonably believe that the testimony may prove more damaging than helpful. In this case, defense counsel elicited substantial testimony through Detective Cosgrove that Mr. Caldwell had implicated Mr. Nager and Mr. Martinez in the murder. And 49 For example, at trial, Detective Cosgrove testified that Mr. Caldwell said that he drove Mr. Martinez in his family truck to the gas station because Mr. Nager wanted the clerk ―dealt with.‖ Mr. Caldwell stated that he waited outside while the two men were in the store, and when he entered the store later he saw blood everywhere. He did not know if Mr. Martinez killed Mr. Perry; he only ―saw the mess afterwards.‖ 50 See Fernandez, 870 P.2d at 876 (explaining that ―counsel’s decision to call or not to call a certain witness‖ is a ―strategic decision‖); see also Williamson v. Moore, 221 F.3d 1177, 1181 (11th Cir. 2000) (finding no ineffective assistance for failure to call witness who made inconsistent statements about a murder because ―a reasonable attorney could have decided not to call non-credible witnesses‖); United States v. Harden, 846 F.2d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that it was not ineffective assistance to decide not to call a witness whose credibility was at issue). 22 Cite as: 2015 UT 18 Opinion of the Court particularly where police also considered Mr. Caldwell to lack credibility, we cannot say that it was unreasonable for counsel to refrain from calling him and instead rely on the detective’s testimony. We thus hold that counsel’s performance was not deficient. D. Additional Evidence Implicating Others ¶ 56 Finally, Mr. Griffin points to additional allegations that he claims provide substantial evidence that another individual committed the crime. He alleges that, for example: Mr. Nager accused Mr. Martinez of the murder during a police interview but later changed his story; police thought the crime was committed with rage and Mr. Martinez fit the profile of an angry youth; police received information that Mr. Perry caught Mr. Martinez and Mr. Ritter burglarizing cars by the gas station; police had believed Mr. Nager and Mr. Martinez committed the crime until the DNA from the one-dollar bill matched Mr. Griffin; and police received information about two other possible suspects—Delmont Gentry and Glenn Dansey—who both wore tennis shoes, drove white pickup trucks, and allegedly bragged about a murder. Additionally, Mr. Griffin makes general allegations that ―police and investigators were contacted by many witnesses and received numerous tips implicating Nager and Martinez.‖ Mr. Griffin does not identify these witnesses, provide supporting affidavits, or indicate with any specificity what their testimony would be. We determine that each of these claims fails because the allegations are too speculative.