Court Opinion

ID: 9576879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:29:43.993988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:41.825039
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Case No. S97X1438, wherein the majority affirms the denial of habeas relief as to Christenson’s convictions for murder and armed robbery. However, I believe that the habeas court erred in vacating Christenson’s death sentence for the murder. Therefore, I dissent to the majority’s affirmance of the judgment in Case No. S97A1435.
I respectfully submit that both the habeas court’s order and the majority’s opinion support only the hypothetical proposition that Christenson’s trial counsel could have presented a more effective defense to the imposition of the death penalty. However, the issue to be determined is whether the defense which actually was presented was ineffective. In the seminal case on ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the Supreme Court of the United States cautioned that “it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel’s defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 689 (III) (A) (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). Christenson’s defense is not rendered constitutionally ineffective simply because *243there is a possibility that it might have been more effective than it actually proved to be. “[T]he proper standard for attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance. [Cit.]” Strickland v. Washington, supra at 687 (III) (A).
No presumption of ineffectiveness attaches because the jury imposed the death sentence for the murder which Christenson committed. Indeed, there is a strong presumption that Christenson received effective representation. Strickland v. Washington, supra at 689 (III) (A); Lowe v. State, 267 Ga. 410, 415 (5) (d) (478 SE2d 762) (1996). Christenson’s trial counsel is entitled to a presumption of effectiveness, and deference must be given to the tactics he determined to employ. Strickland v. Washington, supra at 689 (III) (A); Lakes v. State, 266 Ga. 389 (2) (467 SE2d 566) (1996). Christenson has no constitutional right to counsel who would insure the return of a life sentence. He has only the right to “ ‘ “counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance.” (Cit.)’ [Cit.]” McGill v. State, 263 Ga. 81, 82 (2) (428 SE2d 341) (1993). The appropriate test for determining whether Christenson was afforded his constitutional right to reasonably effective counsel
has nothing to do with what the best lawyers would have done. Nor is the test even what most good lawyers would have done. We ask only whether some reasonable lawyer at the trial could have acted, in the circumstances, as defense counsel acted at trial ... we are not interested in grading lawyers’ performances; we are interested in whether the adversarial process at trial, in fact, worked adequately. [Cit.]
Jefferson v. Zant, 263 Ga. 316, 318 (3) (a) (431 SE2d 110) (1993). The purpose of the effective assistance of counsel guarantee of the Sixth Amendment “is simply to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial.” Strickland v. Washington, supra at 689 (III) (A).
With the benefit of hindsight, the habeas court and the majority have engaged in what I perceive to be a second-guessing of the trial tactics of Christenson’s trial counsel by making judgments as to what should have been done additionally or differently. However, hindsight is wholly irrelevant in judging the effectiveness of trial counsel. Strickland v. Washington, supra at 689 (III) (A); Smith v. Francis, 253 Ga. 782, 783 (1) (325 SE2d 362) (1985). Employment of hindsight
usually proves at most the wholly unremarkable fact that with the luxury of time and the opportunity to focus resources on specific parts of a made record, post-conviction counsel will inevitably identify shortcomings in the performance of prior counsel. . . . “[I]n retrospect, one may *244always identify shortcomings,” [cit.] but perfection is not the standard of effective assistance.
Waters v. Thomas, 46 F3d 1506, 1514 (II) (A) (3) (11th Cir. 1995). “The reasonableness of the conduct is viewed at the time of trial and under the circumstances of the case. [Cits.]” Berry v. State, 267 Ga. 476, 479 (4) (480 SE2d 32) (1997).
The primary conclusion is that Christenson’s trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to pursue the mental health issue as a possible additional mitigating factor. However, it is clear that trial counsel made the strategic decision that pursuing the mental health issue would be less effective with the local jurors than an attempt at “humanizing” Christenson. “[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.” Strickland v. Washington, supra at 691 (III) (A). It is not constitutionally ineffective to fail to pursue an issue which, in the estimation of otherwise reasonable trial counsel, would not be an effective trial strategy.
Sometimes, a lawyer can make a reasonable decision that no matter what an investigation might produce, he wants to steer clear of a certain course. In this case, counsel were longtime local lawyers who knew their community.
Rogers v. Zant, 13 F3d 384, 387 (11th Cir. 1994). Certainly, Christenson’s trial attorneys were in a better position than either the habeas court or this Court to determine whether the local jurors would be more inclined to accept a strictly “humanizing” mitigation strategy than one which was also based upon expert testimony as to Christenson’s voluntary drug use and his “narcissistic” personality. In some communities, voluntary drug use and psychological problems might not be considered as circumstances in mitigation of a murder wherein the victim was shot five times, the body was concealed and the perpetrator then fled the state in the victim’s stolen truck. Since trial counsel believed that the local jury would not readily accept a defense based in whole or part upon Christenson’s voluntary drug use and his psychological problems, it could be argued that it would have been an act of ineffective legal representation had counsel nevertheless asserted that defense.
[Slacking different defenses can undercut with the jury the defense team’s credibility, which is essential to a likelihood of success. [Cits.] . . . [G]ood advocacy requires the winnowing out of some arguments in favor of stressing others: multiplicity of arguments or defenses hints at the lack of confidence in any one. [Cit.]
*245Decided March 16, 1998
Reconsideration denied April 1,1998.
J. Gray Conger, District Attorney, Chattahoochee Circuit, Thurhert E. Baker, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paige R. Whitaker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Jimmy D. Berry, for appellee.
Rogers v. Zant, supra at 388. Accordingly, Christenson’s death sentence is being reversed for the anomalous reason that his trial counsel failed to pursue a trial tactic which, had they elected to follow it, could be urged in post-conviction proceedings as an example of their ineffectiveness.
The habeas court and the majority purport to find other instances of ineffectiveness on the part of Christenson’s trial counsel. I submit that all of these instances evidence the unauthorized second-guessing of trial counsel’s tactical decisions and the application of an erroneous presumption that those tactical decisions were ineffective merely because they were unsuccessful. The fundamental error in the habeas court’s order which the majority perpetuates is in this failure “to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight. . . .” Strickland v. Washington, supra at 689 (III) (A). The law of this state authorizes the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder and there are some murder cases in which that penalty is authorized “[e]ven if many reasonable lawyers would not have done as defense counsel did at trial. . . .” Rogers v. Zant, supra at 386. In my opinion, this is one of those cases. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice Hunstein joins in this opinion.