Court Opinion

ID: 9645702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:33:12.557619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:30.622019
License: Public Domain

MACK, Associate Judge,
dissenting:
As I read the transcript of trial proceedings, and that of the post-conviction hearing which the trial judge ordered, I am troubled. With all due deference to the observations of the able hearing judge who rejected the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, I am obliged to point out that his memorandum opinion, which the majority today adopts without significant comment, was issued prior to recent decisions of this court which have identified the kind of gross incompetence by defense counsel which may blot out a substantial defense under Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295 (1973), pet. for rehearing denied, D.C.App., 329 A.2d 453 (1974) (en banc). See Tillery v. United States, D.C.App., 419 A.2d 970 (1980); Johnson v. United States, D.C.App., 413 A.2d 499 (1980); Oesby v. United States, D.C.App., 398 A.2d 1 (1979). I am unable to distinguish this case from that of Johnson, supra, where we held that the failure to present highly credible evidence bearing on the credibility of a key government witness rose to the standard of prejudice enunciated in Angarano. In Tillery, supra, we echoed the importance of defense counsel not only preparing but presenting highly credible impeachment material where the critical issue was that of credibility.
I.
I do not think it can be seriously disputed that, in the instant case, credibility was a crucial issue. The unfortunate complainant was a key witness; it was only on her word that appellant was identified as the man who struck her repeatedly in the left eye, kicked her, beat her with a stick, broke her arm, tied and gagged her, cut her, ripped off her clothes and raped her. Defense counsel, prior to and during trial, possessed information that would have raised questions as to the competency of this witness to have perceived, at the time of the crime, not only precisely what had been done to her but who had done it. He did not use this evidence for impeachment purposes.
*262Thus, at trial the complainant testified that she did not drink any alcoholic beverages on November 5, 1976, the day of the assault, that she was not an alcoholic and did not have a drinking problem. On cross-examination, defense counsel sought to elicit testimony that complainant was a chronic alcoholic and had been drinking on the day of the assault. Receiving a denial from the witness, counsel pursued the matter no further. Yet counsel was possessed of the complainant’s hospital records which revealed that from November 8-15, she lapsed into delirium tremens due to alcoholic intake sometime before coming into the hospital and that during that period, she experienced visual and auditory hallucinations. At various times she believed that there were dogs and puppies in her bed, and cats and dogs in her room. The medical records also disclosed that prior to admission, she had been taking medication to control a seizure disorder that she experienced since childhood. Furthermore, counsel was aware that one Dr. Morris, the physician who admitted complainant into the hospital, was of the opinion that she was intoxicated upon admission. Although counsel subpoenaed Dr. Morris, he did not call him to testify and he failed to employ any of this evidence to impeach complainant. Indeed, when the government sought to admit into evidence complainant’s hospital records, counsel objected and stated that he did not comprehend their relevancy. The objection was sustained.
During the post-trial hearing, counsel explained that his decision not to pursue a line of cross-examination to develop complainant’s drinking problem was based largely on an interview he had with her five months after the rape in which she appeared lucid and competent. “Moreover” as he testified, “the trial judge did not raise any questions as to [complainant’s] competence.” Counsel later added that he did not want to evoke sympathy for complainant by questioning her about her drinking problem. He did not want the hospital records introduced for the same reason and because they were not relevant to appellant’s alibi defense. With regard to the testimony of Dr. Morris, counsel decided not to call him because he “might” have testified that complainant reported to him that she had been raped, thus providing corroborative evidence.
I cannot view counsel’s explanations as supporting the existence of a rational “tactical” decision: As I have noted, complainant was the only witness to place appellant within her apartment on the morning of the assault. Her testimony was, at times, confused and contradictory; her credibility was crucial; impeachment was essential to the defense. The medical evidence and testimony available to counsel and of which he was aware was highly credible and would have substantially bolstered appellant’s defense. Counsel’s decision not to present this evidence based on his interview of complainant and his desire to avoid the evocation of sympathy for her had no basis in reason: complainant’s display of lucidity five months subsequent to the assault had no relevancy to the issue of her mental state on the date of her assault; that mental state was relevant to appellant’s defense of alibi. The detriment of Dr. Morris’ possibly adding to the fact that complainant reported rape pales in comparison to the benefit of his testimony concerning complainant’s inebriated condition upon admission; the likelihood that introduction of that portion of complainant’s medical record describing her injuries would have evoked sympathy for her was minimal compared to the previous introduction by the government of the more inflammatory evidence of photographs depicting her battered condition. In my view, counsel was grossly incompetent for failing to employ the impeachment evidence available to him concerning complainant’s inebriated condition:
In like vein, I think that counsel was incompetent in failing to use favorable medical evidence which indicated that complainant’s genital area was in a normal condition upon admission. Counsel did not subpoena or interview the gynecologist who examined the complainant, nor did he present any evidence regarding the examination. Instead, he chose to argue a nega*263tive inference concerning the government’s lack of medical evidence of rape during closing arguments to the jury. When questioned at the post-trial hearing about his strategy at trial, counsel testified as follows:
Q. [Post Trial Counsel for appellant]: Why didn’t you consider it relevant to call the gynecologist who examined her?
A. [Trial Counsel for appellant]: Well, it was obvious that no semen was found in the vagina—
Q. How was it obvious?
A. From the pretrial investigation.
Q. Well, what about the jury’s information; how were they going to know that?
A. I pointed that out in closing argument that the Government had not produced any evidence of semen in the vagina.
Q. My question is: Did you not consider it a relevant point to bring up on defense?
A. Well, the point was brought up on defense, in the defense of Mr. Williams.
Q. But only in closing argument.
In this regard the instant case is factually similar to Johnson v. United States, supra. In Johnson, the defendant was charged with taking indecent liberties with and enticing a minor child. Ten days before trial, his counsel became aware of a medical report that concluded that there was no evidence of trauma in the complainant’s vagina or genital area, thereby directly contradicting the complainant’s account of the incident. The examining gynecologist was not subpoenaed or called to trial, although counsel attempted to present the medical report’s negative findings indirectly in his closing argument by arguing that the government’s failure to produce the results of the medical examination allowed an inference that the evidence would have been favorable to the defendant. In reversing the conviction and granting a new trial, we held that trial counsel was grossly incompetent in his trial preparation by failing to investigate the favorable medical report, obtain a copy of the report, and secure and present the testimony of the gynecologist. We concluded:
From the facts developed at the post-trial hearing it is undisputed that trial counsel was informed at least ten days prior to trial that Dr. Gaither’s medical report would be favorable to the defense, yet trial counsel made no attempt to secure either a copy of the medical report nor to interview Dr. Gaither as a potential defense witness. This failure became salient when the government rested without calling Dr. Gaither to testify and trial counsel realized the favorable medical testimony would be lost. At that late juncture, the perfunctory issuance of a forthwith subpoena directed only to the doctor’s place of previous employment proved unsurprisingly fruitless. Trial counsel was left with the sole option of arguing the negative inference from the failure of the government to present medical testimony. The fact that counsel was forced to exploit a negative inference is indicative of his inadequate preparation. [413 A.2d at 503.]
In my view Johnson is controlling here both as to the finding of incompetence and its significance to the defense. As we said in that case:
A ‘substantial defense’, however, is not limited to an affirmative defense or the presentation of an alibi defense. A defense may be predicated upon disproving an element of the crime charged, ... or simply discrediting the testimony of the prosecution witness.... The loss of highly credible impeachment material, which may have been sufficient to cast a reasonable doubt on the government’s evidence, blots out a substantial defense. [413 A.2d at 504-05 (citations omitted).]
II.
While I think, therefore, that Johnson would mandate reversal in this case, there is more. For additional reasons I cannot embrace the trial court’s findings that defense counsel’s omissions taken separately or together, did not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. Indeed as a matter of law, I would find the trial *264court’s assessment erroneous in that, after finding that counsel was well prepared for trial,1 the court added “Except in very strained and peculiar instances, this is where the court’s inquiry into ineffective assistance allegations should properly terminate.” This is not the law — at least not at this point in time. See Oesby v. United States, supra.
In Tillery, supra, we applied the “totality of circumstances” test announced in Oesby in assessing the performance of counsel. We found the preparation and presentation of an insanity defense to be grossly incompetent. We noted that when it clearly appeared that counsel’s performance resulted in prejudice to appellant, reversal for a new trial was compelled.
In my view the rationale of these cases compels a finding that the investigation, preparation and presentation of appellant’s additional defense of physical impossibility was grossly incompetent. During the post-trial hearing, trial counsel testified that he did not pursue the defense of physical impossibility because “rather than get into a complex medical defense I concentrated primarily on the alibi defense.” Counsel made this decision without fully comprehending the nature of appellant’s ailment2 or seeking medical advice either from the doctor who examined appellant or from outside medical experts. The evidence as developed in the post-trial hearing revealed that Dr. James C. Cawood examined appellant on October 26, 1976. Appellant complained of severe lower back pain and Dr. Cawood diagnosed it as “like a ruptured disc.” Per-codan, a very strong narcotic, was prescribed, x-rays were ordered and appellant was advised to seek the advice of a neurologist, Dr. 0. Hugh Fulcher, and to refrain from work for three months. Dr. Cawood was interviewed by defense counsel’s investigator to whom he made a full disclosure of appellant’s condition.
Dr. Fulcher examined appellant on November 3, 1976, two days prior to the assault on complainant, and deduced that he was suffering from a sciatica resulting from a pinching of the nerve root in the lower lumbar region. Dr. Fulcher postulated that this “pinching” had resulted from a “degenerated intervertebral disc between the fifth lumbar vertebra and the first sacral segment.” Equagesic, a sedative, and a sacroiliac belt were prescribed for appellant although Dr. Fulcher did not think appellant’s condition sufficiently severe to warrant a myelogram,3 a hospital stay or cessation of appellant’s desk job. Counsel testified that he relied on this latter conclusion when deciding to forego asserting the defense of physical impossibility; yet, he never consulted with Dr. Fulcher. In an affidavit accompanying appellant’s post-trial motion, Dr. Fulcher stated that at the time he examined him on November 3, appellant was experiencing an acute pain attack which almost completely incapacitated him and that he was complaining about loss of his “manpower.”4 However, since appellant’s previous acute attacks had subsided, Dr. Fulcher, in reaching his conclusion that appellant’s condition was not “sufficiently severe,” assumed that his present attack would similarly subside iri time. But, Dr. Fulcher concluded, “It would have been most unlikely, if not impossible, for him to have improved very much within *265two days of the examination.” A subsequent examination of appellant performed by Dr. Fulcher on May 2, 1977, revealed that the condition of appellant’s back had not returned to normal and that he was still experiencing some pain. Dr. Fulcher estimated appellant’s disability at that time to be approximately fifteen percent.
Despite counsel’s testimony that he decided to forego the “complex” defense of physical impossibility, the record belies that assertion. Counsel elicited testimony from appellant and his wife concerning the debi-litative nature of his back condition. Additionally, the prescription for equagesic was introduced into evidence. Counsel did not, however, reinforce this line of defense by calling as witnesses either Dr. Cawood or Dr. Fulcher. Instead, he allowed the prosecution to draw negative inferences5 from the decision not to call Dr. Fulcher, and he opened the way for the prosecution to present the damaging testimony of Dr. Fulcher’s nurse concerning her recollection of appellant’s condition.6 Indeed, in his summation to the jury, the prosecutor stated:
.The defense case [is] alibi ... plus a little suggestion of impotency .... Is it reasonable that, here in the courtroom, last minute, a man takes the stand and says he has this slipped disc? He diagnosed himself. Where is the doctor? The nurse ... told you ... [that] his chief complaint [to her], pain in the right arm, goes down into the leg and [his] toes fall asleep at times — Is this the type of injury ... [which is] a defense to rape?
I cannot view counsel’s actions as constituting a tactical choice on his part. His presentation to the jury of some testimony and physical evidence as to appellant’s back condition indicates counsel’s belated realization of the importance of appellant’s disability. Unfortunately for appellant, counsel had not adequately prepared this line of defense as witnessed by his failure to comprehend the exact nature of his ailment, employ the favorable report of Dr. Cawood, contact Dr. Fulcher regarding his diagnosis of appellant’s condition, or consult a medical expert as to the feasibility of the defense in light of the existing medical evidence.
His lack of preparation and presentation only served to obscure the seriousness and extensiveness of appellant’s condition and to blot out an affirmative medical defense to the prejudice of appellant.
I would hold, applying the “totality of circumstances” test, that counsel’s gross incompetence in his preparation, investigation and presentation of appellant’s medical defense, and in failing to impeach a key government witness with highly credible evidence, has deprived appellant of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. I respectfully dissent.

. The court alluded to the voluminous investigative reports which were transferred to counsel. I could agree, as we found in Tillery that the “information was all there” (see 419 A.2d at 973) but here as in Tillery counsel did not use it.

. At one point in the hearing, counsel stated that he did not know the meaning of a neurologist’s diagnosis. Additionally, he could not perceive the connection between appellant’s back disorder and impotency. Expert medical testimony presented during the post-trial hearing indicated that back ailments similar to appellant’s did diminish or entirely eradicate interest in performing sexual acts, especially during an acute attack of pain.

. A myelogram is a film reproduction procedure using roentgen rays whereby the spinal subarchnoid space is visualized after an injection of a contrast medium.

. Dr. Fulcher explained that the term “manpower” was understood to mean sexual potency.

. Several times during cross-examination, the prosecution questioned appellant concerning the whereabouts of his doctor.

. The nurse, Mary Hughes, testified that during his November 3 office visit, appellant did not complain to her of severe back pain or impotency, but only of pain in his right hip and leg.