Court Opinion

ID: 9677526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:54:26.462486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:58.568900
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, dissenting. The majority opinion concludes that there was ineffective assistance of counsel by the public defender. Because the appellant has not furnished this court with a record of the original trial, we have been forced to make a decision largely in the dark. I cannot reach a conclusion of ineffectiveness based on piecemeal evidence without knowing what transpired at the original trial. Moreover, the allegations of the appellant appear to be largely matters of trial strategy. I would affirm. The majority sets forth the correct test for assessing ineffectiveness at trial: (1) error committed by trial counsel, and (2) prejudicial impact deriving from that error. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 68 (1984). We have stated that for the error of trial counsel to warrant a new trial, it must be so prejudicial as to have affected the outcome of the trial. Wainwright v. State, 307 Ark. 569, 823 S.W.2d 449 (1992). The majority’s reversal in the instant case turns on the public defender’s failure: (1) to explore calling the girls’ natural father who was previously suspected of molesting the girls, and (2) to call the defendant’s grandmother who told trial counsel that one of the victims ■ said what she did about Wicoff because she was mad at him for not taking her to Illinois. In the past, this court has looked to the abstract or record to determine the effectiveness of counsel at trial. See, e.g., Bowers v. State, 292 Ark. 249, 729 S.W.2d 170 (1987); Jeffers v. State, 280 Ark. 458, 658 S.W.2d 869 (1983). In this case, we do not know how the public defender conducted himself in cross-examining State witnesses, how he argued the case, and how he presented Wicoff’s defense in general. It is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that the outcome of a defendant’s trial was altered by the absence of two witnesses without knowing what else took place at trial. Most importantly, we have no idea what the testimony of the two victims was. I also see no reason to second guess the public defender’s conclusions about the two witnesses. The trial court, who presided over the trial, found that Wicoff’s complaints about trial counsel were a matter of trial strategy. In the same vein, this court has repeatedly stated in Rule 37 cases that the decision to call certain witnesses is largely a matter of trial strategy. Tisdale v. State, 311 Ark. 220, 843 S.W.2d 803 (1992); Mays v. State, 303 Ark. 505, 798 S.W.2d 75 (1990); Stewart v. State, 295 Ark. 48, 746 S.W.2d 58 (1988); Tackett v. State, 284 Ark. 211, 680 S.W.2d 696 (1984). The public defender testified at the Rule 37 hearing that he was fearful about calling the victims’ natural father, Randall Ciesielski, because he believed that the father would support the girls’ accusations. There is, too, the almost certain fact that any suggestion of the father’s prior sexual conduct with the girls would have been excluded under the Rape Shield Act, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-42-101 (1987). Thus, counsel’s failure to pursue calling Mr. Ciesielski appears eminently reasonable. With regard to the grandmother, Ethel Dickinson, the public defender believed that her testimony would have been suspect due to her relationship with the defendant and would have alienated the jury. I cannot say that the public defender’s judgment was clearly in error. The majority suggests that the public defender admitted Ms. Dickinson’s testimony would “shed doubt” on Wicoff’s guilt and, thus, essentially admitted his own ineffectiveness. I do not read his testimony that way. What he stated was that the grandmother’s testimony would shed doubt on the defendant’s guilt, but he then balanced this against other factors and decided not to call her. He gave these reasons for not calling her at the Rule 37 hearing: The first reason, and probably the most obvious, is she’s a relative. And putting a relative on the stand who will basically say, “This is what the girls told me,” I don’t think has much influence on a jury and, if anything, would more infuriate a jury, by just calling a relative saying, “This is what they told me, therefore he should be acquitted.” In addition, I believe that, based on the record, I had established up to that point, based on my arguments based on the Johnson case and on Dr. Wilber’s testimony, that the case should have been at that point dismissed by the Court; and if it wasn’t, the jury would have found him not guilty, and then take it a step further that, if he was found guilty, the Court of Appeals would reverse it. In short, it appears that the public defender decided to stand on his motion for a directed verdict and not call any witnesses. That is a strategic decision. Prejudicial error should not be considered in a vacuum but assessed in light of all the pertinent facts. Without knowing what happened at the first trial, I cannot say that the public defender’s decisions about two witnesses affected the outcome of the trial. To do so insinuates this court into the role of plotting trial strategy without a sufficient basis for doing so. ’ - Glaze and Corbin, JJ., join in this dissent.