Court Opinion

ID: 9784116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:38:04.045236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:49.324636
License: Public Domain

CHAPEL, Judge,
Dissenting:
¶ 1 On November 13, 1998, John Marion Grant killed Gay Carter by laying in wait for her, grabbing her, dragging her into a tiny room at the Connor Correctional Center, and repeatedly and brutally stabbing her to death. Grant had previously worked for Carter, who was a civilian cafeteria supervisor. According to Grant she had always been kind to him, and he considered her his “friend.” Grant’s only prior dispute with Carter was a disagreement relating to his breakfast tray on the day before the murder and again on the day of the murder. On both occasions, however, he threatened Carter; and after breakfast was over on the second day, he killed her.
¶ 2 The vicious and unprovoked attack was observed by eyewitnesses, and Grant was apprehended afterward still holding the murder weapon. Thus there was never any doubt that it was Grant who killed Carter. In addition, because Grant had no significant history of mental illness, nor did any doctor ever determine that he was insane, an insanity defense had no realistic chance for success at trial. Furthermore, because Grant committed the murder while serving a 130-year prison sentence for four armed robbery convictions, two of the three aggravating circumstances alleged in his capital trial were essentially incontrovertible (i.e., prior violent felony convietion(s) and that the murder was committed while serving a felony prison sentence), and the third was practically a given as well (ie., that he posed a continuing threat of future violence).
*802¶ 3 Consequently, the essential task of Grant’s assigned counsel at trial, though difficult to be sure, should have been patently clear: give the jury a reason to spare his life. Counsel was certainly obligated to hold the State to its burden of proof throughout and to defend the case to the best of his ability. Yet the circumstances of the crime and Grant’s history compel the conclusion that effective assistance could only be provided in this case by attempting to give the jury (or at least a single juror) some reason to spare Grant’s life.1
¶ 4 The goal of persuading jurors to spare the life of a person that they have already convicted of first degree murder can be pursued at trial through any number of different approaches, such as attempting to “humanize”- the defendant, suggesting that he deserves some sympathy or mercy because of the circumstances of his life history, presenting friends or family to plead for his life, etc., either alone or in combination. Yet almost all of these approaches have one thing in common; they rely on the presentation of mitigating evidence relating to the individual defendant. Hence the centrality of mitigating evidence within a capital trial has been repeatedly recognized by the United States Supreme Court, this Court, and courts throughout the country.2
¶ 5 Such mitigating evidence can only be presented if it is first discovered. Hence the Supreme Court, this Court, and other courts have likewise insisted that effective assistance of counsel at trial requires that defense counsel diligently seek to obtain and develop mitigating evidence regarding the defendant.3 And this obligation includes investigating and pursuing mitigating evidence relating to the defendant’s background and family history.4 Defense counsel who have *803diligently sought to obtain and develop such evidence enjoy broad discretion in deciding how to present it at trial and even whether to present it at all. Capital counsel have no discretion, however, to simply neglect to seek out such evidence.
¶ 6 Although a naked plea for mercy could possibly constitute effective assistance in a particular case (such as where a diligent investigation did not reveal viable mitigating evidence), such an approach can only be chosen after counsel first seeks to obtain mitigating evidence relating to the individual defendant. It is a cardinal rule of capital defense (and logic) that counsel cannot be exercising his or her “discretion” in neglecting to present particular mitigating evidence if counsel does not know that such evidence exists. Similarly, counsel cannot “reasonably” decide not to present a particular type of mitigating evidence — such as evidence involving a defendant’s childhood and family history — if counsel does not first discover and develop such evidence to some degree, such that its potential impact can be understood and realistically evaluated.5
¶7 Although an attorney is entitled to make reasonable strategic decisions about which leads to investigate and how far to pursue particular investigations, strategic decisions made after incomplete investigations will be evaluated according to the reasonableness of the attorney’s decision to limit his or her investigation, under all the circumstances of the case.6 In a capital case, decisions about what approach to pursue and what evidence to present in the second stage, when made without adequate investigation of potential mitigating evidence, cannot be justified by merely invoking the mantra of “strategy.” 7
¶ 8 In his thirteenth proposition of error, Grant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence from members of his family.8 Grant sought an eviden-tiary hearing on the issue, and on January 4, 2002, this Court remanded this case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing limited solely to this issue.9 The evidentiary *804hearing was held on February 22, 2002, and the district court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the remanded issue on April 3, 2002.
¶ 9 Although this Court gives strong deference to district court findings that are supported by the record, the majority opinion correctly recognizes that this Court retains the ultimate authority to determine whether trial counsel’s performance constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.10 Furthermore, trial court findings that are not supported by the record are not entitled to “strong deference.” 11
¶ 10 All nine of the family members whose affidavits were attached to Grant’s application for an evidentiary hearing testified at the evidentiary hearing. These family members are related to Grant as follows: Ruth L. Grant (mother), Walter Grant (father), Clayton. Black (maternal uncle), Ronnie Grant (older brother), LaRonda Hovis (oldest sister), Ruth Ann Grant Burley (older sister), Andrea Grant (younger half-sister), Gregory Grant (younger half-brother), and O.C. Frazier (youngest half-brother). Of these nine family members, six traveled from their homes in Portland, Oregon to attend the hearing.12 All nine family members testified that they were never contacted by defense counsel regarding Grant’s trial, but that they would have testified if they had been asked to do so.
¶ 11 Ruth, LaRonda, Ruth Ann, Andrea, Gregory, and O.C. testified that they were living in Portland during the time from the November 1998 killing of Gay Carter through Grant’s February/March 2000 trial. Ronnie testified that he was living in Los Angeles during that time. Yet the district court specifically found that all nine family members “were findable and would have testified at trial if they had been asked.” This factual finding is amply supported by evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, and today’s Court majority states that “we concur that the family members could have been contacted with the use of information located in Grant’s prison records and [that] they would have been willing to testify at trial.” The district court also found that “trial counsel did little to develop the mitigating evidence” that these persons could have offered. This finding is likewise amply supported by the record and is not disputed by today’s majority.13
¶ 12 Nevertheless, the district court also concluded that “[n]ot calling family members to testify at trial was trial strategy and not an oversight on trial counsel’s part.” The district court did not make a specific finding *805about whether trial counsel’s performance in this regard constituted “reasonably effective assistance,” but the court’s finding that counsel made a strategic decision not to present the testimony of anyone from Grant’s family (without ever actually contacting or speaking with any such person), as well as the overall tone of the court’s findings, suggests that the district court concluded that counsel’s performance was adequate in this regard. In addition, today’s majority makes its own determination that trial counsel’s performance was adequate in this regard, seemingly based upon its own factual determination that Grant waived the presentation of evidence from his family.14
¶ 13 Yet the district court found that Grant did not waive the presentation of mitigating evidence from members of his family.15 This finding is well supported by the record.16 The majority does not find that the trial court’s “no waiver” finding is erroneous or that it is not supported by the record. Hence the majority cannot rely on its own waiver finding to justify its conclusion that counsel’s failure to seek out and develop mitigating evidence from Grant’s family was reasonable.
¶ 14 In general, both the district court and today’s majority opinion appear to confuse and conflate two distinct issues: (1) defense counsel’s obligation to investigate and develop mitigating evidence regarding a capital defendant’s background and family history, and (2) the subsequent strategic decision about what mitigating evidence to present to the jury. Grant’s counsel did not make a strategic decision to not present the mitigating background and family history evidence that came out at the. evidentiary hearing. Grant’s counsel totally failed to discover this evidence, because he failed to contact anyone from Grant’s family. Hence the district court’s finding that defense counsel’s failure to present the family testimony “was trial strategy and not an oversight on trial counsel’s part” does not make sense and is not supported by the evidence.
*806¶ 15 If trial counsel had made reasonable efforts to locate and interview members of Grant’s family and then decided not to present that testimony (i.e., after first determining what that testimony was likely to be), a decision not to present the testimony could possibly have been a reasonable trial strategy.17 Yet under the circumstances of this case, trial counsel could not have reasonably decided that testimony from members of Grant’s family would not be helpful, unless he had first located and interviewed at least some of them.18 Consequently, I conclude that defense counsel did not provide adequate assistance of counsel in regard to investigating and presenting mitigating evidence and that Grant has satisfied the “performance” prong of the test for second-stage ineffective assistance.
¶ 16 The closer question, in my opinion, is the issue of prejudice.19 In order to obtain relief Grant must show that there is a “reasonable probability” that if trial counsel had presented the omitted mitigating evidence at trial, the jury “would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.”20 In making this prejudice determination, the newly proffered mitigating evidence must be considered along with the mitigating evidence that was presented and then weighed against the aggravating evidence that was presented.21
¶.17 Although the district court emphasized that it hesitated to predict what a jury would do in any particular'case, it concluded that Grant had not established prejudice from the failure to present the family testimony in his case. Specifically, the district court found (1) that the family testimony was “cumulative,” (2) that it “would have had no positive effect on the jury,” and (3) that it “would have had no effect on the jury’s sentencing determination as the evidence of the three aggravating circumstances was overwhelming.” After thoroughly reviewing the evidence presented by members of Grant’s family at the evidentiary hearing (summarized below), I conclude that the district court’s findings in this regard are not supported by the record.22
*807¶ 18 The family members painted a rather depressing picture of the circumstances into which Grant was born and in which he grew up. John Marion Grant was the sixth of nine children and the last fathered by his mother’s former husband, Walter Grant.23 Walter left the family home in Ada, Oklahoma approximately one month before John was born, leaving Ruth with six children to raise on her own. Walter moved to Los Angeles and never provided any financial support to Ruth or the children. Although the two oldest brothers eventually went to live with Walter in Los Angeles, Grant was left in Oklahoma and had very little contact with his father while he was growing up.
¶ 19 During the three years following Walter’s departure and Grant’s birth, Ruth had three more children (Andrea, Gregory, and O.C.), the last of which was named after their father, O.C. Frazier. O.C. Frazier never lived in Ruth’s home with the children, and John never experienced having a male role model in the family home. Instead, the two oldest sisters in the family were expected to play very substantial roles in running the home and raising and disciplining the younger children, including Grant, even while they were still children themselves.
¶ 20 Ruth’s only sources of income to support her large family were Ad to Dependent Children and some part-time work cleaning people’s homes. LaRonda described their family as “dirt poor, extremely poor.” The first family home in Ada had only three rooms and no indoor plumbing, and the family did not own a car. When Grant was approximately five years old, the family moved to Oklahoma City, where they lived next door to Ruth’s brother, Clayton Black. Black lived across the street from some apartment buildings that were known as “the projects,” and Ruth and the children eventually moved into these apartments. Family members testified that things got even worse in the new neighborhood, which was poor, tough, crime-ridden, run down, and dangerous, particularly in the projects. In 1979, Ruth and the children who were still in the home moved to Portland, Oregon to escape the neighborhood. Grant was unable to go with the family, however, because he was confined to a juvenile facility at the time.
¶ 21 The family members described Grant as being “sweet,” “loving,” “quiet,” “sensitive,” and “gentle” when he was a child. He loved animals and pets, especially dogs. Some of Grant’s sisters testified that he did not get much attention from their mother and that he needed more love than he got. Many of the family members remembered Grant crying a lot as a child. Ruth noted that Grant first started having problems and getting into trouble when the city started busing the children to schools outside the neighborhood. Some of Grant’s siblings testified that when Grant first started stealing as an adolescent, he was stealing things like clothing and shoes for the younger children in the family.
¶ 22 Grant’s younger siblings testified that he was very protective of them and that he would come to the aid of his younger brothers when older boys in the neighborhood threatened them or tried to fight them. Gregory testified that Grant gave him “quite a bit of advice growing up” and that Grant attempted to steer him away from some of the “badder guys” in the neighborhood. He stated that even though Grant did not follow his own good advice, “he pretty much wanted to make sure that the people who were younger or his beloved brothers didn’t get into the type of lifestyle he got into.” Andrea testified that Grant was her “favorite brother” and that they were very close as children. O.C. likewise described Grant as a “cool brother” who was always there for him and who helped him out a lot.
¶23 LaRonda testified that Grant once helped her escape from an abusive boyfriend *808and that she was very touched by the concern he showed for her and her children at that time. Gregory testified that Grant always loved small children, particularly his nieces and nephews. And all of the family members testified that Grant was never violent or verbally abusive within the family, even as an adolescent.
¶ 24 The family members also testified that they stilled loved Grant and that they would like the opportunity to maintain or renew their relationships with him. Some expressed regret about their failure to provide Grant with more support. All of the family members testified that if they had been given the opportunity to testify at Grant’s trial, they would have asked the jury to spare his life.
¶25 The exact meaning of the district court’s finding that the family testimony was “cumulative” is unclear. To the extent that the district court was finding that this testimony was cumulative in relation to the evidence put on during the second stage of Grant’s trial, this finding is clearly contradicted by the record in this case. The only testimony relating to Grant’s childhood and family life that was put on during the second stage of his trial was his own testimony that he had five brothers and three sisters, among which he was “somewhere in between.” Grant also acknowledged that he was in a number of juvenile institutions during his teen years and that he left home at the age of seventeen. Grant’s minimal description of the number of children in his family and some of his placements as a teenager certainly does not make the vast array of mitigating evidence presented by members of his family merely “cumulative.”24 Furthermore, to the extent that the district court was finding that the family testimony was cumulative in relation to itself (because many of the family members testified in the same way), such a finding could not justify trial counsel’s failure to present testimony from any of the family members, but would suggest only that he did not need testimony from all of them.
¶26 I likewise conclude that the district court’s findings that the family testimony would have had “no positive effect on the jury” and also “no effect” on its ultimate sentencing determination were erroneous and unreasonable. As the district court itself conceded, predicting what would and would not have mattered to a jury is necessarily a dubious and highly imprecise exercise. The district court refuses to countenance even the possibility that the extensive information provided by Grant’s family about his difficult and deprived childhood, his personality and behavior within the family, some of the circumstances surrounding his initial delinquent behavior, some of his positive qualities, etc. (along with the pleas for mercy on their son, brother, and nephew), could have touched the hearts of one or more jurors to spare Grant’s life. To me, this seems to deny the possibility for human compassion and mercy, even in the context of the “overwhelming” aggravating circumstances in the current case. I find the omitted mitigating evidence to be substantial and powerful, and I believe that one or more jurors could have been affected by it as well.
¶ 27 Even if this Court could feel somewhat confident in making a judgment (as we are here obligated to do) about whether a jury would care about Grant’s background and deprived childhood, I do not understand why we would choose to err on the side of sending a man more quickly to his death, based upon speculation about what a hypothetical jury would do, rather than allow an actual jury to make that determination, equipped with all of the information that should rightfully be put before it. I conclude that Grant has established that there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror at his trial would have been affected by the omitted family evidence, so as not to vote for the death penalty in his case. Hence I find that the failure of defense counsel to investigate and present mitigating evidence from members of Grant’s family constituted constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel and that Grant was prejudiced by this fail*809ure. This case should be remanded for a resentencing proceeding on this basis, and I dissent from the majority’s refusal to do so.
¶ 28 The critical importance of the jury’s decision about whether to spare the life of a capital defendant or sentence him to death is also at the heart of another issue upon which I dissent from today’s majority opinion. In his first proposition of error, Grant challenges the trial court’s denial of his for-cause challenges of prospective jurors Gee and Martin, based upon their unwillingness to consider one or both of the “non-death” sentencing options under Oklahoma law (i.e., life and life without parole). Grant maintains that the court’s failure to excuse these jurors for cause necessitated their removal through peremptory challenges, thereby prejudicially denying him the use of two of his nine statutory peremptory challenges.25
¶ 29 It is important to understand that Grant does not complain that a juror who was strongly biased toward the death penalty was allowed to serve in his case. Rather, he complains that his for-cause challenges of Gee and Martin were wrongfully denied, thereby forcing him to use two of his peremptory challenges to remove these persons from the jury.26 Because the loss of a peremptory challenge due to the need to “correct” a trial court’s improper denial of a for-cause challenge is not itself a constitutional violation,27 Grant is only entitled to relief if he can show that his for-cause challenge of either Gee or Martin was wrongly denied and that the necessity of using a peremptory challenge to strike that juror prevented him from removing another “unacceptable” or “undesirable” juror from his panel.28
¶ 30 Grant properly preserved this claim at trial by asserting that the denials of his for-cause challenges of Gee and Martin were improper, using all nine of his peremptory challenges, requesting additional peremptory challenges, and specifically naming a juror (juror Hargrave) that he considered undesirable but whom he was unable to remove due to the necessity of using peremptory challenges on both Gee and Martin.29 Today’s majority opinion does not dispute that Grant properly preserved this claim.
¶31 The majority opinion does assert, however, that Grant “has not shown that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror” and then concludes that it “need not decide” the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to remove juror Gee.30 In effect, the majority *810opinion finds that because Grant has not shown “prejudice” from the district court’s refusal to remove Gee for cause, it need not decide whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to strike Gee. The majority opinion reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the applicable legal standards for. evaluating Grant’s claim, as well as the nature and purpose of peremptory challenges within a criminal trial.
¶ 32 This Court has repeatedly held that “prejudice” in this context is established by showing that the defendant was injured by the trial court’s improper denial of his for-eause challenge, because he was forced to use a peremptory challenge to get rid of the biased juror, which would otherwise have been available to strike another potential juror that the defendant considered “unacceptable” or “undesirable.” 31 The central purpose of peremptory challenges is to allow parties to remove from the jury persons that they do not believe will be sympathetic to their position, even though the potential jurors do not meet the stringent legal standards of being “biased” and thereby removable for cause. The majority opinion notes that “Grant never sought to have Hargrave removed for cause.” This statement is accurate, but irrelevant.
¶33 Grant’s claim is not that Hargrave was removable for cause, but that she was an “undesirable juror” that he could have removed with the last of his nine peremptory challenges, if he had not been forced to use a peremptory challenge to remove juror Gee (who should have been struck for cause).32 It is also irrelevant that Grant chose to use his available peremptory challenges to strike jurors other than Hargrave and that he likewise did not challenge these other potential jurors for cause. Again, the majority seems to forget that the heart of Grant’s claim is that he was denied the use of all of his statutory peremptory challenges, the purpose of which is to allow him to remove persons from the jury that seem “undesirable,” but who would not otherwise be removable for cause.
¶ 34 It does not matter that Grant chose to strike persons other than Hargrave; nor does it matter that none of the persons that he struck through peremptory challenges (with the exception of juror Gee) were removable for cause. We have never previous*811ly required that a claimant in this context show anything more than that he used up all of his peremptory challenges and that he was still left with an “undesirable” juror; and we have never questioned a defendant’s right to choose to strike one undesirable juror over another.33 To demand some further showing to establish “prejudice” in this context is unfafr, unreasonable, and corruptive of the very concept of peremptory challenges.
¶ 35 Although the majority fails to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike juror Gee for cause, I address the issue herein in order to show that Grant should have been granted a resentencing on this jury selection claim, as well as on the ineffective assistance claim addressed above.
¶ 36 The standard for evaluating whether a potential capital juror should be excused for cause based upon the juror’s views on punishment is “whether the juror’s views would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’ ”34 It is well established that a juror who will automatically vote for the death penalty should be excused for cause.35 Yet even jurors who do not clearly state that they will “automatically” vote for the death, penalty may be biased in regard to sentencing, such that they should not be allowed to serve, and such bias need not be established with “unmistakable clarity.”36 As the Supreme Court has noted, “many veniremen simply cannot be asked enough questions to reach the point where their bias has been made ‘unmistakably clear.’ ”37 Our Court has likewise recently reaffirmed that “ ‘all doubts regarding juror impartiality must be resolved in favor of the accused,’ ” and that this “ ‘rule is intended to apply to both the trial courts and the Court of Criminal Appeals.’ ”38
¶ 37 Grant sought and was granted individual sequestered voir dire on the issue of potential jurors’ ability to consider all three sentencing options for first-degree murder, and all of the prospective jurors were questioned extensively regarding their views on punishment. The key questioning of Gee (and many other prospective jurors) centered around the issue of whether he believed that all premeditated murder deserved the death penalty. During his initial questioning, Gee indicated at least six times that, in his opinion, anyone who commits premeditated murder should get the death penalty. On the other hand, Gee also maintained that he would not “automatically” give the death penalty for first-degree murder and that he would consider the sentences of life imprisonment and life without parole. Grant challenged Gee for cause at the conclusion of his initial questioning. The trial court denied this challenge, finding that Gee seemed confused.
¶ 38 During subsequent questioning the prosecutor explained that premeditation sufficient to constitute first-degree murder can be formed in an instant and summarized the type of aggravating and mitigating evidence that could be put on during the sentencing stage of a capital trial. After Gee then re*812asserted that he would follow the court’s instructions and consider all three sentencing options, the State maintained that Gee was “rehabilitated” and that he had simply been confused.
¶ 39 Defense counsel then began re-questioning Gee, and the following exchange occurred:
Counsel: Let’s pretend that you have already found Mr. Grant guilty. You heard all of the evidence and you found him guilty. You are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he’s guilty of First Degree Murder, okay?
Gee: (Nodded head.)
Counsel: You got that?
Gee: Uh-huh.
Counsel: And part of that is that the State, part of that idea is that the State has proven to you that he intended to kill this woman, that he either thought about it for days or he just thought about it and did it, but he intended to kill this woman for no good reason. Okay?
Gee: (Nodded head.)
Counsel: Without hearing another thing, would you automatically give him the death penalty?
Gee: Now, I am going to have to think about.
Counsel: Okay. Think about it.
Gee: I’ll have to think about that one.
Counsel: Think about it and give me your answer.
Gee: Yes.
Counsel: Yes you would?
Gee: Yes.
Counsel: Now, what if the Judge gave you other instructions that that happened— Gee: I would go by his instructions.
From that point on Gee maintained that he would follow the Court’s instructions, and defense counsel’s questioning concluded as follows:
Counsel: Okay. So even though you were convinced that Mr. Grant here murdered somebody and intended to do that, it was not an accident or anything, intended to kill them and killed them, you would consider, you would follow the Court’s instructions and consider giving him something less than the death penalty?
Gee: If the Court ordered, if the Court has asked us to do that.
¶ 40 Defense counsel renewed his challenge for cause, but the trial court denied it, stating, “And that request will be denied. As I stated when we started this re-questioning[,] I think he was confused and I think that he cleared that up. Now [he] fully understands what he’s talking about.” Gee then volunteered that he was “nervous” and that he “just lived out in the country too long, I guess.” When the court asked if he felt like he now understood, Gee answered, “I think I understand it now. I got confused there for a while and I think I understand it. I’ll go in there and weigh both sides and give it my best shot. That’s all I can do.” The trial court agreed, and Gee was returned to the jury box.
¶ 41 Whether Gee was biased in favor of the death penalty such that the district court should have struck him for cause is a close call. Even though Gee consistently maintained that he would follow the trial court’s instructions and consider all three sentencing options, he also repeatedly and emphatically stated that, in his opinion, anyone who committed premeditated/intentional murder should get the death penalty. In Morgan v. Illinois,39 the Supreme Court discussed the problem of prospective jurors who sincerely intend to follow whatever instructions the court gives them, but who likewise sincerely believe that anyone who commits first-degree murder should get the death penalty: “It may be that a juror could, in good conscience, swear to uphold the law and yet be unaware that maintaining such dogmatic beliefs about the death penalty would prevent him or her from doing so.”40 The Morgan Court recognized that persons who function under this “misconception” should not be al*813lowed to serve.41
¶ 42 It appears quite possible that Gee was a juror of this type. He repeatedly admitted that he was confused; and even at the conclusion of his extensive questioning, he does not appear to have understood that his stated belief that the death penalty was the only appropriate penalty for a premeditated murder was inconsistent with his promise to follow whatever the Court ordered the jury to do.
¶43 Although the questioning of Gee did not make it “unmistakably clear” that he would be biased in favor of the death penalty, this kind of certainty is not required in this context. I conclude that Gee’s repeated assertion that the death penalty is the only appropriate sentence for a premeditated murder should have been adequate to cause the district court to strike Gee for cause. While I acknowledge that the question of whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to strike Gee is a close call, this Court should abide by its prior holdings that doubts regarding juror impartiality should be resolved in favor of the accused. There was good reason to doubt Gee’s impartiality regarding sentencing, and Grant should not have been forced to use a peremptory challenge to keep Gee off his jury.
¶ 44 Thus Grant has established (1) that he was required to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been struck for cause, (2) that he used all of his remaining peremptory challenges, and (3) that an undesirable juror was left on his jury panel. Consequently, Grant is entitled to relief on his jury selection claim, as well as on the ineffective assistance claim addressed above. Because both of these claims relate only to the jury’s sentencing determination, however, they do not affect the legitimacy of Grant’s first-degree murder conviction.42 Although I agree with today’s majority that Grant’s murder conviction should be affirmed, I dissent from the Court’s opinion and its refusal to provide Grant with a new capital sentencing proceeding. I conclude that Grant has established that he is entitled to sentencing relief based upon both his second-stage ineffective assistance claim and his jury selection claim, both individually and through their cumulative effect upon the sentencing stage of his capital trial.

. In Oklahoma a jury can only sentence a defendant to death if it first finds that at least one statutory aggravating circumstance exists in the case and that the aggravating circumstance(s) outweigh the mitigating circumstances in the case. See 21 O.S.1991, § 701.11. Yet even when a jury has made both of these findings, it nonetheless remains free to sentence a defendant to life or life without parole. See Carpenter v. State, 1996 OK CR 56, 929 P.2d 988, 1000; Walker v. State, 1986 OK CR 116, 723 P.2d 273, 284, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 995, 107 S.Ct. 599, 93 L.Ed.2d 600 (1986). Thus capital jurors always retain the right to spare the life of the defendant, regardless of the specific circumstances of the case. If even one juror refuses to sentence a defendant to death, the trial court must impose a sentence of either life or life without parole. See 21 O.S. 1991, § 701.11 ("If the jury cannot, within a reasonable time, agree as to punishment, the judge shall dismiss the jury and impose a sentence of imprisonment for life without parole or imprisonment for life.”).

. Mitigating evidence plays a central role in a capital jury’s sentencing determination, both in the mandatory "weighing” of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and in the ultimate selection of penalty for defendants who are "death eligible," a selection process that is not bound by any particular guidelines or standards. See, e.g., Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 398, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); ("Mitigating evidence unrelated to dangerousness may alter the jury’s selection of penalty, even if it does not undermine or rebut the prosecution’s death-eligibility case.”); Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11, 29 P.3d 569, 575 ("It is beyond dispute that mitigating evidence is critical to the sentencer in a capital case.”); Wallace v. State, 1995 OK CR 19, 893 P.2d 504, 510 ("It is beyond question mitigating evidence is critical to the sentencer in a capital case.”) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 888, 116 S.Ct. 232, 133 L.Ed.2d 160 (1995).

. See, e.g., Williams, 529 U.S. at 393, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (reversing capital sentence where "it is undisputed that Williams had a right — indeed, a constitutionally protected right — to provide the jury with the mitigating evidence that his trial counsel either failed to discover or failed to offer”); Abshier v. State, 2001 OK CR 13, 28 P.3d 579, 600-01 (recognizing defense counsel's duty to investigate mitigating evidence in capital case), cert, denied,-U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1548, 152 L.Ed.2d 472 (2002); Brecheen v. Reynolds, 41 F.3d 1343, 1366 (10th Cir.1994) (emphasizing that capital defense attorney “has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation, including an investigation of the defendant’s background, for possible mitigating evidence”) (emphasis in opinion), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1135, 115 S.Ct. 2564, 132 L.Ed.2d 817 (1995); Battenfield v. Gibson, 236 F.3d 1215, 1226-34 (10th Cir.2001) (emphasizing critical importance of capital counsel’s duty to seek out and develop mitigating evidence, even where defendant states that he does not want to present any mitigating evidence at trial).

. See, e.g., Williams, 529 U.S. at 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (noting capital defense counsel's "obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the defendant's background"); Warner, 29 P.3d at 575 (finding ineffective assistance of counsel where attorney failed to take necessary steps to ensure that defendant’s mother was allowed to testify during second stage of capital trial); Bre-*803cheen, 41 F.3d at 1366 (duty to investigate possible mitigating evidence in capital case includes duty to investigate defendant's background); Battenfield, 236 F.3d at 1226-35 (granting second-stage habeas relief where counsel failed to interview defendant’s parents and other relatives and friends about possible mitigating evidence in defendant’s background).

. See Stouffer v. Reynolds, 168 F.3d 1155, 1166— 67 (10th Cir.1999) (rejecting argument that counsel’s failure to present mitigating character evidence was “tactical decision,” where counsel failed to investigate possible mitigating evidence and asserted strategy was illogical).

. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ("[Strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; and strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.”); Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (quoting Strickland); see also Brown v. State, 1994 OK CR 12, 871 P.2d 56, 76, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1003, 115 S.Ct. 517, 130 L.Ed.2d 423 (1994).

. See Brecheen, 41 F.3d at 1369 ("[I]t is important to note that 'the mere incantation of "strategy” does not insulate attorney behavior from review, an attorney must have chosen not to present mitigating evidence after having investigated the defendant’s background, and that choice must have been reasonable under the circumstances.’ ”) (emphasis in opinion) (citations omitted); Battenfield, 236 F.3d at 1229 (finding that counsel’s failure to investigate defendant's background left him “unaware at the time of trial of various mitigation strategies and accompanying pieces of evidence that could have been presented during the mitigation phase by [defendant] or his friends and family”).

. Claims of ineffective assistance for failure to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence are treated in essentially the same manner as most other ineffective assistance claims, requiring both deficient attorney performance and prejudice to the defendant. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686-87, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Williams, 529 U.S. at 390-91, 120 S.Ct. 1495.

. In order to grant this evidentiary hearing, this Court was required to find and did find that Grant had shown "by clear and convincing evidence that there is a strong possibility his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to develop and present mitigating evidence from members of [his] family.” See Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b)(i), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, *804Ch. 18 App. (1998). Our evidentiary hearing remand ordered the district court to make findings about (1) the availability of the evidence and witnesses presented at the evidentiary hearing, (2) the probable effect of these witnesses and evidence if they/it had been presented at trial, (3) whether the failure to develop and present these witnesses and this evidence was a matter of trial strategy, and (4) whether the evidence and witnesses would have been cumulative or would have affected the jury's sentencing determination. See Rule 3.11 (B)(3)(b)(iii). We also directed the district court to determine whether Grant waived his right to present mitigating evidence from his family, and if so, whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent.

. See Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b)(iv).

. See Glossip v. State, 2001 OK CR 21, 29 P.3d 597, 602 ("This Court will give the trial court's findings strong deference if supported by the record, but we shall determine the ultimate issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective.”) (emphasis added) (citing Rule 3.11(B)(3)(b)(iv)); see also Wood v. State, 1998 OK CR 19, 959 P.2d 1, 17; Humphreys v. State, 1997 OK CR 59, 947 P.2d 565, 577, cert. denied, 524 U.S. 930, 118 S.Ct. 2329, 141 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998).

. Ruth, LaRonda, Andrea, Ronnie, Gregory, and O.C. testified that they currently live in Port- . land, Oregon or a suburb thereof.

. Grant’s trial counsel testified at the evidentia-ry hearing that two different investigators (Steve Leedy and John Remington) worked on Grant’s case arid that he directed these investigators to try to locate members of Grant’s family. He testified that Grant did give him names of some of his relatives and that he thought he gave these names to the investigators too. Trial counsel vacillated between saying that he did not know whether either of the investigators ever found any family members and saying that he knew that they were not able to do so. Counsel acknowledged that Grant brought him an envelope during the trial with his mother's name and a local return address on it, and that he gave the letter to Investigator Remington to' attempt to contact her, but stated that he did not know what happened in that regard. Trial counsel acknowledged that he never asked for a continuance to find any of Grant’s relatives.

. The majority opinion’s analysis is as follows: "We find that counsel’s performance was not deficient. The reasonableness of counsel’s actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant’s own statements or actions. ...” This statement is followed by citations to cases that recognize the principle that defense counsel’s actions must be evaluated in the context of the defendant's actions and that strategic decisions about the presentation of mitigating evidence can be made in consultation with the defendant.

. The district court found that "it must be concluded that defendant did not specifically waive the presentation of this testimony.”

. Although this Court has recognized a defendant’s right to waive the presentation of mitigating evidence during the second stage of his capital trial, we have insisted that any such waiver is valid only if the defendant is adequately advised of and understands the nature of mitigating evidence and its role in the capital sentencing process. See Wallace, 893 P.2d at 510-12. Consequently, we have established guidelines and a procedure to be utilized whenever a defendant desires to waive the presentation of mitigating evidence in his case. See id. at 512-13. This procedure was not followed in Grant's case, and the record contains no evidence of any statements to the trial court regarding Grant’s desire to waive the presentation of mitigating evidence from his family.
The only evidence in the record that Grant "waived” the opportunity to present testimony from his family is the evidentiary hearing testimony of his trial counsel that Grant "indicated to me that he really didn’t want his family to be involved” and that family testimony "was not something that [Grant] was interested in pursuing.” On the other hand, the following evidence in the record strongly suggests that Grant did not waive the presentation of family testimony: (1) the fact that trial counsel and his investigators acknowledged having conversations with Grant about his family members and where they could be found; (2) the fact that counsel and the investigators do not suggest that Grant refused to provide family information, but rather that he provided what information he -possessed; (3) the fact that counsel testified that he was familiar with the requirements for a waiver hearing in the event that a defendant desired to waive the presentation of mitigating evidence, but that he never considered seeking such a hearing in Grant’s case; and (4) the fact that during the trial Grant provided counsel with a letter from his mother bearing a local return address.
In addition, the record in this case could not possibly support a finding that any waiver by Grant was “knowing and intelligent,” since trial counsel acknowledged that he had no specific recollection of discussing with Grant (1) what the second stage of a capital trial was about, (2) the potential role and importance of family testimony in a capital trial, or (3) the fact that family members could be important sources of information in a capital trial, even if they did not testify.

.Trial counsel testified that he chose not to call any of Grant's family members to testify because Grant had been incarcerated continuously since he was 19 years old and had little contact with his family during this time period. Counsel concluded that any claims of enduring love by Grant's family members could appear insincere and would be vulnerable on cross-examination. Yet counsel does not appear to have considered or fully appreciated the fact that testimony from family members other than statements of affection for the defendant can be relevant and even critical to the second stage of a capital trial. In particular, counsel does not appear to have considered the potential value that testimony from members of Grant's family could have had in helping the jury understand Grant’s background and the difficult circumstances in which he grew up. Furthermore, counsel does not appear to have considered the fact that a lack of continuing family support could potentially be a mitigating circumstance in itself, or the fact that most of Grant's family lived far from the place where he was incarcerated, which would have helped explain why family members did not visit more often. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (finding that counsel’s failure to present mitigating evidence regarding defendant’s childhood and family history, borderline retardation, and good behavior in prison was "not justified by a tactical decision to focus on [defendant's] voluntary confession”).

. See Mayes v. Gibson, 210 F.3d 1284, 1289-90 (10th Cir.2000) (failure to present mitigating evidence from members of defendant's family could not be justified as reasonable strategic decision where counsel never contacted potential witnesses: "Without inquiring into what the witnesses might say, counsel had no basis for deciding their testimony would be inconsistent with his defense theory.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1020, 121 S.Ct. 586, 148 L.Ed.2d 501 (2000).

. Surprisingly, today’s majority opinion focuses all of its analysis on the performance prong of Grant’s ineffective assistance claim, addressing the prejudice claim with only the concluding (and conclusory) statement that "[e]ven if he had shown deficient performance, Grant could not show that he was prejudiced by the failure to present this evidence.”

. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Brown v. State, 1997 OK CR 1, 933 P.2d 316, 322.

. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 397-98, 120 S.Ct. 1495.

. It should be noted that although the district court described the family testimony as "rehearsed,” the court did not question the believability of the numerous statements of fact contained within this testimony, particularly those about Grant’s childhood and family history. It *807should likewise be noted that within the State’s "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,” which was filed with the district court after the evidentiary hearing, the State proposed that the court find as "facts” numerous specific statements made by members of Grant’s family about his background, childhood, and character. The State's proposed findings nowhere suggest that the family testimony regarding Grant's childhood and background was not credible.

. The children born to Ruth and Walter Grant, in the order of their birth, were Kenneth, Ronnie, LaRonda, Ruth Ann, Norman, and John.

. Today’s majority opinion states that "[t]he testimony Grant now claims his attorney was ineffective for not presenting would have repeated Grant's own account of his childhood." Because counting one's siblings cannot be reasonably construed as providing an account of one’s "childhood,” I find this statement to be ridiculous and patently false.

. See 22 O.S.1991, § 655 (both parties entitled to nine peremptory challenges in first-degree murder cases).

. Oklahoma law requires a party to "cure” a wrongful denial of a for-cause challenge through the use of a peremptory challenge. See Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 89, 108 S.Ct. 2273, 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988) (recognizing "long settled principle of Oklahoma law that a defendant who disagrees with the trial court’s ruling on a for-cause challenge must, in order to preserve the claim ..., exercise a peremptory challenge to remove the juror”) (citing cases).

. See id. at 88 ("[W]e reject the notion that the loss of a peremptory challenge constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to an impartial jury.”); id. at 89 (“[T]he 'right' to peremptory challenges is 'denied or impaired’ only if the defendant does not receive that which state law provides.”).

. See Hawkins v. State, 1986 OK CR 58, 717 P.2d 1156, 1158 (“The long standing rule in Oklahoma is that an improper denial of a challenge for cause will not be prejudicial unless it can be affirmatively shown in the record that the erroneous ruling reduced the number of the appellant’s peremptory challenges to his prejudice.... In order to show prejudice, the appellant must demonstrate that he was forced, over objection, to keep an unacceptable juror.”) (citations omitted); Thompson v. State, 1974 OK CR 15, 519 P.2d 538, 541 (reversing conviction where defendant had to use peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been removed for cause "and was thereby precluded from removing a prospective juror from the panel, whom he considered to be undesirable to his position”); see also Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11, 29 P.3d 569, 573-74 (quoting Hawkins); Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37, 906 P.2d 765, 772, cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1144, 116 S.Ct. 1438, 134 L.Ed.2d 560 (1996); Brown v. State, 1987 OK CR 181, 743 P.2d 133, 139.

. See Salazar v. State, 1996 OK CR 25, 919 P.2d 1120, 1128; Cannon v. State, 1995 OK CR 45, 904 P.2d 89, 98, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1176, 116 S.Ct. 1272, 134 L.Ed.2d 219 (1996); Patton v. State, 1998 OK CR 66, 973 P.2d 270, 283, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 939, 120 S.Ct. 347, 145 L.Ed.2d 271 (1999).

. I agree with the majority opinion that whether juror Gee should have been struck for cause is the "harder issue,” since juror Martin, unlike *810juror Gee, was ultimately quite clear that he would consider all three sentencing options (despite his initial statements that he would not consider any sentence less than life without parole for someone who committed an intentional murder). Because the loss of even one statutory peremptory challenge can entitle a defendant to relief, however, Grant only needs to show that juror Gee should have been struck for cause. Thus I will not further address Grant’s claim in regard to Martin.

. See cases cited supra in note 28. Today’s majority opinion initially articulates Grant’s claim about the prejudicial loss of a peremptory challenge correctly, but later confuses it with an entirely different claim (which Grant does not make) that the jury that actually decided his case was biased, because it contained one or more persons that should have been struck for cause. Hence today’s majority opinion incorrectly states that Grant is required to show "that the jury sitting in the trial was not impartial” and later concludes that Grant is not entitled to relief because “he has not shown that the jury was prejudiced against him.”
The opinion cites Abshier v. State, 2001 OK CR 13, 28 P.3d 579, cert. denied, 535 U.S. 991, 122 S.Ct. 1548, 152 L.Ed.2d 472 (2002), in support of this purported requirement. Yet in Abshier, unlike in the current case, the court majority affirmatively found that the challenged juror was not removable for cause. Id. at 603. Today’s majority neglects to decide whether Gee should have been removed for cause. In addition, because the Abshier majority found that the trial court correctly denied the defendant’s challenge for cause, the opinion’s additional analysis about whether the defendant could have been "prejudiced" by the trial court’s action is mere dicta. Id. at 603-04. I dissented from Abshier and specifically noted the error within the opinion’s prejudice analysis. See id. at 617 (Chapel, J., dissenting).
The dicta of Abshier did not change the "long standing rule in Oklahoma,” as articulated in Hawkins and its progeny, for establishing prejudice in this context. See cases cited supra in note 28. Grant is not required to show that the jury that decided his case was not impartial.

. During voir dire juror Hargrave initially stated that she would automatically give the death penalty if she found that a person had committed first-degree murder. Although she was later rehabilitated, her initial '.'untutored” statements surely were enough to make her undesirable/un-acceptqble from Grant’s perspective. The majority opinion does not deny that Hargrave was an "undesirable” or "unacceptable" juror from Grant’s perspective.

. See, e.g., Thompson, 519 P.2d at 539-41; Salazar, 919 P.2d at 1128; Patton, 973 P.2d at 283.

. See Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)); see also Warner, 29 P.3d at 573 (quoting Wainwright); Williams v. State, 2001 OK CR 9, 22 P.3d 702, 709, cert denied, U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 836, 151 L.Ed.2d 716 (2002).

. See Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992) (juror that will automatically give death sentence is not impartial, and death sentence imposed by jury containing even one such juror cannot be executed); see also Cannon, 904 P.2d at 97 (“A criminal defendant has a right to remove for cause any juror who would automatically vote for the death penalty on conviction regardless of mitigating evidence.").

. See Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 424, 105 S.Ct. 844; see also Warner, 29 P.3d at 573 (quoting Wainwright).

. See Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 425, 105 S.Ct. 844. Our Court has recently noted that jurors must be “willing to go into the trial with no preconceived notions regarding the appropriate penalty, death or life,” and that jurors with a "strong bias towards the death penally” are not impartial and should be excused for cause. See Warner, 29 P.3d at 573.-

. See Warner, 29 P.3d at 572 (quoting Hawkins, 717 P.2d at 1158).

. 504 U.S. 719, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992).

. Id. at 735, 112 S.Ct. 2222.

. Id. at 735-36, 112 S.Ct. 2222.

. Grant’s challenge to Gee only involved bias in regard to the penalty stage of trial. Hence the remedy for the district court’s failure to remove Gee for cause is to remand the case for a new sentencing proceeding. See Salazar, 919 P.2d at 1127-20.