Court Opinion

ID: 9478509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:50:50.029068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:28.117344
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting,
with whom LAY, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, join.
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the district court’s judgment granting the writ of habeas corpus because appellant did not receive effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial. Laws v. Armontrout, No. 86-2214C(3), Slip op. at 23 (E.D.Mo. Dec. 15, 1986) (memorandum opinion). I would therefore remand the case to the state court for a new trial on the penalty phase only.
This is a death penalty case. It is readily acknowledged that “the representation of a person charged with a capital offense imposes the heaviest professional responsibility known to the practice of law.” Johnson v. Cabana, 818 F.2d 333, 340 (5th Cir.1987). Yet appellant’s counsel failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into appellant’s background — an investigation that would have led to admissible mitigating evidence at the penalty phase.
After an extended hearing, an experienced district court judge found that counsel’s representation fell far below the standard of reasonableness and prejudiced appellant. Specifically, the district court found that counsel (1) failed to investigate and present evidence about appellant’s military background and the psychological effect his service in Vietnam had had on him, (2) failed to make reasonable efforts to contact appellant’s family members and to present relevant evidence from them, (3) failed to investigate and present evidence of appellant’s prior psychological evaluation, and (4) failed to present any evidence as to the inappropriateness of the death penalty. Relying on its finding and applying the standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. at 2052, 2063-64, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (Strickland), the district court concluded that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s ineffective representation, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Id. at 23. I agree.
In Strickland the Supreme Court articulated the following standard for determining whether assistance of counsel has been ineffective: “the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. at 2063-64.
To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a convicted defendant must show both that the counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. This is the same test used by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in cases decided before Strickland. See Pickens v. Lockhart, 714 F.2d 1455, 1460 (8th Cir.1983). The test of deficient performance is one of reasonableness. We do not deal in absolutes, but rather test counsel’s performance by looking to “the skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would exercise under similar circumstances.” Thomas v. Lockhart, 738 F.2d 304, 307 (8th Cir.1984). Likewise, the test for prejudice is not absolute.
Strickland defines “prejudice” as “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability suffi-*1395dent to undermine confidence in the outcome.” 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068.
The majority faults the district court for relying on the wrong legal test — the outcome determinative test. This assessment of the district court’s analysis is wrong for two reasons. First, the district court clearly recognized and relied on the Strickland test. Slip op. at 20. Second, the district court found “that the outcome of the punishment phase of the case would have been different absent counsel’s failure to investigate fully and to present mitigating evidence.” Id. at 23. Thus, the district court concluded that appellant’s evidence met an even more stringent test than that required by Strickland.
Strickland recognized that the outcome determinative test places a heavier burden on an appellant than the test it articulated: “with regard to the prejudice inquiry, ... the strict outcome determinative test ... imposes a heavier burden on defendants than the tests laid down today.” 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. at 2069-70. Therefore, because appellant’s evidence met the outcome determinative test as the majority acknowledges, the evidence surely met the lesser Strickland test of “probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068.
The majority believes that the district court wrongly established a per se rule that defense counsel is ineffective whenever a defendant receives the death penalty after counsel offers no evidence in mitigation. However, the majority misreads the opinion of the district court. In fact, the district court specifically recognized that its opinion might be so construed and specifically rejected this approach:
To a certain extent, we risk developing a body of law that says that at the death penalty phase defense counsel must introduce some evidence or be found ineffective, while it is certainly possible and sometimes probable that putting on and offering evidence may worsen the client’s chances. Perhaps this ruling stresses only the importance of fully investigating each case on its merits before deciding that as a matter ofrea-sonable strategy, no evidence should be introduced.
Slip op. at 25. (emphasis added).
Where the defendant’s life may be the penalty exacted by the state, I do not believe we ask too much of defense counsel that he or she first undertake a reasonable investigation so that he or she can make and put before the court the best defense available to the defendant. Strickland specifically recognized that:
[cjounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances....
466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court, in taking counsel to task for inadequate preparation, said:
[A] complete lack of pretrial preparation puts at risk both defendant’s right to an “ample opportunity to meet the case of the prosecution” and the reliability of the adversarial testing process.
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 385, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 2588-89, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (citations omitted).-
Applying the standards and holdings of Strickland and Kimmelman to the present case, it is clear that appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel and was prejudiced thereby. The duty to advocate the defendant’s cause, including consulting with the defendant and bringing to bear such knowledge as will render the trial a reasonable adversarial process, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 668, 104 S.Ct. at 1052, mandates that defense counsel investigate and develop facts about the defendant’s background in an attempt to develop mitigating evidence. Once counsel has completed such an investigation, then, and only then, would he or she be in a position to reasonably decide whether or not to present the evidence as a matter of trial strategy.
In the present case, trial counsel had a telephone conversation with someone claim*1396ing to be appellant’s stepmother; he states that this person indicated that none of appellant’s relatives wished to testify for appellant. Counsel also had a conversation with Laws’ brother, whom he never even asked to testify. Based on these two sketchy conversations, counsel failed to contact other family members and failed to develop mitigating evidence he could have used at the penalty phase of Laws’ trial.
The majority relies primarily on the presumption of correctness to be accorded a state court’s finding of fact as the basis for its decision. While I do not dispute this proposition as a general legal proposition, the presumption of correctness does not apply to the state court’s determination of the effectiveness of counsel. In Sumner v. Mata, 455 U.S. 591, 597, 102 S.Ct. 1303, 1306-07, 71 L.Ed.2d 480 (1982), the Supreme Court held that the presumption of correctness accorded the factual findings of the state court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) applies only to historical facts underlying counsel’s performance but not to the ultimate conclusion whether effective assistance has been rendered. This latter conclusion is not a finding of fact binding on a federal court because, by its very nature, the issue of effective assistance is a mixed question of law and fact. Thomas v. Lockhart, 738 F.2d at 307.
Thus, the district court had the duty to carefully examine the conclusion of the state court and to make “every effort ... to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Id. at 309 (citations omitted); see Kellogg v. Scurr, 741 F.2d 1099, 1101 (8th Cir.1984). Moreover, defense counsel may not immunize his or her performance from sixth amendment scrutiny merely by labeling acts or omissions as trial strategy. Kellogg v. Scurr, 741 F.2d at 1102.
I do not take issue with the state court’s determination of historical facts. I accept for purposes of this analysis that defense counsel in fact did what he testified he did: he reviewed the 1981 psychiatric examination but did not consider the 1974 psychiatric examination and did not speak to the psychiatrist to determine the significance of appellant’s diagnosis; he spoke to a woman he believed to be appellant’s stepmother and may have spoken to appellant’s brother but could not remember their names; and he talked to one (or perhaps two) jurors to determine whether the testimony of members of the community on behalf of appellant was effective.
It is these facts admitted by counsel (and accepted by the state court) that the district court properly subjected to an independent evaluation to determine if there was effective assistance of counsel. It is this independent evaluation which the majority wrongly rejected. The majority incorrectly applies the presumption of correctness not only to the historical facts found by the state court, but also to the state court’s conclusion that effective assistance was provided. See Sumner v. Mata, 455 U.S. at 597, 102 S.Ct. at 1306-07; Kellogg v. Scurr, 741 F.2d at 1102.
The majority begins its analysis with a recital of the many past accomplishments of defense counsel. However, the focus of inquiry concerning counsel’s possible ineffectiveness must be “the reasonableness of counsel’s challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel’s conduct.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. For that reason, it is appropriate to judge counsel’s effectiveness by looking solely to what he knew in this case and what he failed to find out because of his failure to investigate.
The majority credits defense counsel with being “well aware of Laws’ Vietnam service.” Laws had told counsel that he had served in Vietnam from 1968-1970 and that he had been honorably discharged. During closing argument, defense counsel even acknowledged that he himself had been in Vietnam. Far from excusing counsel’s failure to further investigate, however, this knowledge makes his inaction all the more reprehensible.
Much has been written about the severe emotional impact suffered by some of the soldiers who fought for this country during the Vietnam Era. Congress has recognized *1397the socialization and adjustment problems of Vietnam veterans by passing the Veterans Health Care Amendments Act in 1979. 38 U.S.C. § 612 et seq. This act authorizes the Veterans Administration to provide services to Vietnam Veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after their return to civilian life. The legislative history of this act states:
According to testimony from psychiatrists and other physicians, psychologists, social workers, and counselors at hearings held in February 1976, June 1977, and January 1979, veterans of the Vietnam era have suffered significantly as the result of society’s indifference and, in some cases, overt hostility to the sacrifices they made during their periods of military service. Those who served in Vietnam have also experienced anguish due to the unusual conditions of service in Vietnam — including the inability to differentiate between ally and enemy, the increased tension due to guerilla warfare, and the fact that, because service personnel often went to or returned from Vietnam singly rather than as part of entire combat units, they often lacked the mutual psychological support of long-known comrades during the critical periods of entering and leaving the conflict. Large numbers of returning Vietnam veterans have experienced guilt, bewilderment, alienation, pessimism, tension, restlessness, and other symptoms of low-grade readjustment problems. These problems frequently result in family difficulties, unemployment, alcohol or drug dependence or abuse, arrest records, and other forms of social and economic dislocation.
96th Congress, First Session, 1979 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 169, 181-82. Given the overwhelming and well-known evidence of psychological problems among Vietnam veterans, it was unreasonable for counsel not to investigate Laws’ military experience to see if any evidence of mitigating circumstances could be developed.
Had he investigated, counsel would have learned that Laws had earned the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal and the Good Conduct Medal. Had he investigated, counsel would have learned that Laws’ father, two sisters, and brother would have testified that Laws was a normal young man before his entry into the Army at age 17. Counsel would have learned that Laws had undergone a drastic personality change after the time he spent in Vietnam. He would have learned that Laws changed from a church-going young man who had never had any trouble with the law to a nervous and withdrawn loner constantly in trouble, in and out of prison. But counsel did not learn anything about Laws’ background because he unreasonably relied upon the statement of one woman, who he thought might be Laws’ stepmother, that no members of Laws’ family would be willing to testify.
Counsel failed to investigate and discover the records of Laws’ psychiatric treatment in the Mississippi State Hospital in 1974 and 1975. Had he done so, counsel would have learned even more evidence of appellant’s personality change after his military service in Vietnam.
Granted, defense counsel put much store in his belief that the jury would never impose the death penalty because appellant was not the person who fired the gun, and therefore, he reasoned, did not deserve to die. Such a belief was totally unwarranted given the gruesome and calculated nature of the murders with which appellant was charged and his two prior capital murder convictions. To disregard the reality and seriousness of the situation was unreasonable and too risky to be condoned. His conduct was contrary to professional norms. It also evidenced a complete lack of pretrial preparation and put at risk appellant’s right to offer evidence of mitigating circumstances. Given the totality of the circumstances in this case, counsel’s representation of Laws was defective enough to undermine the reliability of the adversarial process. See Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 386, 106 S.Ct. at 2589.
In the present case, the district court did not set Laws’ conviction aside; the district court only ordered that the case be remanded for a new penalty hearing. Thus, even *1398if we were to affirm the decision of the district court, appellant would not go free because defense counsel blundered. The only effect would be to grant appellant a new penalty hearing — one which would be in accord with our notion of the fair treatment that should be necessary before the state can take a person’s life. I would affirm the decision of the district court.