ÿWPC  6# UN %] 0(cw@‹4ËßU:î( 0Æ0 0cöU:YU:“ 0JÍ 0T 0^k 0hÉ 0r1 0|£ 0† 0¥ 1u5 0dª 0@ D3N B AQž Æï 0Dµ 0Dù D/= Bl U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ DC AM]/ªâÙv~»vÓ9˜tech 4si IIHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ª1«1¬1­1fe¯1Še°1D±1U²1³1D´1Ó€Àze"3|x¿1`"Arial Regular(v(2š$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Xz²XXXÔÔ€ôÅõôXXz²Ôà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("Ž$Ô€XãüXXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd d'( )*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd' 0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ("ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òMay€2,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€-ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÔ€.ÔÔ€.ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€12€provides€as€follows:€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àò òTrial€Judge's€Report€in€Cases€of€First€Degree€Murder.ó ó€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€report,€a€copy€of€which€is€appended€to€this€rule,€shall€beÏcompleted€in€its€entirety€by€the€trial€judge€in€all€first€degree€murderÏcases€in€which€life€imprisonment€or€a€sentence€of€death€is€imposed.€ÏIn€the€event€more€than€one€defendant€is€convicted€in€a€first€degreeÏmurder€case,€a€separate€report€shall€be€completed€for€eachÏdefendant.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThe€report€shall€be€submitted€to€the€defendant's€counsel€forÏsuch€comments€as€counsel€desires€to€make€concerning€the€factualÏaccuracy€of€the€report.€€If€counsel€desires,€those€comments€inÏresponse€shall€be€attached€to€the€report.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àThis€report€shall€likewise€be€submitted€to€the€attorney€for€theÏstate€who€may€also€attach€comments€to€the€report.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àIt€shall€be€the€responsibility€of€the€trial€judge€to€compile,€orÏcause€to€be€compiled,€all€information€required€by€this€rule,€to€certify€itsÏaccuracy,€and€to€transmit€it€forthwith€to€the€Clerk€of€the€SupremeÏCourt,€sitting€in€Nashville,€after€denial€of€motion€for€new€trial.€€AÏduplicate€copy€shall€be€included€in€the€technical€record.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€-ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€.ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ ž XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñò òœÙ€'ÙßR€120A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àNOVEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌó óÌÌSEDLEY€ALLEY,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9603„CR„00094Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHONORABLE€L.€TERRY€LAFFERTYÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppellee.ò òà àà àà à)ÌÌòòÌóóó óÌÌòòÌFor€the€Appellantóóà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€AppelleeóóÌÌArthur€E.€Quinnà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌSuite€360à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ860€Ridge€Lake€Boulevardà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.ÌMemphis,€TN€€38120à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌTimothy€R.€Holtonà àà àà àà àAmy€L.€TarkingtonÌSuite€705à àà àà àà àà àœAssistant›€Attorney€GeneralÌ200€Jefferson€Avenueà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHenry€P.€WilliamsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.ÏCampbellà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏDistrict€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌÓ€ÓœÌÌ›ÌOPINION€FILED:______________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌà àà àThe€petitioner,€Sedley€Alley,€appeals€from€the€trial€court's€denial€ofÏpost„conviction€relief€and€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)à8 àwhether€he€was€denied€a€fair€trial€due€toÏthe€impartiality€of€the€trial€judge;Ìà8 àÌà8 àà8 à(2)à8 àwhether€a€prospective€juror€was€improperlyÏdismissed;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à8 àwhether€he€was€denied€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€on€directÏappeal;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)à8 àwhether€the€post„conviction€courtÍerroneously€denied€the€petitioner€expertÏservices;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)à8 àwhether€the€post„conviction€courtÏerroneously€denied€the€petitioner€theÏopportunity€to€make€an€offer€of€certainÏmitigating€proof;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(6)à8 àwhether€the€prosecutor€committedÏreversible€error€during€trial;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(7)à8 àwhether€the€trial€court€committed€reversibleÏerror€during€trial;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(8)à8 àwhether€the€trial€court€properly€instructedÏthe€jury€at€the€guilt€and€penalty€phases€ofÏthe€trial;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(9)à8 àwhether€the€Tennessee€death€penaltyÏstatute€is€unconstitutional.ÌÌà8 àà8 àÌÌÓÓà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment.Ìò òÌà àà àó óThe€petitioner€attacked€the€female€victim€while€she€was€jogging€nearÏthe€Millington€Naval€Base,€raped€and€killed€her.€€At€trial,€the€petitioner€relied€uponÏan€insanity€defense;€through€testimony,€he€attempted€to€prove€that€he€was€underÏthe€control€of€a€separate€personality€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder,Íkidnapping,€and€aggravated€rape;€at€the€conclusion€of€the€penalty€phase€of€theÏtrial,€he€was€sentenced€to€death€on€the€murder€conviction.€€The€jury€found€twoÏaggravating€circumstances€as€grounds€for€this€sentence:€€that€the€murder€wasÏespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel;€and€that€the€murder€was€committed€duringÏthe€kidnapping€and€rape.€€The€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€forty„year€terms€forÏthe€two€other€offenses.€€The€supreme€court€affirmed€each€of€the€convictions€onÏdirect€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Alleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€506€(Tenn.€1989).€€Thereafter,€theÏpetitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€which€was€denied€by€the€trialÏcourt.€€On€appeal,€this€court€reversed,€ordered€the€recusal€of€the€trial€judge,€andÏremanded€the€case€for€a€new€hearing.€€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882€S.W.2d€810€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1994).€€This€court€ruled€that€the€trial€court€should€have€allowed€the€petitionerÏto€make€an€offer€of€proof€as€to€the€expert€testimony€he€intended€to€produce.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ818.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€replacement€judge€deniedÏthe€petitioner€post„conviction€relief.€€ò òÌó óÌà àà àThe€record€of€the€post„conviction€proceeding€establishes€thatÏDeborah€Richardson,€a€Mental€Health€Program€Specialist€with€Middle€TennesseeÏMental€Health€Institute,€assisted€with€the€assimilation€of€the€petitioner's€recordsÏduring€his€four„month€evaluation€period.€€The€evaluation€team€included€Ms.ÏRichardson,€Dr.€Marshall,€Becky€Smith,€Julie€Maddox,€Dr.€Samuel€Craddock,€Dr.ÍZillur€Athar,€and€two€nurses.€€Ms.€Richardson€testified€that€birth€records€are€notÏnormally€obtained€for€mental€health€examinations€unless€there€is€something€aboutÏthe€patient's€current€functioning€which€would€indicate€congenital€organicÏimpairment;€in€her€opinion,€nothing€about€the€petitioner's€condition€suggested€aÏreview€of€his€birth€records€before€his€trial.€€When€asked€by€the€team€of€his€medicalÏbackground,€the€petitioner€failed€to€mention€anything€of€consequence.€€At€theÏevidentiary€hearing,€Ms.€Richardson€testified€that€she€did€review€records€indicatingÏthat€the€petitioner's€mother€suffered€from€edema€during€pregnancy.€€TheÏpetitioner's€Apgar€scores,€which€measure€the€infant's€responsiveness€after€birth,Ïdeclined€over€time;€she€also€learned€that€the€petitioner€was€born€with€a€collapsedÏlung€and€spina€bifida€(a€hole€in€the€spinal€cord).€€EEGs€and€CAT€scans€revealedÏnothing.€€Ms.€Richardson€confirmed€that€none€of€these€conditions€were€explored€byÏthe€evaluation€team€before€the€trial.€ÌÌà àà àIt€was€established€that€the€petitioner€also€suffered€from€congenitalÏkidney€problems€and€an€abnormal€external€genitalia.€€The€petitioner€hadÏundergone€several€urethral€strictures€during€his€childhood,€which€entailed€insertingÏa€rod„like€instrument€into€the€urinary€tract.€€He€also€had€urethral€surgery€at€ageÏfifteen€and€suffered€hemorrhaging€of€the€penis€shortly€after€the€operation.€€TheÏpetitioner€also€had€a€history€of€febrile€seizures€before€his€surgery€and€had€oneÍafterwards.€€One€of€the€reports€pertaining€to€his€urinary€tract€problem€mentioned€theÏterm€"neurosis,"€but€this€was€not€further€investigated€by€the€team.€€The€petitionerÏalso€suffered€a€head€injury€during€a€diving€accident;€the€team€took€this€into€accountÏduring€their€evaluation.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€Ms.€Richardson€acknowledgedÏthat€the€team€did€not€consult€a€urologist€or€a€geneticist€with€regard€to€any€of€theseÏproblems.€€She€did€testify€that€the€team€could€find€no€connection€between€theseÏphysical€problems€and€the€alleged€multiple€personality€disorder€and€concludedÏthere€was€no€need€to€research€the€problems€any€further.€€Ms.€Richardson€assertedÏthat€the€team€took€extraordinary€measures€with€the€petitioner€because€of€the€natureÏof€the€alleged€symptoms.€€She€confirmed€that€records€were€also€obtainedÏsubsequent€to€the€trial€indicating€the€petitioner€was€admitted€to€a€hospital€in€OhioÏfor€similar€urinary€tract€problems;€that€was€not€investigated€further.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€was€diagnosed€by€the€team€as€having€a€borderlineÏpersonality€disorder€and€continuous€mixed€substance€abuse;€he€was€classified€asÏa€malingerer.€€Ms.€Richardson€testified€that€the€new€medical€records€she€had€seenÏwould€not€have€changed€her€diagnosis€of€the€petitioner.€€She€stated€that€everythingÏwas€consistent€with€substance€abuse€except€for€the€borderline€personality€disorderÏsymptoms.€€While€acknowledging€that€the€petitioner€complained€about€nightmaresÏand€other€personalities€named€"Billy"€and€"Death,"€and€appeared€nervous€duringÍevaluation€meetings,€Ms.€Richardson€testified€that€the€petitioner€acted€normallyÏaround€the€Institute's€general€population€and€never€showed€any€signs€ofÏbehavioral€changes.€€The€team€also€monitored€his€sleeping€and€never€observedÏsigns€of€the€alleged€nightmares.€€She€claimed€that€during€the€evaluation€meetings,Ïthe€petitioner€would€respond€to€certain€cues€the€doctors€would€offer€that€wereÏindicative€of€malingering.€€€€ÌÌà àà àMs.€Richardson€recalled€that€the€petitioner's€trial€attorneys€traveled€toÏthe€Institute€to€check€on€his€status,€which€was€rare€for€attorneys€to€do.€€In€her€view,Ïthe€attorneys€showed€more€interest€than€in€any€other€case€she€could€recall.€€SheÏtestified€that€the€attorneys€provided€her€team€all€of€their€records€of€medical€historyÏand€the€team,€in€turn,€provided€the€trial€attorneys€with€all€of€the€findings€they€hadÏmade.€€She€confirmed€that€everyone€at€the€Institute€testified€at€the€competencyÏhearing€that€the€petitioner€was€able€to€stand€trial.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Samuel€Craddock,€a€clinical€psychologist,€also€testified€that€theÏtrial€attorneys€had€visited€him€on€about€six€occasions€to€discuss€the€petitioner'sÏmental€status;€he€described€them€as€very€thorough€in€their€work.€€Dr.€CraddockÏrelated€that€he€had€spent€more€time€on€this€case€than€in€any€of€the€many€others€inÏwhich€he€had€been€involved;€in€his€opinion,€the€trial€attorneys€could€not€have€doneÍanything€differently€to€change€his€diagnosis€of€the€petitioner.€€Dr.€Craddock€testifiedÏthat€the€evaluation€team€considered€the€possibility€of€a€multiple€personalityÏsyndrome€but€concluded€that€the€petitioner€was€not€so€afflicted.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Craddock€also€testified€it€was€not€customary€to€review€birthÏrecords€when€attempting€to€determine€either€competency€or€sanity€issues.€€Instead,Ïthe€team€looked€for€traumatic€events€in€the€petitioner's€life€that€might€have€affectedÏhis€mental€status€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€It€was€his€opinion€that€neither€theÏurethral€surgery€nor€the€diving€injury€would€have€had€an€effect€on€the€diagnosis.€ÏDr.€Craddock€explained€that€during€interviews,€the€petitioner€never€described€theseÏevents€as€being€traumatic.€€He€claimed€that€a€medical€report€indicating€that€theÏpetitioner€suffered€from€a€neurosis€might€not€be€legitimate€because€there€was€noÏother€information€pertaining€to€that€diagnosis.€€It€was€his€view€that€the€dilation€of€theÏurinary€tract€was€not€necessarily€traumatic€for€the€petitioner,€even€though€it€wasÏprobably€painful.€€He€did€conclude€that€the€hemorrhaging€that€occurred€afterÏsurgery€could€have€qualified€as€trauma.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Craddock€described€the€petitioner€as€appearing€more€impairedÏduring€the€meetings€with€the€team€than€during€his€association€with€other€patients€inÏthe€Institute.€€Dr.€Craddock€also€mentioned€that€even€though€the€petitionerÍcomplained€of€problems€sleeping€and€about€nightmares,€no€one€ever€observedÏanything€out€of€the€ordinary€during€round„the„clock€observations.€€There€was€noÏevidence€of€any€neurological€problems.€€Dr.€Craddock€adhered€to€his€belief€that€theÏpersonality€disorder€symptoms€were€a€product€of€malingering.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Zillur€Athar,€one€of€the€psychiatrists€who€examined€the€petitioner,Ïtestified€that€a€cluster€of€physical€anomalies€can€point€to€a€syndrome€with€a€geneticÏorigin;€he€conceded,€however,€the€team€did€not€consult€a€geneticist€in€this€case.€€Dr.ÏAthar€testified€that€genetic€disorders€can€affect€behavior,€but€not€in€every€case.€€ItÏwas€his€view€that€persons€who€suffer€from€multiple€personality€disorders€usuallyÏhave€experienced€some€form€of€sexual€abuse€trauma€early€in€life.€€Dr.€Athar€statedÏthat€hemorrhaging€after€surgery€and€dilation€procedures€on€the€urinary€tract€couldÏbe€traumatic€if€the€person€was€not€fully€informed€of€these€as€possibleÏconsequences.€€He€had€no€opinion€on€whether€the€petitioner€had€been€fullyÏprepared€and€informed;€it€was€standard€medical€practices€to€do€so.€€Ì€€Ìà àà àDr.€Athar€described€neurosis€as€an€outdated€term€which€had€indicatedÏunusual€anxiety;€the€term€could€suggest€a€temporary€condition.€€He€testified€that€aÏprior€neurosis€diagnosis€of€the€petitioner€would€have€been€significant€but€could€notÏsay€if€the€team€had€followed€up€on€any€such€information.€€It€was€his€view€that€theÍextent€and€location€of€brain€hemorrhaging€would€have€to€be€known€for€aÏdetermination€of€whether€it€had€any€bearing€upon€his€mental€evaluation.€€Dr.€AtharÏcould€not€recall€anyone€asking€whether€the€killing€of€the€victim,€by€penetrating€theÏvictim's€vagina€some€twenty€inches€with€a€tree€branch,€bore€any€similarity€to€theÏpetitioner's€childhood€surgery.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Athar€testified€that€multiple€personality€develops€from€childhood€toÏearly€teens.€€He€treated€the€petitioner€weekly€during€his€term€of€observation€at€theÏInstitute.€€He€claimed€that€the€team€obtained€as€much€information€as€they€neededÏfor€a€satisfactory€evaluation.€€Dr.€Athar€testified€that€the€new€information€he€hadÏbeen€shown€at€the€hearing,€including€the€urologist's€diagnosis€of€neurosis,€did€notÏchange€his€belief€that€the€petitioner€was€sane.€€He€held€to€his€opinion€that€theÏpetitioner€was€malingering.€€Dr.€Athar€testified€that€he€had€no€basis€to€conclude€thatÏthe€petitioner€had€been€sexually€abused€as€a€child.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Athar€acknowledged€that€before€trial,€he€had€met€with€the€defenseÏattorneys€on€many€occasions.€€He€also€claimed€that€he€had€invested€more€time€inÏthis€case€than€on€any€other€during€his€tenure€at€the€Institute;€generally,€patientsÏusually€do€not€spend€as€much€time€under€evaluation€or€treatment€as€did€theÏpetitioner.€€Dr.€Athar€also€believed€that€the€petitioner€acted€differently€in€theÍmeetings€with€the€evaluation€team€than€in€the€unit;€he€described€the€petitioner€asÏ"quite€normal"€when€interacting€with€the€other€patients€but€complaining€excessivelyÏin€the€meetings€with€the€team.€€He€testified€that€there€was€nothing€the€petitioner'sÏtrial€attorneys€could€have€said€or€done€that€would€have€changed€the€results€of€hisÏevaluation.€€Dr.€Athar€testified€that€he€did€not€see€symptoms€of€mental€illness€thatÏwould€warrant€a€genetic€investigation.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Lynne€Donna€Zager,€a€psychologist€with€the€Midtown€MentalÏHealth€Center,€performed€a€preliminary€evaluation€of€the€petitioner€before€hisÏtransfer€to€the€Institute.€€She€could€not€recall€any€indication€that€the€petitionerÏreceived€treatment€as€a€youth€for€any€mental€disorder.€€She€did€acknowledge€that€aÏprior€diagnosis€of€neurosis€would€be€something€of€interest€depending€on€theÏcontext€in€which€the€term€was€used.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Zager€recalled€the€petitioner€describing€his€urology€operation€as€aÏtraumatic€experience;€the€team€took€this€experience€into€consideration€during€theÏevaluation.€€The€team€interviewed€the€petitioner€and€his€family€and€made€anÏextensive€inquiry€of€his€past.€€Dr.€Zager€conceded€that€genetic€defects€wouldÏpossibly€affect€behavior;€at€the€time€of€the€evaluation,€however,€the€team€deemedÏas€unnecessary€any€investigation€of€genetic€problems.€€She€acknowledged,Íhowever,€a€similarity€between€the€petitioner's€surgical€procedure€and€the€mannerÏin€which€the€offense€was€committed;€the€team€took€that€into€consideration€in€makingÏtheir€evaluation.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Zager€testified€that€she€had€spent€more€time€on€this€case€than€anyÏother€in€which€she€had€participated.€€The€purposes€of€her€evaluation€were€toÏdetermine€the€competency€of€the€petitioner€to€stand€trial€and€his€mental€condition€atÏthe€time€of€the€offense;€she€made€no€preparations€to€testify€about€possibleÏmitigating€circumstances€in€the€commission€of€the€crime.€€Dr.€Zager€alsoÏcomplimented€the€efforts€of€petitioner's€trial€attorneys€in€the€evaluation.€€SheÏacknowledged€that€the€team€considered€and€then€ruled€out€a€diagnosis€of€multipleÏpersonality€disorder.€€She€concurred€in€the€finding€that€the€petitioner€hadÏsubstance€abuse€problems€and€a€borderline€personality.€€She€also€felt€there€wasÏinformation€to€suggest€the€petitioner€was€malingering;€that€was€the€basis€for€hisÏtransfer€to€the€Institute.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Allen€Overton€Battle,€who€was€hired€by€the€defense€attorneys€toÏevaluate€the€petitioner,€conducted€hypnosis€on€the€petitioner€in€an€effort€to€discoverÏany€suppressed€recollections.€€The€defense€attorneys€recorded€every€session€onÏvideotape.€€No€medication€was€administered€during€the€sessions.€€He€was€alsoÍaware€that€sodium€amytal€("truth€serum")€had€been€provided€to€the€petitioner€duringÏseveral€of€his€sessions€with€Dr.€Larry€Southard€in€Nashville.€€Dr.€Battle€testified€thatÏthe€petitioner's€trial€attorneys€had€provided€him€with€a€great€deal€of€information€inÏan€effort€to€assist€in€his€defense.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Battle€concluded€that€the€petitioner€did,€in€fact,€suffer€from€multipleÏpersonality,€but€could€not€state€that€the€petitioner€was€legally€insane€at€the€time€ofÏthe€offense.€€He€testified€that€he€would€have€liked€more€tests€on€the€petitioner€in€anÏeffort€to€determine€his€mental€state;€a€taped€confession€by€the€petitioner,€which€wasÏnever€provided,€might€have€been€helpful.€€The€records€pertaining€to€the€dilation€ofÏthe€urethra€would€have€been€especially€helpful€because€of€its€possible€traumaticÏeffect;€a€disassociation€with€the€experience€might€have€ultimately€led€to€multipleÏpersonalities.€€Dr.€Battle,€who€was€convinced€there€was€no€malingering,Ïhypothesized€that€the€alter€ego€created€in€the€petitioner€was€a€female€who€couldÏnot€suffer€from€abnormal€male€genitalia€and€the€corrective€surgical€procedures;€theÏfemale€killed€the€victim€and€left€the€host€personality€to€deal€with€the€crime€much€asÏthe€host€personality€left€the€female€to€deal€with€the€pain€of€the€dilations.€€AlthoughÏDr.€Battle€testified€at€trial€about€how€the€petitioner's€disorder€might€have€formed,€heÏwas€never€asked€about€his€multiple„personality€hypothesis€of€the€cause€of€theÏcrime.€€He€testified€that€the€petitioner's€trial€attorneys€failed€to€ask€him€to€testifyÍabout€any€possible€mitigating€circumstances.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Battle€did€assert€that€the€defense€attorneys€did€an€excellent€job€atÏtrial;€in€his€forty€years€of€experience€he€could€not€recall€any€other€instances€inÏwhich€attorneys€performed€as€capably.€€Most€of€the€information€he€received€on€theÏpetitioner's€history€came€from€the€efforts€of€the€trial€attorneys,€even€the€reports€onÏhis€urethra€surgery;€Dr.€Battle€testified€that€his€trial€testimony€regarding€the€multipleÏpersonality€disorder€was€critical€for€the€defense.€€He€claimed€that€he€was€neverÏasked€to€testify€on€the€sanity€issue€because€there€were€other€professionalsÏavailable€for€that;€he€perceived€his€duty€as€to€investigate€the€multiple€personalityÏdisorder€only.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Battle€conceded€that,€because€he€saw€the€petitioner€for€only€twoÏhours€at€a€time,€the€doctors€and€employees€at€the€Institute€were€in€a€better€positionÏto€determine€whether€the€petitioner€was€malingering.€€He€testified€that€it€was€"totallyÏimpossible"€for€him€to€make€an€informed€evaluation€concerning€malingering€orÏinsanity.€€While€Dr.€Battle€was€not€called€upon€to€testify€specifically€on€possibleÏmitigating€circumstances,€he€did€acknowledge€conveying€to€the€jury€during€the€guiltÏphase€of€the€trial€the€pain€the€petitioner€experienced€during€his€childhood.€€It€wasÏhis€view€that€the€birth€records€of€the€petitioner€would€not€have€been€helpful€in€hisÍevaluation.€€In€response€to€a€question€by€the€trial€judge,€Dr.€Battle€testified€that,€inÏhis€opinion,€none€of€the€petitioner's€personalities€could€be€considered€legallyÏinsane.ÌÌà àà àMark€Ward,€the€petitioner's€counsel€on€the€direct€appeal€of€theÏconviction,€is€involved€in€all€death€penalty€appeals€in€the€Shelby€County€PublicÏDefender's€Office.€€Mr.€Ward€testified€that€he€takes€control€of€the€case€after€the€filingÏof€the€notice€of€appeal.€€In€response€to€a€letter€from€the€petitioner€asking€why€heÏraised€the€various€issues€on€appeal,€he€informed€the€petitioner€he€raised€what€heÏthought€appropriate€based€upon€his€experience.€€He€included€every€possibleÏmeritorious€issue€in€his€appellate€brief,€confirming€that€he€had€an€adequate€recordÏon€appeal.€€Mr.€Ward€also€testified€that€he€would€have€filed€a€petition€to€rehear€hadÏthe€supreme€court's€opinion€misstated€the€testimony€of€a€witness,€especially€that€ofÏDr.€Marshall.€€òòSeeóó€òòAlleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€506,€510.€€He€recalled€no€suchÏmisstatements€in€the€opinion.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€trial€attorneys€asked€Dr.€Wyatt€Lee€Nichols,€a€clinicalÏpsychologist,€to€conduct€evaluations€of€the€petitioner€for€both€competency€to€standÏtrial€and€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€When€the€petitioner€claimed€that€he€couldÏnot€remember€anything€about€the€crime,€Dr.€Nichols€informed€defense€counsel€heÍcould€not€make€an€adequate€evaluation,€made€a€reference€to€Dr.€Battle,€and€did€notÏparticipate€further.€€Because€competency€and€sanity€had€to€be€evaluated,€Dr.ÏNichols€did€not€consider€mitigating€circumstances.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€Dr.ÏNichols€testified€that€had€he€explored€the€mitigation€aspects,€he€would€haveÏreviewed€the€petitioner's€past€experiences€affecting€self„esteem€and€confidence;Ïhe€also€would€have€considered€other€characteristics€relating€to€the€nature€of€thisÏparticular€crime,€such€as€sexual€prowess€and€sexual€performance.€€He€concededÏthat€any€knowledge€about€the€petitioner's€urinary€tract€dilations€might€have€beenÏhelpful.€€ÌÌà àà àAttorney€Robert€Jones€represented€the€petitioner€at€trial.€€In€the€legalÏprofession€for€eighteen€years,€he€has€been€with€the€Public€Defender's€Office€forÏseventeen€years€and€on€their€capital€defense€team€for€fifteen€of€those€years.€€EdÏThompson,€another€Public€Defender,€was€also€assigned€to€represent€the€petitioner.€ÏMr.€Jones€had€the€primary€responsibility€of€investigation€and€preparation;€Mr.ÏThompson€acted€as€lead€counsel€at€trial.€€Chris€Glen,€a€social€worker€who€hadÏworked€on€approximately€700€murder€cases,€and€Ralph€Nally€assisted€in€theÏinvestigation.€€The€defense€team€talked€with€the€petitioner's€wife,€sister,€andÏmother,€who€informed€them€of€all€of€the€significant€medical€problems€in€theÏpetitioner's€life,€including€the€urethra€surgery,€the€head€injury,€and€his€childhoodÍbehavior.€€None€of€the€defense€team€had€any€experience€in€the€area€of€multipleÏpersonalities.€€The€decision€to€use€the€insanity€defense€was€a€group€decisionÏamong€the€attorneys,€the€petitioner,€the€physicians,€and€other€experts.€€On€advice€ofÏthe€physicians,€the€trial€attorneys€made€no€suggestion€to€the€petitioner€that€he€wasÏafflicted€with€multiple€personalities.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Jones€testified€that€he€did€not€recall€seeing€the€trial€judge's€RuleÏ12× ƒ3 ××  ×€report€in€this€case€or€being€asked€for€input€for€the€report€from€the€trial€judge.€ÍMr.€Jones€testified€that€he€disagreed€with€the€trial€judge's€assessment€that€noÏmitigating€evidence€had€been€presented;€he€concluded€that€the€petitioner's€mentalÏcondition€and€the€petitioner's€level€of€intoxication€at€the€time€of€the€crime€shouldÏhave€been€included€in€the€report.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€attorneys€were€first€apprised€of€a€possible€mental€defectÏwhen€the€petitioner€complained€of€memory€losses.€€After€contacting€Dr.€Nichols€toÏevaluate€the€petitioner€for€competency€to€stand€trial€and€sanity€at€the€time€of€theÏoffense,€they€were€referred€to€Dr.€Battle€for€hypnosis€evaluations€due€to€theÏpetitioner's€inability€to€recall€the€events€of€the€crime.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Battle,€who€had€determined€competency€and€sanity€questions€inÏprior€cases,€requested€a€transfer€of€the€petitioner€to€Nashville€for€furtherÏevaluations.€€At€the€Institute,€the€petitioner€was€examined€by€an€evaluation€team,Ïheaded€by€Dr.€Marshall,€and€a€treatment€team,€headed€by€Dr.€Athar.€€The€petitionerÏinitially€spent€thirty€days€in€the€Institute;€he€returned€later€for€further€evaluations.€€€ÌÌà àà àWhen€it€was€determined€that€multiple€personalities€might€be€an€issue,Ïthe€trial€attorneys€sought€the€counsel€of€other€experts€in€the€area;€because€œDr.ÏBattle›€was€a€leading€expert€in€this€field€and€was€familiar€with€criminal€cases,€it€wasÍdecided€to€utilize€his€participation€in€the€case.€€Mr.€Jones€also€testified€that€heÏmaintained€regular€contact€with€those€participating€in€the€evaluations€and€actuallyÏsat€in€on€several€of€the€hypnosis€and€sodium€amytal€sessions€performed€by€Dr.ÏBattle€and€Dr.€Marshall.€€ÌÌà àà àBoth€Drs.€Battle€and€Marshall€supported€the€theory€of€multipleÏpersonality€developing€from€the€urinary€tract€problems€and€medical€procedures.€ÏBut€Dr.€Battle€began€to€vacillate€just€before€trial€as€to€whether€"Power"€or€"Death"Ïwas€in€control€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€After€talking€with€Dr.€Battle,€Attorney€JonesÏdecided€that€Dr.€Battle's€testimony€lent€support€to€the€defense€theory;€he€claimedÏthat€he€did€not€learn€otherwise€until€trial€when€Dr.€Battle€provided€damagingÏtestimony€to€the€petitioner.€€Mr.€Jones€acknowledged€his€disappointment€andÏasserted€that€he€would€never€utilize€Dr.€Battle€as€an€expert€in€the€future.€€HeÏtestified€that€Dr.€Marshall€did,€however,€support€the€insanity€defense€at€trial.€€BothÏhad€testified€to€the€petitioner's€multiple€personalities€during€the€competencyÏhearings€before€trial.ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€trial,€Attorney€Jones€filed€motions€to€continue€the€case;€whenÏthe€county€public€defender€made€a€rare€appearance€to€support€the€motions€andÏask€for€permission€to€withdraw,€the€trial€judge€delayed€jury€selection€for€three€days.€ÍMr.€Jones€asserted€that€he€did€not€waive€any€meritorious€issues€during€the€trial€ofÏthe€case.€€Although€this€trial€was€scheduled€within€days€after€Mr.€Jones€hadÏfinished€another€trial,€he€conceded€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€he€was€preparedÏto€proceed,€having€worked€on€the€case€for€well€over€a€year.Ì€€Ìà àà àAttorney€Jones€claimed€that€the€trial€was€tense€at€times;€for€example,Ïthe€trial€judge€threatened€him€with€contempt€and,€at€one€point,€warned€him€of€hisÏconstitutional€rights.€€He€claimed€that€the€judge€questioned€the€credibility€of€theÏdefense€attorneys.€€Mr.€Jones€testified€that€he€was€not€aware€the€parents€of€theÏvictim€had€sent€a€letter€to€the€trial€judge€about€the€case€and€questioned€theÏpropriety€of€the€trial€judge's€contact€with€the€victim's€family;€while€the€prosecutionÏhad€been€provided€a€copy€of€the€letter,€the€defense€had€not.€€Mr.€Jones€concededÏthat€he€had€not€filed€a€motion€for€recusal.€€Upon€further€questioning,€Attorney€JonesÏacknowledged€that€the€state€displayed€for€the€jury€a€photograph€of€the€victim€duringÏthe€entire€first€day€of€the€trial;€no€objection€was€lodged€until€the€end€of€the€day.€€HeÏexplained€that€he€delayed€his€objection€so€as€not€to€alienate€the€jury.€€€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Jones€testified€that€all€records€of€the€petitioner's€prior€medicalÏproblems€had€been€passed€on€to€the€experts.€€Mr.€Jones,€who€talked€with€theÏpetitioner's€family,€had€no€recollection€of€any€medical€problems€associated€with€hisÍbirth.€€He€stated€that€none€of€the€doctors€who€examined€the€petitioner€everÏindicated€that€there€was€any€reason€to€obtain€the€birth€records;€he€knew€nothing€ofÏa€neurosis€diagnosis.€€Mr.€Jones€acknowledged€his€awareness€of€the€petitioner'sÏurinary€tract€surgery€and€the€head€injury€and€provided€the€experts€with€thatÏinformation.€€A€neurological€workup€on€the€head€injury€revealed€no€organicÏproblems.€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€Mr.€Jones€conceded€that€he€did€not€show€the€jury€the€actualÏinstrument€that€was€used€in€the€urethra€dilations€of€the€petitioner,€he€did€attempt€toÏ"paint€the€picture"€of€these€procedures€to€the€jury;€he€said€that€Dr.€Battle€describedÏthe€pain€associated€with€the€surgery€and€how€this€event€could€culminate€in€aÏdisassociation€which,€in€his€opinion,€caused€the€multiple€personality€disorder.€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Jones€did€not€ask€Dr.€Zager€to€testify€in€the€penalty€phase.€€TheÏdefense€decided€that€some€of€their€experts€were€not€"open„minded"€and€would€not,Ïtherefore,€be€helpful€in€the€penalty€phase.€€In€their€assessment,€the€mitigationÏevidence€introduced€during€the€guilt€phase€was€credible€and€compelling.€€ForÏexample,€Dr.€Battle€testified€during€the€trial€about€the€petitioner's€behavior€as€aÏchild,€such€as€rocking€back€and€forth,€banging€his€own€head€against€the€wall,Ïimagining€conversations,€experiencing€headaches€and€nightmares,€not€wanting€toÍplay€with€other€children,€imagining€a€playmate€"Billie,"€and€suffering€mental€abuseÏfrom€his€father.€€Because€the€defense€team€thought€that€the€jury€might€find€theÏpetitioner€not€guilty€by€reason€of€insanity,€they€introduced€the€bulk€of€their€proofÏduring€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€This€strategy,€according€to€Attorney€Jones,€was€toÏestablish€grounds€of€mitigation€at€the€same€time€the€jury€considered€the€insanityÏtestimony.€€Mr.€Jones€testified€that€the€jury€thus€learned€of€the€mitigatingÏcircumstances€during€the€guilt€stage€of€the€trial.€€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Jones€explained€that€the€defense€team€chose€not€to€use€aÏpsychologist€during€the€sentencing€phase€because€a€more€extensive€cross„examination€might€have€been€damaging.€€Mr.€Jones€testified€that€his€requests€forÏexperts€had€been€approved€in€the€trial€court€and€that€funds€for€the€employment€of€aÏgeneticist€would€have€been€granted.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Jones€testified€that€the€defense€filed€notice€of€insanity€defenseÏover€a€year€before€trial;€the€state€refused€to€offer€any€plea€agreement.€€SeveralÏpretrial€motions€were€filed,€including€a€motion€to€suppress€the€petitioner'sÏstatement;€there€were€lengthy€hearings.€€Mr.€Jones€stated€that€he€was€in€continualÏcontact€and€discussed€the€insanity€defense€with€the€petitioner€throughout€theÏcourse€of€the€trial.€€Mr.€Jones€also€acknowledged€his€responsibility€for€preparingÍthe€record€for€Mr.€Ward's€representation€on€appeal.ÌÌà àà àMs.€Glen,€who€helped€prepare€all€of€the€background€information€onÏthe€petitioner,€also€assisted€in€the€jury€selection€and€witness€coordination€in€theÏsentencing€phase.€€Mr.€›Nally€did€most€of€the€investigation€relating€to€the€crime€andÏalso€performed€a€background€check.€€Edward€Thompson,€who€also€representedÏthe€petitioner€at€trial,€has€practiced€criminal€law€for€thirty„two€years€and€at€one€timeÏserved€as€the€Shelby€County€Public€Defender.€€The€trial€of€this€case€was€to€start€theÏMonday€following€the€completion€of€another€trial€he€and€Mr.€Jones€just€completedÏon€Saturday.€€Mr.€Thompson€stated€that€they€were€physically€and€mentallyÏexhausted€from€the€previous€trial,€and€sought€permission€to€withdraw€rather€thanÏbegin€the€trial€on€time.€€The€trial€judge€granted€them€a€three„day€extension.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€time€of€trial,€Mr.€Thompson€also€did€not€know€of€the€letter€theÏvictim's€family€wrote€the€judge.€€He€did€recall€seeing€the€victim's€father€walk€backÏtoward€the€judge's€room€and€observed€the€judge's€wife€sit€with€the€victim's€familyÏduring€trial.€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Thompson€agreed€that€the€jury€heard€significant€mitigatingÏcircumstances€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€He€described€the€trial€judge'sÍfailure€to€include€that€in€his€Rule€12€report€as€a€mistake.€€Mr.€Thompson€confirmedÏthat€Dr.€Battle€understood€he€was€to€evaluate€the€competency€and€sanity€of€theÏpetitioner.€€Dr.€Battle€was€the€only€person€they€knew€who€had€any€experience€in€theÏfield€of€multiple€personalities€and€was€willing€to€testify€on€their€behalf.€€Though€Dr.ÏBattle€did€not€testify€as€they€had€anticipated,€he€did€provide€the€defense€withÏsupportive€testimony.€€ÌÌà àà àHe€also€confirmed€that€the€defense€team€relied€upon€the€family€toÏinform€them€about€any€defects€or€illnesses€the€petitioner€may€have€had;€no€oneÏmentioned€any€problems€associated€with€his€birth.€€Mr.€Thompson€did€state€that€heÏwould€have€asked€for€medical€records€and€reviewed€them€had€this€been€known.€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Thompson€testified€that€the€petitioner€appeared€to€be€very€lucid€inÏproviding€details€of€the€crime€to€the€police;€the€tape€of€the€confession€confirmedÏthis.€€No€one€could€testify€that€petitioner€was€intoxicated€at€the€time.€€Thus,€theÏdefense€team€chose€not€to€use€experts€during€the€suppression€hearing.ÌÌò òà@ àANALYSISó óÌà àà àIt€has€long€been€established€that€the€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€in€post„conviction€suits€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.€ÍòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€67€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€"In€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€of€proving€theÏallegations€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence."€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,Ï655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court'sÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏappellate€court€finds€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings.€€òòButlerÏv.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).ò òÌÌà@ àIó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner€first€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€rightÏto€a€fair€trial€due€to€specific€instances€of€conduct€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judge,€whoÏalso€sat€in€the€original€post„conviction€proceeding.€€The€petitioner€claims€the€judgeÏwas€neither€neutral€nor€detached,€"had€developed€a€personal€bias€against€theÏpetitioner,"€and€"develop[ed]€strong€feelings€for€the€implementation€of€capitalÏpunishment."ÌÌà àà àThe€alleged€inappropriate€conduct€occurring€during€the€initial€post„conviction€proceeding€involves€comments€made€by€the€judge€in€response€to€aÏmotion€for€stay€of€execution,€a€motion€for€appointment€of€counsel,€and€the€filing€ofÏthe€post„conviction€petition€itself.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€even€though€theseÍcomments€occurred€during€the€post„conviction€proceeding,€they€demonstrate€aÏpersonal€bias€that€originated€in€the€trial€of€the€case.€€These€complaints€ofÏmisconduct€were€reviewed€by€this€court€during€the€initial€post„conviction€appeal.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€882€S.W.2d€810,€818„19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€AfterÏoutlining€the€law€governing€recusal,€this€court€remanded€for€a€hearing€before€aÏdifferent€judge:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àWhile€we€could€remand€this€case€to€enable€theÏtrial€judge€to€evaluate€the€potential€appearance€ofÏpartiality€in€this€case,€we€deem€that€procedure€inefficient.€ÏWe€have€carefully€read€the€record€and€considered€theÏpoints€raised.€€We€are€mindful€of€the€hindrancesÏencountered€by€trial€judges€whose€trial€dockets€oftenÏbecome€saturated€with€post„trial€petitions,€many€of€whichÏrequire€days€of€complicated€testimony.€€We€are€notÏcallous€to€their€appropriate€efforts€to€dispense€justiceÏmore€swiftly.€€Moreover,€we€do€not€question€in€the€leastÏthe€judge's€intentions€in€this€cause€or€his€determination,Ïfrom€a€subjective,€personal€viewpoint€that€recusal€wasÏnot€necessary.€€Nonetheless,€applying€the€objectiveÏstandard€required€by€our€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct,€weÏdeem€recusal€appropriate€in€this€case€in€order€to€avoidÏthe€public€appearance€of€partiality.ÌÌòòÓÓId.óó€at€823.ÌÌà àà àRelief€under€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€may€be€granted€onlyÏwhen€there€has€been€an€abridgment€of€any€constitutional€right€during€the€course€ofÏthe€guilt€or€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105€(repealedÍ1995).€€Because€€the€alleged€instances€of€misconduct€occurred€during€the€hearingÏon€the€post„conviction€petition,€the€petitioner€does€not€qualify€for€relief.€€While€theÏpetitioner€suggests€that€comments€made€by€the€judge€during€the€initial€post„conviction€hearing€indicate€a€personal€bias€originating€during€his€trial,€theÏpetitioner€has€failed€to€point€to€anything€in€the€record€that€would€warrant€post„conviction€relief.€€This€court's€order€of€€recusal€and€the€remand€for€a€hearing€beforeÏa€different€judge€resolved€any€possible€issue.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€biasedÏconduct€of€the€trial€judge€during€his€trial.€€The€petitioner€makes€several€claims€of€Ïmisconduct:€€(1)€the€trial€judge€misstated€information€in€the€Rule€12€report;€(2)€theÏtrial€judge€improperly€expedited€the€psychological€review€of€the€petitioner;€and€(3)Ïthe€trial€judge€and€his€wife€had€inappropriate€contact€with€the€victim's€family.€€InÏresponse,€the€state€asserts€that€the€petitioner€waived€these€claims€by€their€omissionÏas€grounds€for€relief€on€the€direct€appeal.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112€(repealedÏ1995).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€713„14€(Tenn.€1995),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€____€U.S.€____,€116€S.€Ct.€1685€(1996).€€We€must€agree.€€Except€theÏallegations€of€impropriety€concerning€a€letter€from€the€victim's€family,€all€suchÏgrounds€have€been€waived€because€they€could€have€been€presented€for€reviewÏduring€the€direct€appeal€process.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€any€event,€the€claims€have€no€merit.€€The€petitioner€claims€the€trialÏjudge€incorrectly€reported€under€Rule€12€that€there€was€no€mitigating€evidenceÏbefore€the€jury,€that€the€petitioner's€mental€or€physical€condition€did€not€call€forÏspecial€consideration,€and€that€there€was€no€evidence€the€petitioner€was€under€theÏinfluence€of€drugs€or€alcohol€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€The€petitioner€also€claimsÏhis€defense€attorneys€were€prevented€from€reviewing€the€report€before€itsÏsubmission€to€the€supreme€court.€€This€complaint,€however,€is€not€of€constitutionalÏdimensions.€€The€rules€of€the€supreme€court€have€the€force€of€law€by€virtue€ofÏlegislative€enactment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„3„404.€€This€rule€was€enacted€toÏassist€our€supreme€court€in€its€statutory€duty€to€review€a€death€penalty€sentence€inÏfirst€degree€murder€cases.€€òòMalone€v.€Stateóó,€707€S.W.2d€541,€544€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1985).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€87€(Tenn.€1994)€("TheÏsimple€answer€to€this€complaint€is€that€use€of€the€trial€judge's€Rule€12€report€by€thisÏCourt€is€only€one€facet€of€the€Court's€appellate€review.");€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875ÏS.W.2d€253,€270€(Tenn.€1994)€("a€Rule€12€report€contains€far€less€information€thanÏthe€entire€record,€which€we€have€thoroughly€reviewed€in€this€case").€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€judge€"imposed€pressure€upon€theÏstaff€of€Middle€Tennessee€Health€Institute€to€quickly€come€to€a€determination€as€toÍthe€status€of€Mr.€Alley."€€The€record,€however,€does€not€substantiate€that€claim.€€TheÏpetitioner€was€evaluated€by€numerous€experts€in€Memphis€and€Nashville€and€wasÏinstitutionalized€under€observation€for€a€period€of€about€four€months.€€AlthoughÏthere€is€some€indication€certain€doctors€would€have€liked€more€time€to€evaluate€theÏpetitioner,€the€experts€from€the€Institute€testified€during€the€post„conviction€hearingÏthat€the€additional€information€they€were€shown€during€the€hearing€would€not€haveÏchanged€their€diagnosis.ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€certain€contact€between€the€trialÏjudge,€his€wife,€and€the€victim's€family€indicates€bias€against€the€petitioner.€€ThisÏclaim€is€based€upon€a€letter€sent€to€the€trial€judge€by€the€victim's€family€asking€forÏexpedited€proceedings,€the€fact€that€the€trial€judge's€wife€sat€next€to€the€victim'sÏfamily€during€trial,€and€the€implication€that€the€victim's€father€walked€towards€theÏtrial€judge's€chambers€during€recess€of€the€trial.€€The€petitioner€did€not€discoverÏevidence€of€this€letter€until€the€hearing€below.€€The€better€practice€is€to€share€anyÏcorrespondence€pertaining€to€a€case€with€both€parties,€defense€counsel€and€theÏstate,€to€avoid€any€appearance€of€impropriety.€€òòSeeóó€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct,ÏCanon€3(A)(4),€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€10.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€remanded€evidentiaryÏhearing,€the€replacement€judge€declared€that€no€prejudice€resulted€from€the€letter.€ÏThe€record€supports€the€conclusion€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€respond€to€the€familyÍor€make€any€special€concessions€on€their€behalf.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€fact€that€two€weeks€after€receiving€this€letter,€the€trial€judgeÏnotified€the€defense€attorney€that€the€case€had€been€set€does€not€prove€impartiality.€ÏMoreover,€while€it€is€far€better€for€the€trial€judge€and€his€family€to€avoid€even€theÏappearance€of€impropriety,€there€is€simply€inadequate€proof€in€this€record€to€qualifyÏas€misconduct€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judge€during€the€trial.€€Jurors€did€not€likelyÏknow€the€trial€judge's€wife;€certainly,€nothing€in€this€record€suggests€otherwise.€ÏThere€was€testimony€that€the€break€or€coffee€room€was€near€the€judge's€chambers;Ïthere€was€no€proof€that€the€trial€judge€talked€with€the€father€of€the€victim€during€theÏtrial.€€If€there€was€improper€contact,€the€petitioner€has€been€unable€to€prove€it.€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€the€evidence€in€the€post„conviction€proceeding€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóóÏòòMcBeeóó,€655€S.W.2d€at€195.€€Accordingly,€for€the€reasons€stated€above,€this€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner€next€contends€the€trial€court€improperly€excused€aÏprospective€juror€for€cause€and€refused€to€allow€defense€counsel€an€opportunity€atÍrehabilitation.€€Our€supreme€court€resolved€this€issue€in€favor€of€the€state€on€directÏappeal.€€òòAlleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€517„18.€€Thus,€the€ground€has€been€previouslyÏdetermined.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(repealed€1995).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHouseóó,Ï911€S.W.2d€at€710„11.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óà àà àà àÌà àà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€defense€attorneys€were€effective€in€theirÏrepresentation€of€the€petitioner.€€In€order€for€the€petitioner€to€be€granted€relief€onÏgrounds€of€ineffective€counsel,€he€must€establish€that€the€advice€given€or€theÏservices€rendered€were€not€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneysÏin€criminal€cases€and€that,€but€for€his€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€result€ofÏhis€trial€would€have€likely€been€different.€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668Ï(1984);€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€this€court€may€not€second„guess€the€tactical€andÏstrategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unless€those€choices€were€uninformedÏbecause€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€5,€9€(Tenn.Ï1982).€Trial€counsel€may€not€be€deemed€ineffective€merely€because€a€differentÏprocedure€or€strategy€might€have€produced€a€different€result.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599ÏS.W.2d€276€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€The€reviewing€courts€must€indulge€a€strongÍpresumption€that€the€conduct€of€counsel€falls€within€the€range€of€reasonableÏprofessional€assistance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690.€€The€burden€is€on€theÏpetitioner€to€prove€his€allegations€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòMcGee€v.ÏStateóó,€739€S.W.2d€789€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€The€findings€of€fact€made€by€theÏtrial€judge€are€conclusive€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€theÏjudgment.€€òòGraves€v.€Stateóó,€512€S.W.2d€603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€alleges€numerous€instances€of€ineffective€counsel.€ÏFirst,€he€claims€that€his€defense€attorneys€failed€to€present€or€offer€proof€of€hisÏmental€or€medical€condition€at€the€time€he€gave€his€statement€to€the€police;Ïbecause€he€relied€on€a€defense€of€insanity,€the€petitioner€contends€that€evidenceÏon€the€issue€was€crucial€to€the€case.€€ÌÌà àà àDeborah€Richardson,€a€Mental€Health€Program€Specialist,€testified€atÏthe€post„conviction€hearing.€€She€had€reviewed€the€petitioner's€statement€inÏconjunction€with€witness€accounts€that€he€was€not€impaired€at€the€time.€€BecauseÏthe€statement€was€logical,€coherent,€and€progressed€in€a€natural€sequence,€sheÏconcluded€that€the€petitioner€was€not€under€the€influence€at€the€time.€€ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€Attorney€Thompson€testified€that€the€audio„tapedÍconfession€appeared€quite€lucid€in€its€detail.€€Because€no€one€could€conclude€thatÏthe€petitioner€was€impaired,€the€attorneys€decided€not€to€call€any€experts€during€theÏsuppression€hearing.€€Thompson€stated€he€and€his€co„counsel€did€not€want€toÏsubject€their€experts€to€cross„examination€and€take€the€risk€that€the€revelation€ofÏtheir€insanity€evidence€might€weaken€the€defense.ÌÌà àà àThe€post„conviction€court€could€not€find€that€this€tactic€deprived€theÏpetitioner€of€a€fair€trial.€€We€agree.€€The€decision€appears€to€have€been€informedÏand€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€We€cannot€second„guess€counsel€in€thisÏregard.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€claims€his€defense€attorneys€did€not€properlyÏinvestigate€his€medical€history,€prepare€their€experts'€testimony,€or€present€theÏinsanity€defense.€€The€petitioner€complains€that€certain€of€his€medical€reports,Ïincluding€the€birth€records€pertaining€to€his€urinary€tract€dysfunctions,€were€notÏobtained€or€shown€to€the€experts€before€trial;€he€argues€that€these€records€wereÏessential€to€the€presentation€of€his€defense.€€The€petitioner€also€contends€that€hisÏcounsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€introduce€any€significant€mitigating€evidenceÏduring€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€He€insists€that€a€miscommunicationÏbetween€Dr.€Battle€and€trial€counsel€resulted€in€an€inadequate€psychologicalÍevaluation€and€undermined€his€insanity€defense.€€The€petitioner€also€complainsÏthat€his€counsel€on€appeal€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€file€a€motion€to€reconsiderÏwhen€the€supreme€court€opinion€misstated€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Marshall.ÌÌà àà àDuring€the€course€of€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€petitioner€introducedÏmedical€reports€pertaining€to€his€birth€and€his€urinary€tract€condition.€€Although€theÏdefense€attorneys€learned€from€the€petitioner€and€his€family€of€the€urinary€tractÏproblems€and€the€diving€injury€to€his€head,€they€were€unaware€of€other€medicalÏcomplications€during€his€birth.€€Every€expert€who€had€evaluated€the€petitionerÏbefore€the€trial€and€who€testified€later€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€examined€theÏmedical€records€and€the€previously€unknown€neurosis€diagnosis€and€maintainedÏthat€their€opinions€on€the€petitioner's€condition€had€not€changed.€€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Zager€was€consulted€to€determine€first€whether€the€petitioner€wasÏcompetent€to€stand€trial€and€secondly€whether€he€was€insane€at€the€time€of€theÏoffense.€€She€concluded€that€the€petitioner€was€competent€but€recommendedÏtransferring€him€to€the€Institute€for€more€evaluation.€€Dr.€Zager€was€not€called€toÏtestify€to€mitigating€circumstances.€€During€the€post„conviction€hearing,€she€testifiedÏthat€she€suspected€possible€theories€to€explain€the€petitioner's€acts€andÏacknowledged€that€she€suspected€malingering.€€After€recommending€the€transfer€of€Íthe€petitioner€to€the€Institute€for€further€evaluation,€however,€the€responsibility€forÏthe€evaluation€shifted€to€the€doctors€there.€€Dr.€Zager€considered€the€petitioner'sÏurinary€tract€deformity€in€her€evaluation.€€She€testified€that€she€had€more€contactÏwith€his€defense€attorneys€than€any€others€involved€in€the€defense€of€her€priorÏpatients.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€record€demonstrates€that€defense€counsel€spent€a€great€deal€ofÏtime€in€the€selection€and€preparation€of€trial.€€The€petitioner€was€examined€byÏseveral€in€the€medical€profession.€€Once€it€was€decided€to€pursue€the€insanityÏdefense€under€the€multiple€personality€theory,€the€attorneys€called€expertsÏthroughout€the€country€before€determining€that€Dr.€Battle€was€one€of€the€leadingÏpersons€in€the€field.€€They€also€relied€upon€the€evaluation€and€opinion€of€Dr.ÏMarshall.€€Both€concluded€therefrom€that€the€petitioner€suffered€from€multipleÏpersonalities.€€As€the€record€indicates,€Dr.€Battle€did€not€definitively€testify€duringÏtrial€that€an€alter€personality€was€in€control€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€Mr.€JonesÏtestified€he€was€aware€Dr.€Battle€was€wavering€just€before€trial.€€It€was€not€until€Dr.ÏBattle€was€on€the€stand€that€Mr.€Jones€realized€Dr.€Battle€was€not€testifying€as€toÏwhat€he€had€indicated.€€Nonetheless,€both€attorneys€indicated€that€Dr.€Battle€stillÏprovided€the€defense€with€valuable€mitigation€evidence.€€His€trial€testimony€did€notÏdiscount€the€defense€theory€that€an€alter€personality€was€in€control€at€the€time€of€theÍoffense.€€The€testimony€of€Dr.€Marshall€fully€supported€the€defense.€€ÌÌà àà àThere€was€some€confusion€regarding€Dr.€Battle's€function.€€AttorneyÏJones€testified€that€he€had€used€Dr.€Battle€as€an€expert€in€the€past€and€had€alwaysÏinstructed€him€to€determine€both€the€competency€issue€and€sanity€issue.€€Dr.€BattleÏtestified€that€he€was€asked€simply€to€determine€whether€or€not€the€petitionerÏsuffered€from€multiple€personalities.€€The€trial€court€accredited€the€version€providedÏby€Jones:€€"Why€subject€the€petitioner€to€five€video€sessions€under€hypnosis,€threeÏsodium€amytal€sessions€and€other€examinations€if€it€were€not€for€the€purpose€toÏdetermine€his€state€of€mind€on€the€night€of€July€12,€1985?"ÌÌà àà àDefense€counsel€had€to€rely€upon€the€opinions€of€their€experts.€€TheÏphysicians€testifying€for€the€defense€were€well€respected€in€this€field€for€theirÏexpertise.€€That€one€of€the€experts€changed€his€opinion€does€not€mean€that€counselÏwas€ineffective.€€Stated€simply,€the€proof€in€the€record€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€toÏshow€the€jury€the€device€used€on€the€petitioner€during€his€urethra€procedures.€€Dr.ÏBattle,€however,€testified€about€the€procedures.€€The€defense€attorneys€feared€thatÍthe€jury€would€be€offended€by€a€comparison€of€the€rod„like€urethra€instrument€to€theÏtree€branch€used€to€kill€the€victim.€€They€believed€that€the€detailed€description€byÏDr.€Battle€as€to€the€pain€of€the€petitioner€adequately€made€their€point.€€That,€in€ourÏview,€was€a€reasonable€strategy.€€Thus,€counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€this€regard.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€next€asserts€that€the€attorneys€in€this€case€should€haveÏfiled€a€petition€to€rehear€upon€learning€that€our€supreme€court€misstated€theÏtestimony€of€Dr.€Marshall€in€its€opinion€on€direct€appeal.€€In€its€opinion,€the€courtÏremarked€that€the€state's€expert€testimony€was€"strong€and€impressive"€andÏconcluded€that€the€state€proved€the€petitioner's€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€ÏòòAlleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€511.€€The€jury€had€accredited€the€expert€witnesses€for€theÏstate.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€either€a€misstatement€of€fact€or€how€filing€aÏpetition€to€rehear€would€have€changed€the€result€of€the€direct€appeal.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€makes€a€general€claim€that€his€defense€attorneysÏwere€not€fully€prepared€for€trial.€€The€petitioner€relies€upon€the€contents€of€hisÏattorneys'€motion€for€a€continuance.€€While€the€trial€judge€granted€only€a€three„dayÏextension,€each€of€the€attorneys€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€that€they€wereÏfully€prepared€when€the€trial€began.€€The€post„conviction€court€accredited€thatÏtestimony.€€The€record€supports€that€conclusion.€ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€his€trial€counsel€were€ineffectiveÏbecause€they€failed€to€include€in€the€record€on€appeal€the€transcript€of€the€closingÏarguments€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€Apparently,€the€prosecutor€madeÏreferences€to€victim€impact€evidence.€€Our€supreme€court€concluded€that€the€trialÏcourt€erroneously€allowed€the€state,€over€defense€counsel's€objection,€to€introduceÏthe€victim€impact€testimony€of€the€victim's€father.€€The€error€was€deemed€harmlessÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€petitioner€now€claims€the€opinion€might€haveÏbeen€different€if€the€court€had€been€aware€of€the€specifics€of€the€comments€madeÏduring€the€initial€closing€argument.€€We€do€not€agree.€€The€decision€was€basedÏupon€the€fact€that€none€of€the€inappropriate€argument€occurred€during€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€As€the€post„conviction€court€noted,€our€supremeÏcourt's€observations€about€final€argument€were€premised€upon€òòBooth€v.€Marylandóó,Ï482€U.S.€496€(1987).€€That€case€was€subsequently€overruled€by€òòPayne€v.ÏTennesseeóó,€501€U.S.€808€(1991).€€Thus,€the€failure€of€the€defense€attorneys€toÏinclude€a€transcript€of€the€argument€did€not€result€in€prejudice.€€Ì€Ìà àà àDuring€the€first€day€of€the€original€trial,€the€state€displayed€a€20"€by€16"Ïphotograph€of€the€victim.€€The€record€indicates€that€defense€counsel€did€not€objectÏuntil€the€end€of€that€day.€€The€objection€was€overruled.€€On€the€third€day€of€trial,€theÍtrial€court€directed€the€state€to€substitute€a€smaller€photo€in€its€place.€€On€directÏappeal,€the€petitioner€claimed€it€was€error€for€the€trial€judge€to€have€overruled€theÏobjection.€€Our€supreme€court,€noting€that€the€record€failed€to€establish€how€theÏphoto€was€displayed,€held€that€the€issue€was€without€merit.€€The€petitioner€nowÏclaims€counsel€was€ineffective€by€delaying€its€objection€and€failing€to€adequatelyÏraise€the€issue€on€appeal.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€post„conviction€court€ruled€that€the€petitioner€"failed€to€convinceÏthis€Court€that€such€display€or€the€lack€of€an€objection€influenced€the€jury€toÏarbitrarily€assess€guilt€and€the€death€penalty."€€The€petitioner€had€the€burden€ofÏshowing€how€he€had€been€prejudiced€by€his€attorneys'€delay€in€lodging€anÏobjection.€€He€has€failed€to€do€so.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€alludes€to€a€number€of€other€instances€during€trialÏwherein€his€defense€counsel€failed€to€object€to€questioning€and€argument€of€theÏprosecutor.€€More€specifically,€the€petitioner€complains€that€his€attorneys€failed€toÏobject€to€testimony€about€the€background€of€the€victim;€failed€to€object€to€a€leadingÏquestion€asked€by€the€prosecutor;€failed€to€assert€the€husband€and€wife€privilegeÏconcerning€a€conversation€between€the€petitioner€and€his€wife€which€had€takenÏplace€in€the€presence€of€police;€failed€to€object€to€the€conclusory€testimony€of€aÍwitness;€failed€to€object€to€the€prosecutorððs€argument€that€the€jury€should€not€haveÏmercy;€and€failed€to€object€to€the€improper€conduct€of€the€trial€judge€and€his€wife.€ÏThe€petitioner€presents€each€of€these€claims€in€a€single€sentence€and€has€failed€toÏoffer€any€supportive€explanation€for€his€position.€€It€is€our€view€that€the€post„conviction€court€correctly€ruled€that€trial€counsel€was€not€ineffective€with€regard€toÏany€of€these€allegations.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€havingÏfailed€to€present€issues€one,€six,€seven,€eight,€and€nine€of€this€opinion€on€directÏappeal.€€Because€we€have€determined€there€was€no€error,€the€petitioner€would€notÏbe€entitled€to€relief€on€this€claim.€€Accordingly,€this€contention€must€fail.Çà@ àò òIVó óÌà àà àIn€his€next€issue,€the€petitioner€claims€that€the€trial€court€in€the€post„conviction€proceeding€erroneously€denied€his€motion€for€expenses€for€expertÏwitnesses€due€to€"a€number€of€complex€medical€and€psychological€issuesÏincluding€multiple€personality€disorder."€€Counsel€argued€that€the€expert€servicesÏwould€assist€in€determining€whether€trial€counsel€was€ineffective.€€The€trial€courtÏdenied€the€motion€based€upon€the€ruling€in€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€915Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€It€ruled€that€additional€experts€were€unnecessary€for€anÏinformed€determination€on€the€effectiveness€of€the€defense€attorneys€at€trial.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòTeagueóó,€the€controlling€law€at€the€time€of€the€hearing,€this€courtÏheld€that€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€13€(2)(B)(10)€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„207(b)€(1995€Supp.),€governing€the€provision€of€investigative€and€expertÏservices€in€capital€cases,€applied€only€to€the€trial€and€not€in€the€post„convictionÏcontext.€€òòTeagueóó,€772€S.W.2d€at€927.€€After€expert€services€had€been€denied€in€thisÏcase,€our€supreme€court€overruled€òòTeagueóó€in€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923Ï(Tenn.€1995).€€In€òòOwensóó,€the€court€held€that€Rule€13€(2)(B)(10)€and€ðð€40„14„207(b)Ïdid€apply€to€post„conviction€capital€cases,€but€warned€that€its€ruling€"should€not€beÏinterpreted€as€a€'blank€check'€requiring€trial€courts€to€hold€òòex€parteóó€hearings€andÏauthorize€funds€in€every€case."€€òòOwensóó,€908€S.W.2d€at€928.€€Strict€compliance€withÍthe€guidelines€in€Rule€13€(2)(B)(10)€is€required.€€òòId.óó€€That€is,€the€motion€requestingÏexperts€must€contain€more€than€a€"bare€allegation€that€support€services€areÏneeded"€in€order€to€ensure€the€protection€of€the€petitioner's€constitutional€rights.€€òòIdóó.€ÏMoreover,€the€"petitioner€must€[also]€demonstrate€by€specific€factual€proof€that€theÏservices€of€an€expert€or€an€investigator€are€necessary€to€establish€a€ground€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€and€that€the€petitioner€is€unable€to€establish€that€ground€forÏpost„conviction€relief€by€other€available€evidence."€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àà àBy€the€application€of€the€òòOwensóó€guidelines,€it€is€apparent€that€the€Ïwritten€motion€of€the€petitioner€fell€below€the€requirements€of€Rule€13€(2)(B)(10).€ÏThe€pleadings€do€not€demonstrate€that€threshold€of€need.€€In€our€view,€the€post„conviction€court€correctly€determined€that€the€record€is€adequate,€as€indicated€byÏthe€preceding€section€of€this€opinion,€to€review€the€claims€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel.€€This€issue,€therefore,€is€without€merit.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Edward€LeroyÏHarrisóó,€No.€03C01„9311„CR„00381€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Feb.€28,€1996),Ïòòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,€Feb.€3,€1997);€òòEdward€Jerome€Harbison€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9204„CR„00125€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€May€20,€1996),€òòapp.€deniedóó,Ï(Tenn.,€Nov.€12,€1996).ÌÌà@ àò òVó óÌà àà àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€the€trial€court€refused€to€allow€him€toÏmake€an€offer€of€proof€through€Dr.€Lynn€Zager.€€The€petitioner€claims€this€preventedÏhim€from€supporting€with€evidence€his€contention€that€his€defense€attorneys€failedÏto€properly€prepare€his€insanity€defense.€€During€the€hearing€below,€Dr.€Zager€wasÏasked€whether€or€not€she€developed€an€opinion€regarding€a€connection€betweenÏthe€urethra€procedures€the€petitioner€underwent€during€adolescence€and€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€murder,€particularly€the€use€of€the€tree€branch€toÏimpale€the€victim.€€She€testified€that€she€formed€a€personal€opinion€about€thisÏconnection,€but€was€never€directly€asked€about€this€during€trial.€€She€also€testifiedÏthat€she€had€never€before€been€asked€to€investigate€a€case€in€Shelby€County€"withÏan€eye€towards€obtaining€information€which€would€be€mitigation."€€The€reason€forÏthis,€she€explained,€is€because€her€facility,€the€Midtown€Mental€Health€Center,Ïprimarily€performs€evaluations€pursuant€to€court€order€and€is€not€ordinarily€asked€toÏdevelop€the€possible€mitigating€circumstances€of€a€crime.€ÌÌà àà àDr.€Zager's€team€first€evaluated€the€petitioner€for€competency€to€standÏtrial;€its€second€responsibility€was€to€determine€his€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€ÏThey€concluded€that€the€petitioner€was€competent€but€recommended€a€transfer€toÏthe€Institute€in€Nashville€for€further€evaluations.€€During€the€post„convictionÏproceeding,€counsel€for€the€petitioner€asked€Dr.€Zager€if€she€considered€any€of€theÍinformation€about€the€petitioner€useful€in€terms€of€mitigation.€€She€could€not€answerÏthat€question€because€that€was€not€her€focus€during€the€evaluations.€€SheÏconfirmed€that€prior€to€the€trial€she€had€never€performed€an€evaluation€to€determineÏmitigating€circumstances.€€The€trial€court€then€allowed€counsel€to€ask€if€she€wouldÏbe€able€to€form€an€opinion€now€about€the€petitioner€in€terms€of€mitigation.€€Dr.ÏZager€testified€that€she€was€not€prepared€to€do€so.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€petitioner€was€not€denied€the€opportunity€to€make€anÏoffer€of€proof.€€In€fact,€the€post„conviction€judge€told€petitioner's€counsel€they€couldÏmake€an€offer€of€proof€concerning€any€mitigating€evidence€she€could€supply.€€Dr.ÏZager€was€simply€not€prepared€to€do€so.ÌÌà@ àò òVIó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner€contends€the€prosecutors€asked€inappropriateÏquestions€to€one€of€the€witnesses€during€the€guilt€phase;€engaged€in€an€improperÏargument€during€the€penalty€phase;€failed€to€provide€the€defense€with€exculpatoryÏevidence;€and€failed€to€provide€the€defense€with€a€copy€of€the€letter€the€victim'sÏfamily€sent€to€the€trial€judge.ÌÌà àà àThe€first€of€these€complaints,€whether€the€prosecutor€erroneouslyÍasked€a€witness€if€the€petitioner€had€been€arrested€in€Michigan,€knowing€no€suchÏcharges€existed,€was€addressed€by€our€supreme€court€on€the€direct€appeal.€€TheÏground€therefore€qualifies€as€previously€determined.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(repealed€1995).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€710„11.€€While€the€courtÏfound€the€conduct€of€the€prosecutor€to€be€reprehensible€and€unprofessional,€itÏruled€that€the€error,€in€the€context€of€the€entire€trial,€was€harmless.€€òòAlleyóó,€776ÏS.W.2d€at€519.ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€prosecutor€diminished€the€jury'sÏresponsibility€during€its€argument€in€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€The€stateÏcontends€that€the€petitioner€waived€this€argument€by€failing€to€present€the€issue€onÏdirect€appeal.€€We€agree.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(repealed€1995).€ÏòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHouseóó,€€911€S.W.2d€at€713„14.€€During€closing€argument,€the€prosecutorÏresponded€to€a€defense€argument€for€mercy:€€"if€[the€victim]€chooses€to€have€mercy,Ïthat€is€her€right.€€That€is€not€your€right;€that€is€not€my€right.€€That€is€not€the€right€of€theÏState€of€Tennessee."€€The€trial€court€properly€informed€the€jury€during€in€its€chargeÏthat€the€jury€could€base€its€verdict€upon€sympathy€for€the€petitioner.€€In€our€view,€theÏstateððs€argument€was€not€erroneous.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€the€prosecutor€improperlyÍcommented€on€the€petitioner's€right€to€counsel€and€his€right€to€remain€silent.€€TheÏpetitioner€has€failed,€however,€to€refer€to€the€record€or€cite€any€authority€to€supportÏhis€claim.€€Thus,€the€issue€has€been€waived.€€Rule€10,€Rules€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€the€prosecutor€withheld€evidence€ofÏDr.€Zager's€theory€of€the€crime.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€contends€that€Dr.€ZagerÏtestified€she€discussed€her€theory€with€both€the€prosecution€and€the€defense,€butÏthat€defense€counsel€denied€receiving€the€information.€€This€contention€is€withoutÏmerit.€€Because€Dr.€Zager€was€acting€under€a€court€order,€she€reported€her€findingsÏto€both€sides.€€Attorney€Jones€merely€testified€that€he€did€not€remember€receivingÏthis€information.€€In€our€view,€this€testimony€does€not€mean€that€the€state€withheldÏexculpatory€evidence€not€in€the€possession€of€the€defense;€the€petitioner€hasÏmerely€shown€some€discrepancies€in€the€recollections€of€witnesses.€€òòMcBee€v.ÏStateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€the€prosecutor€committed€reversibleÏerror€by€failing€to€provide€the€defense€with€a€copy€of€the€letter€the€trial€judgeÏreceived€from€the€victim's€family.€€While€the€better€practice€would€have€been€toÏprovide€the€defense€with€a€copy€of€the€letter,€we€could€not€presume€that€theÍprocedure€prejudiced€the€rights€of€the€petitioner€to€a€fair€trial.€€Similarly,€the€failureÏof€the€state€to€provide€the€defense€with€a€copy€of€the€letter,€while€it€should€haveÏdone€so,€appears€to€have€been€inadvertent€and€certainly€did€not€affect€the€results€ofÏthe€trial.€€ÌÌà@ àò òVIIÌó óà àà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€judge€was€guilty€of€misconductÏviolative€of€his€constitutional€rights.€€First,€the€petitioner€asserts€the€trial€judge€erredÏby€refusing€to€allow€the€jury€to€view€videotapes€of€the€petitioner's€hypnotic€andÏsodium€amytal€sessions.€€Our€supreme€court€thoroughly€reviewed€this€issue€onÏdirect€appeal;€it€ruled€that€the€trial€judge€acted€appropriately.€€òòSeeóó€òòAlleyóó,€776ÏS.W.2d€at€515„16.€€Thus,€the€issue€has€been€previously€determined.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(repealed€1995).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€710„11.€ÏFurthermore,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€allowed€the€juryÏto€consider€victim€impact€evidence.€€Again,€our€supreme€court€conducted€anÏexhaustive€review€of€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòAlleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€511„13.€€While€the€courtÏdetermined€that€the€evidence€was€irrelevant€and€should€not€have€been€before€theÏjury,€it€deemed€the€error€harmless.€€òòId.óó€at€513.€€This€claim€has€also€been€previouslyÏdetermined.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€"the€court€improperly€interpreted€theÏstatutory€and€mitigating€circumstances€or€the€non„statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€so€as€to€improperly€limit€the€ability€of€the€defense€to€presentÏmitigation."€€The€petitioner€offers€no€other€explanation€for€this€claim€and€fails€to€referÏto€the€record€or€any€supportive€authority.€€The€issue,€therefore,€has€been€waived.€ÏRule€10,€Rules€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òVIIIó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner€claims€that€certain€jury€instructions€during€the€guilt€andÏpenalty€phase€of€the€trial€were€unconstitutional.€€Initially,€the€petitioner€contendedÏthat€the€following€instructions€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€wereÏunconstitutional:€€(1)€the€definition€of€premeditation€and€deliberation;€(2)€theÏdefinition€of€malice€which€shifted€the€burden€of€proof;€(3)€reasonable€doubt;€and€(4)Ïthe€confession.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€first€claim€is€based€upon€the€ruling€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2dÏ530€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòBrownóó,€however,€the€supreme€court€did€not€hold€that€theÏinstruction€on€premeditation€and€deliberation€was€unconstitutional;€it€merelyÏsuggested€abandoning€any€instruction€suggesting€that€premeditation€may€beÏformed€in€an€instant.€€òòId.óó€at€543.€€This€court€has€consistently€held€that€òòBrownóó€wasÍnot€intended€to€be€applied€retroactively.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòLofton€v.€Stateóó,€898€S.W.2d€246,Ï250€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€ÌÌà àà àSecond,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€instruction€on€maliceÏimpermissibly€shifted€the€burden€of€proof€to€the€defense.€€The€trial€court€instructedÏthe€jury€that€there€can€be€express€malice€or€implied€malice,€but€that€malice€cannotÏbe€inferred€from€deadly€intent€only;€the€court€also€charged€that€the€state€always€hasÏthe€burden€of€proof€with€regard€to€every€element€of€the€crime€and€that€an€inferenceÏdoes€not€place€any€burden€of€proof€of€any€kind€upon€the€defendant.€€In€our€view,Ïthe€instructions,€in€context,€were€not€erroneous.€€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Bolinóó,€678ÏS.W.2d€40,€43€(Tenn.€1984)€("a€single€instruction€to€a€jury€may€not€be€judged€inÏartificial€isolation€but€must€be€viewed€in€the€context€of€the€overall€charge").€€ÌÌà àà àThird,€the€petitioner€claims€the€reasonable€doubt€instruction,€by€use€ofÏthe€term€"moral€certainty,"€violated€his€due€process€rights.€€Our€supreme€court€hasÏconsistently€upheld€this€very€instruction€under€similar€attacks.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.ÏNicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994).€€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€with€regard€to€the€instructions€on€the€confession,€the€petitionerÏargues€that€the€instruction€"limited€the€juryððs€opportunity€to€consider€evidenceÍconcerning€reliability€of€a€confession."€€The€petitioner€does€not€advance€any€otherÏargument€in€support€of€this€claim€and€fails€to€offer€any€authority€in€support€thereof.€ÏòòSeeóó€Rule€10,€Rules€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€Thus,€the€claim€has€beenÏwaived.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€it€was€their€duty€to€judgeÏthe€truth€of€the€confession€and€to€consider€all€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÏconfession€as€well€as€any€other€evidence€which€contradicts€the€confession.€€In€ourÏview,€this€does€not€violate€any€constitutional€provision.€€Thus,€the€claim€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€the€jury€instructions€during€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€as€to€the€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances,€Ïwere€unconstitutional.€€He€insists€that€the€instructions€shifted€the€burden€of€proof€toÏthe€petitioner€to€show€the€existence€of€mitigating€evidence.€€An€identical€argumentÏhas€previously€been€rejected€by€our€supreme€court.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Van€Tranóó,Ï864€S.W.2d€465,€481€(Tenn.€1993)€(òòcitingóó€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239,Ï251„52€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589,€595„96€(Tenn.€1990)).€€Next,Ïthe€petitioner€claims€the€instructions€failed€to€narrow€the€class€of€persons€eligibleÏfor€the€death€penalty.€€This€argument€has€also€been€rejected€by€our€supreme€court.€ÏòòIdóó.€at€481„82.€€The€petitioner€also€contends€that€the€instructions€limited€the€jury'sÏconsideration€of€mitigating€factors,€such€as€sympathy.€€Again,€this€particularÍargument€has€been€rejected€in€prior€cases.€€òòIdóó.€at€480.€€ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€petitioner€claims€the€instructions€diminish€the€role€of€the€juryÏin€imposing€the€death€penalty.€€He€offers€no€argument€in€support€of€his€position.€ÏOur€death€penalty€statute€has,€however,€been€upheld€repeatedly€under€similarÏconstitutional€attacks.€€òòSeeóó€òòIdóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.Ï1991).€€The€petitioner€also€contends€that€the€instruction€on€the€heinous,€atrociousÏor€cruel€aggravating€circumstance€was€vague€and€over€broad.€€This€contention€isÏalso€€without€merit.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Hinesóó,€919€S.W.2d€573,€587€(Tenn.€1995),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€____€U.S.€____,€117€S.€Ct.€133€(1996).€€The€petitioner€also€contendsÏthat€the€instruction€on€the€aggravating€circumstances€duplicated€an€element€of€theÏcrime€itself.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992).€€Otherwise,Ïthe€petitioner€offers€no€supportive€argument.€€Because€the€petitioner€was€convictedÏof€premeditated€first€degree€murder,€there€could€be€no€òòMiddlebrooksóó€issue.€€ThisÏargument€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€next€claims€that€the€instruction€which€allowed€theÏapplication€of€more€than€one€aggravating€circumstance€to€be€based€upon€the€sameÏset€of€facts€is€unconstitutional.€€The€petitioner€suggests€this€constitutesÏimpermissible€"double€counting."€€Again,€the€petitioner€does€not€support€his€claimÍwith€argument€or€citation€to€legal€precedent.€€Thus,€there€really€is€no€merit€to€thisÏclaim.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204.€€Finally,€the€petitioner€claims€that€theÏreasonable€doubt€instruction,€inclusive€of€the€term€"moral€certainty,"€given€duringÏthe€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€is€unconstitutional€for€the€same€reasons€cited€inÏthe€preceding€section.€€Again,€we€disagree€based€upon€a€litany€of€prior€decisionsÏby€our€supreme€court.€ÌÌà@ àò òIXó óÌà àà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€Tennessee€death€penalty€statute€isÏunconstitutional.€€Our€supreme€court€ruled€upon€this€argument€on€the€direct€appealÏof€this€case.€€òòAlleyóó,€776€S.W.2d€at€518.€€The€issue,€therefore,€has€been€previouslyÏdetermined.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(repealed€1995).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòHouseóó,Ï911€S.W.2d€at€710„11.€€Other€cases€also€demonstrate€that€this€broad€claim€isÏwithout€merit.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.ÏBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253€(Tenn.Ï1994);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€857€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166Ï(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Boydóó,€797€S.W.2d€589€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Teelóó,€793ÏS.W.2d€236€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989).ÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌà àà àThe€record€fully€supports€the€post„conviction€court's€findings€andÏconclusions.€€The€petitioner€has€not€met€his€burden€of€proof.€€We€conclude€that€theÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€properly€denied.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€ofÏthe€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌ