ÿWPC & KBûwÏf °\WShùþUuzÚ“.-š&ˆ â.j9Acy-…†ä¸ ºlgs:Ôúì|ÕËleXÄAfmP¶ è YÉGµ]œ‘ÍÐÌœ‡ »3áoØd9L¶þiýLç5£ŒG-‚ ¶öá熉F媴çÉSîWÐe—÷­4šÌ’ tÛ÷¿ø˜®5‰š‘gŽ-%ÑAY„mµ9%«°D*ƒÁF«ªi ÁqѨpzêWæ÷‰ì&êÃm’¢Ótˆ4ÒT­{^øâÝŸäܪi}´ÒÄ6½f ³ELÅèb~gì˜ùaŒjç•êÛÊZi•Tä3# ÊU>Õ % 0íUB4H\n­kU:fR¸"Àw@â 01" 0DS U:— SÑ ]$UNU:ÏÏ U:ØU:ÖLU>"U:`QšU:ëÏ%U>ôU:2 0Dl À° (p" D3˜#U:Ë#Ë# AQ$ÆV$ 0D% 0D`% D/¤% BÓ%Ó%Ó%Ó%Ó%Ó%Ó% Bð%˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLÜÏ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiP9&3|x¿«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ ª{«¬D­¯D°D±D²me³´Ó€(á(3ŒU$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€û¬XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular IÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡XXXXÔÔ‡ô¶õôXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€dissenting€opinion€states€the€following:Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€majorityððs€recapitulation€of€the€evidence€in€this€case€demonstrates€thatÏthe€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€teenaged€accomplice,€April€Ward,€was€notÏonly€crucial€to€the€stateððs€case€against€Gary€œCaughron›,€it€òòwasóó€the€stateððsÐ (  Ðcase€against€him.€€The€FBI€developed€no€forensic€evidence€implicatingÏCaughron,€despite€extensive€testing€on€fingerprints,€shoeprints,€blood€andÏother€fluids,€and€fibers.€€The€boot€print€on€the€victimððs€bedroom€doorÏestablished€that€someone€other€than€the€defendant€had€kicked€in€the€door.€ÏStatements€that€Caughron€made€to€friends€and€associates€wereÏincriminating€to€some€extent,€but€for€the€most€part€were€brief€andÏambiguous.€€These€statements€certainly€would€not€support€a€murderÏconviction€in€the€absence€of€April€Wardððs€testimony.€€855€S.W.2d€at€544. SÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡XXXXÔÔ‡ô¶õôXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô#†ôDG ôôô¶õ#ÔÔ‡ô¶õô ôôDGÔÔ#†XXôô¶õ;#ÔÔ‡ô¶õôXXÔThe€direct€appeal€record€reveals€that€Ms.€Worth€was€called€by€the€state€as€a€witness€and€didÐ  Ðtestify€that€the€petitioner€did€not€appear€to€have€scratches€on€him€following€the€incident.Ô#†ôDG ôôô¶õÁ#ÔÔ‡ô¶õô ôôDGÔÔ#†XXôô¶õ#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular ÅÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡ôDG ôXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô‡ô¶õô ôôDGÔThe€direct€appeal€record€reveals€that€Ms.€Worth€was€called€as€a€witness€for€the€state.€€SheÐ  Ðtestified€that€she€had€seen€the€petitioner€between€10:00€p.m.€and€11:00€p.m.€on€the€night€of€the€murderÏand€that€he€had€been€drinking€and€smoking€marijuana.€€On€cross„examination,€counsel€for€the€petitionerÏquestioned€her€concerning€the€petitionerððs€appearance€on€the€day€following€the€murder,€and€Ms.€WorthÏresponded€that€she€had€Ô#†ôDG ôôô¶õ#ÔÔ‡ô¶õô ôôDGÔnot€noticed€any€cuts€or€scrapes€on€him., øð AZ"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular ÌÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡ôDG ôXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô‡ô¶õô ôôDGÔThe€direct€appeal€record€reveals€that€Ms.€Worth€was€called€as€a€witness€for€the€state.€€SheÐ  Ðtestified€that€she€had€seen€the€petitioner€between€10:00€p.m.€and€11:00€p.m.€on€the€night€of€the€murderÏand€that€he€had€been€drinking€and€smoking€marijuana.€€On€cross„examination,€counsel€for€the€petitionerÏquestioned€her€concerning€the€petitionerððs€appearance€on€the€day€following€the€murder,€and€Ms.€WorthÏresponded€that€she€had€Ô#†ôDG ôôô¶õ#ÔÔ‡ô¶õô ôôDGÔnot€noticed€any€cuts€or€scrapes€on€him€at€all.<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular GÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡XXXXÔÔ‡ô¶õôXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€dissenting€opinion€states€the€following:Ð  ÐÌÓ  Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€majorityððs€recapitulation€of€the€evidence€in€this€case€demonstrates€thatÏthe€testimony€of€the€defendantððs€teenaged€accomplice,€April€Ward,€was€notÏonly€crucial€to€the€stateððs€case€against€Gary€Caughron,€it€òòwasóó€the€stateððsÐ (  Ðcase€against€him.€€The€FBI€developed€no€forensic€evidence€implicatingÏCaughron,€despite€extensive€testing€on€fingerprints,€shoeprints,€blood€andÏother€fluids,€and€fibers.€€The€boot€print€on€the€victimððs€bedroom€doorÏestablished€that€someone€other€than€the€defendant€had€kicked€in€the€door.€ÏStatements€that€Caughron€made€to€friends€and€associates€wereÏincriminating€to€some€extent,€but€for€the€most€part€were€brief€andÏambiguous.€€These€statements€certainly€would€not€support€a€murderÏconviction€in€the€absence€of€April€Wardððs€testimony.€€855€S.W.2d€at€544., øð AZ"Arial Regular ÅÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡ôDG ôXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô‡ô¶õô ôôDGÔThe€direct€appeal€record€reveals€that€Ms.€Worth€was€called€as€a€witness€for€the€state.€€SheÐ  Ðtestified€that€she€had€seen€the€petitioner€between€10:00€p.m.€and€11:00€p.m.€on€the€night€of€the€murderÏand€that€he€had€been€drinking€and€smoking€marijuana.€€On€cross„examination,€counsel€for€the€petitionerÏquestioned€her€concerning€the€petitionerððs€appearance€on€the€day€following€the€murder,€and€Ms.€WorthÏresponded€that€she€had€Ô#†ôDG ôôô¶õ#ÔÔ‡ô¶õô ôôDGÔnot€noticed€any€cuts€or€scrapes€on€him.<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý ¶Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ‡XXXXÔÔ‡ô¶õôXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô#†ôDG ôôô¶õ#ÔÔ‡ô¶õô ôôDGÔÔ#†XXôô¶õ;#ÔÔ€ô¶õôXXÔThe€direct€appeal€record€reveals€that€the€photograph€was€introduced€into€evidence.Ô#†ôDG ôôô¶õÁ#ÔÔ‡ô¶õô ôôDGÔ Ý ƒ(¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€$XüáXXXÔÔ€$ìX$XüáÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€$XüáX$ìÔÐ  ÐÌò òFebruary€5,€1999Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ô£ýôX$XüáÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó2222'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular'( )*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd dÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€û¬XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ñ›ñ²ñÑ°ÑÑÜ°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XüáXXXÔÑ7€ üá XXdæXXdÈ7Ññ´ñœßr€&"#<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` ttx$Xð Õrß›ñ´ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@#Dà€€€€AT€KNOXVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JULY€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓGARY€JUNE€CAUGHRON,€€€€€€€€€€)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellant,à h àà À à)à  àNo.€œ0ñ³ñ3ñ³ññ³ñ1ñ³ñC01„9707„CC„00301›Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àSevier€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€John€K.€Byers,€Judge€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à€€(By€designation)Ð ‚z  ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  à€Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€à  àñ²ñœñ²ñ(Post„Conviction€„„€Death€Penalty)ñ²ñ›ñ²ñÐ NF Ðà ¸ àAppellee.à h àà À à)Ð 4, Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌRandall€E.€Reaganà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkupà  àà x àÐ ²ª Ð2643€Kingston€Pike€€€€€à h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ ÐKnoxville,€TN€37919à h àà À àà  àà p àandà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ ~v Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKenneth€W.€Rucker€€€€€€€€€€€€Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ JB ÐGerald€L.€Gulley,€Jr.à h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€Northà x àà Ð àÐ 0 ( Ð607€Market€Streetà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð ! ÐP.O€Box€1708€€€€€€€ÌKnoxville,€TN€3790à  àà h àà À àà  àAlfred€C.€Schumtzer€Ð â"Ú Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSteve€HawkinsÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à125€Court€AvenueÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSevierville,€TN€37862Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ >:639 ЇÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€NˆÐ  ÐÔ‡XÉXXX XüáÔó óóóÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner,€Gary€June€Caughron,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€SevierÏCounty€Circuit€Courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€as€to€the€guilt€phase€of€his€trial.€ÏHe€was€convicted€in€1990€for€the€first€degree€murder€of€Ann€Robertson€Jones€andÏreceived€the€death€penalty.€€He€was€also€convicted€of€first€degree€burglary€and€assaultÏwith€the€intent€to€commit€rape€for€which€he€received€consecutive€ten„year€sentences.€€ÏThe€convictions€and€sentences€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal€to€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court.€€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€526€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€510Ð ø ÐU.S.€979,€114€S.€Ct.€475€(1993).€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€filed€his€post„conviction€petition€on€May€18,€1994.€ÏEvidentiary€hearings€were€held€on€November€13,€1996,€February€10,€1997,€and€MarchÏ14,€1997,€and€the€trial€court€subsequently€entered€its€findings€and€conclusions€thatÏgranted€the€petitioner€relief€as€to€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim€at€theÏpenalty€phase€of€the€trial€but€denied€the€petition€in€all€other€respects.€€The€petitionerÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€him€full€relief,€generally€claiming€theÏfollowing:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 ¸ à(1)€the€petitioner€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€as€guaranteed€by€the€Sixth€and€FourteenthÏAmendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€at€theÏguilt€phase€of€his€trial;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€the€petitionerÏfunds€to€retain€certain€expert/investigative€services;Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à(3)€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€the€originalÏconvicting€trial€was€not€defective€due€to€the€systematicÏunderrepresentation€of€women€on€Sevier€County€CircuitÏCourt€ñ²ñœñ²ñjuries.ñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓIn€response,€the€state€contends€that€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€that€the€petitioner€did€not€demonstrate€aÏparticularized€need€for€an€investigator€or€an€expert€to€examine€the€jury€selectionÐ °8¨15 Ðprocess€and€jury€compositions€in€Sevier€County,€and€that€the€petitioner€failed€toÏestablish€that€any€underrepresentation€of€women€in€the€venire€was€a€result€of€theÏsystematic€exclusion€of€women€on€Sevier€County€Circuit€Court€juries.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€supreme€courtððs€direct€appeal€opinion€provides€the€following€synopsisÏof€the€evidence€presented€at€the€petitionerððs€trial:€Ô#† XìâXXXÓ#Ôà È àÐ h`  ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àÔ‡XXX XìâÔà  àIn€the€early€afternoon€of€July€11,€1987,€ChristyÐ H@  ÐJones€Scott,€the€daughter€of€the€victim,€42„year„old€AnnÏRobertson€Jones,€discovered€her€motherððs€partiallyÏclothed€body€lying€facedown€on€a€bed€in€her€home€inÏPigeon€Forge.€€Jonesððs€legs€and€arms€had€been€boundÏand€tied€to€the€bed€with€strips€of€blue€terry€cloth€andÏpieces€of€sheer,€off„white€material€like€that€used€forÏtable€cloths€and€curtains.€€There€was€a€gag€tied€acrossÏher€mouth,€and€strips€of€the€blue€terry€cloth€had€beenÏwrapped€tightly€around€her€neck.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àAccording€to€the€stateððs€forensic€pathologist,€Dr.ÏCleland€Blake,€Jones€had€suffered€several€"bluntÏtraumatic€contusions"€to€her€head.€€These€injuries€wereÏconsistent€with€those€caused€by€a€blunt€or€roundedÏobject€and€would€have€rendered€Jones€unconscious€atÏsome€point.€€Her€skull€had€been€fractured€and€theÏcartilage€in€her€nose€displaced€by€the€beating.€€She€hadÏbled€extensively€from€her€mouth€and€nose.€€There€wasÏa€"patch"€of€"scraping€type€of€injuries€caused€by€someÏkind€of€slender€linear€object€.€.€.€€like€whipping€marks"Ïon€the€left€back€side€of€her€chest€beneath€her€shoulderÏblades.€€On€the€right€buttock€were€"three€linear€imprints,Ï.€.€.€superficial€bruises€that€fit€perfectly€with€four€fingersÏof€a€hand."€€Dr.€Blake€stated€that€these€represented€aÏ"hard€slap€injury€to€the€buttock"€inflicted€while€the€victimÏwas€still€alive.€€The€terry€cloth€strips€around€the€victimððsÏneck€had€been€pulled€so€tightly€that€they€had€cut€off€theÏflow€of€blood€to€the€victimððs€brain.€€The€gag,€bound€soÏtightly€that€it€cut€a€deep€groove€into€the€corners€of€theÏvictimððs€mouth,€combined€with€the€hemorrhaging€in€theÏnasal€passages,€had€caused€her€to€suffocate.€€Dr.€BlakeÏconcluded€that€Jones€had€died€as€a€result€ofÏasphyxiation€while€unconscious.Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ àà8¸ x¸ xàÐ    Ðà8 ¸ àà  àExamination€of€the€crime€scene€revealed€that€theÏdoor€to€the€bedroom€where€the€body€was€found€hadÏbeen€forced€open.€€A€purse€and€its€contents€lay€strewnÏin€the€hall.€€The€phone€lines€to€the€house€had€been€cut.€ÏSometime€within€the€following€two€or€three€weeks,ÏChristy€Jones€Scott€discovered€a€silver,€turquoise€andÏcoral€ring€with€a€thunderbird€design€lying€on€the€groundÐ ¸8°15 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ²ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ²ñbeside€her€motherððs€truck,€which€was€still€parked€at€herÏmotherððs€house.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€key€witness€in€this€case€was€April€MarieÏWard,€who€was€14€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€killing.€ÏAlmost€everything€that€the€jury€learned€about€AnnÏJonesððs€death,€other€than€the€description€of€the€crimeÏscene€given€by€investigators,€came€from€AprilððsÏtestimony.€€That€testimony€is€summarized€below.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àIn€early€summer€1987,€according€to€April,€sheÏand€the€27„year„old€Defendant€met€and€becameÏromantically€involved.€€April€Wardððs€mother,€Lettie€MarieÏCruze,€worked€at€the€Turquoise€Jewelry€Shop€inÏSettlerððs€Village,€a€group€of€shops€in€Pigeon€Forge.€ÏAnn€Jones€ran€the€Wild€Hare€Tee€Shirt€Shop€in€theÏsame€shopping€center.€€April€and€the€Defendant,€whoÏwas€working€on€a€nearby€construction€project,€met€onÏthe€covered€portico€(commonly€referred€to€as€"theÏporch")€of€Settlerððs€Village€almost€every€day.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àOne€night,€two€or€three€weeks€before€the€murder,ÏAnn€Jones€made€the€Defendant€Caughron,€who€hadÏbeen€drinking,€leave€her€shop€because€he€was€acting€inÏa€disorderly€manner.€€Jones€instructed€him€to€stayÏaway.€€This€upset€Caughron,€who€told€April€Ward€thatÏhe€would€like€to€catch€Ann€Jones€"out€one€night"€andÏ"slice€her€throat."€€The€Defendant€suggested€that€AprilÏaccompany€Jones€to€her€house€after€work€and€give€himÏdirections€on€how€to€get€there.€€He€also€asked€April€toÏwatch€Jones€as€she€closed€her€shop€and€see€whereÏshe€put€her€money,€and€to€find€out€if€Jones€was€marriedÏand€had€a€telephone€or€pets.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àBecause€she€knew€that€her€mother€would€haveÏdisapproved€of€her€relationship€with€the€Defendant€ifÏshe€had€known€his€true€age,€April€had€told€her€motherÏthat€the€Defendant€was€18.€€April€then€became€upsetÏwith€Ann€Jones€because€of€a€conversation€Jones€ñ²ñœñ²ññ²ñœñ²ñhadÏhadñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ñ›ñ²ñ€with€her€mother€that€led€to€her€motherððs€disapprovalÏof€the€relationship.€€April€testified€that€she€hated€JonesÏbecause€she€had€tried€to€separate€her€and€theÏDefendant€by€going€to€her€mother.€€April€also€said€thatÏshe€had€told€the€Defendant€what€Jones€had€done.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àThe€week€before€the€murder,€according€to€April,Ïshe€and€the€Defendant€began€talking€about€going€to€theÏvictimððs€house.€€She€said€that€the€Defendant€instructedÏher€to€bring€a€towel€and€a€knife€"to€gut"€Ann€Jones.€€OnÏthe€afternoon€of€Friday,€July€10,€around€3:00€or€4:00Ïp.m.,€the€Defendant€came€by€Aprilððs€house€in€an€olderÏmodel€green€and€white€442€Oldsmobile€Cutlass€that€heÏâ âhad€just€purchased.€€He€told€April€that€he€would€returnÐ È7À04 Ðthat€night€and€that€the€two€would€go€to€the€victimððsÏhouse€as€planned.Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÌà8 ¸ àà  àApril€further€testified€that€after€her€mother€went€toÏsleep,€she€cut€a€blue€terry€cloth€towel€into€strips€andÏwaited€for€Caughron€to€arrive.€€He€picked€her€upÏsometime€after€midnight.€€He€had€been€drinking€but,Ïaccording€to€April€was€"not€drunk."€€(Another€witness,ÏVicky€Worth,€testified€that€she€had€seen€the€DefendantÏdrinking€beer€and€smoking€marijuana€at€a€restaurantÏaround€10€or€11€oððclock€that€night.)€€On€their€way€to€AnnÏJonesððs€house€April€and€the€Defendant€drank€alcoholÏand€took€drugs.€€They€walked€to€the€victimððs€house€fromÏthe€parking€lot€of€a€nearby€nursing€home,€where€theyÏhad€left€the€Oldsmobile.€€The€Defendant€carried€withÏhim€the€handle€of€a€pool€stick,€around€which€he€hadÏplaced€gray€duct€tape,€and€pieces€of€the€sheer€materialÏthat€he€already€had€in€his€car.€€The€Defendant€gaveÏApril€a€survival€knife.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àApril€testified€that€Caughron€entered€the€houseÏby€himself€and€then€summoned€her€inside.€€As€theyÏwent€down€the€hall€to€Jonesððs€bedroom,€April€could€hearÏher€calling,€"Who€is€it?€€What€are€you€doing?"€€SheÏtestified€that€the€Defendant€kicked€in€the€bedroom€door,Ïwhich€was€locked.€€According€to€April,€Jones€cried€andÏpleaded€with€them€not€to€hurt€her,€but€the€two€told€herÏshe€was€going€to€die.€€April€later€testified€that€after€theÏDefendant€hit€Jones€several€times€with€the€pool€stick,ÏJones€fell€across€her€bed,€became€silent€and€stoppedÏmoaning.€€As€April€described€the€scene,€the€DefendantÏturned€Jones€on€her€stomach€and€tried€unsuccessfullyÏto€have€sex€with€her.€€Complaining€that€she€hadÏ"tightened€up€on€him,"€he€then€slapped€the€victim€on€theÏright€buttock.€€Unable€to€complete€the€sex€act€withÏJones,€the€Defendant€suggested€sex€with€April.€€SheÏsaid€that€after€the€two€of€them€undressed,€CaughronÏrubbed€the€victimððs€blood€on€both€their€bodies€as€theyÏengaged€in€sex€on€the€floor€beside€the€bed€whereÏJones€lay.€€Finally,€April€testified,€Caughron€insisted€thatÏthey€drink€some€of€the€victimððs€blood€from€shot€glassesÏthat€he€produced€for€the€occasion.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àà  àAlthough€Aprilððs€testimony€was€confused€as€toÏthe€exact€chronology,€it€appears€that€at€some€point,ÏJones€was€gagged€to€stop€her€screaming€and€tied€upÏwith€the€strips€of€towel€and€sheer€material.€€April€saidÏthat€the€Defendant€tightened€the€terry€cloth€strip€aroundÏJonesððs€neck,€causing€the€victim€to€gasp.€€April€testifiedÏthat€she€then€hit€the€victim€in€the€head€two€times.€€AfterÏdrinking€the€blood,€April€said,€she€went€to€the€bathroomÏto€throw€up,€but€did€not.€€When€she€returned€to€theÏbedroom,€she€saw€the€Defendant€striking€Jonesððs€backÏwith€the€pool€stick.€€According€to€April,€the€DefendantÐ ¸8°15 Ðdumped€out€the€contents€of€Jonesððs€purse€as€they€leftÏand€took€what€appeared€to€be€a€large€amount€ofÏmoney.€€Outside,€she€said,€the€Defendant€used€theÏknife€he€had€given€her€to€cut€the€telephone€lines€toÏmake€it€appear€that€whoever€had€killed€Jones€had€notÏwanted€her€to€use€the€telephone.ñ²ñœñ²ññ²ñœ×ƒ×ñ²ññ²ñ׃×ñ²ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›ñ²ñ›ñ²ñи °¸ x¸ x ÐÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓCaughronóó,€855€S.W.2d€at€530„31.à  àÐ ˜  Ðà ¸ àÌà ¸ àThe€aggravating€circumstance€found€by€the€jury€to€warrant€the€deathÏpenalty€was€that€the€murder€ð ðwas€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€itÏinvolved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind€.€.€.€.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5).€€In€reviewing€theÏcase,€the€supreme€court€concluded€that€the€evidence€fully€supported€the€juryððs€findingÏof€the€aggravating€circumstance.€€855€S.W.2d€at€543„44.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defense€proof€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€consisted€of€the€testimonyÏof€forensic€scientists€from€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€(T.B.I.)€who€testifiedÏthat€no€evidence€gathered€at€the€scene€connected€the€petitioner€to€the€crime.€€None€ofÏthe€petitionerððs€fingerprints,€blood€or€other€fluids,€fibers,€hair€or€shoeprints€were€found€atÏthe€scene.€€Three€witnesses€testified€that€it€was€not€unusual€for€the€petitioner€toÏspraypaint€his€car,€and€one€of€these€witnesses€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€returnedÏto€his€grandmotherððs€home€on€the€night€of€the€murder€at€approximately€11:00€or€12:00Ïâ âp.m.€€One€of€the€daughters€of€the€victim€testified€that€Kenny€Ogle,€an€ex„boyfriend,€hadÐ ¸)°"% ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ²ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ²ñbroken€into€the€victimððs€home€in€September€of€1986€and€threatened€the€witness€and€Ïñ²ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ²ñattempted€to€bind€her€with€strips€of€cloth.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àAt€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial,€the€state€called€no€witnesses.€€TheÏdefense€called€the€petitionerððs€aunt€to€testify€concerning€the€petitionerððs€family€history,€aÏminister€to€testify€that€the€petitioner€was€the€"[f]inest€young€prisoner€Iððve€ever€saw,"€andÏa€jailer€to€testify€that€the€petitioner€had€never€presented€any€real€problems.€€AÏpsychologist,€Dr.€Madeline€Pareau,€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€the€son€of€anÏalcoholic€father€and€an€immature€mother.€€She€said€that€his€mother€remarried€anÏabusive€stepfather,€and€the€petitioner€stayed€with€relatives€throughout€his€childhood.€ÏShe€said€that€his€I.Q.€was€measured€at€78,€and€he€attended€special€education€classes.€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òPOST„CONVICTION€EVIDENTIARY€HEARINGÐ ˆ€ ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àó óÔ#† XìâXXXA#ÔÔ‡XXX XìâÔ€Helen€Loveday,€former€clerk€of€the€Sevier€County€Circuit€Court€andÐ h` Ðsecretary€of€the€Sevier€County€Jury€Commission,€testified€concerning€the€procedureÏinvolved€in€selecting€jurors€at€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€She€testified€that€theÏjudge€of€the€circuit€court€would€order€the€jury€commission€to€draw€names€from€the€juryÏpool.€€The€names€in€the€pool€came€from€a€box€containing€about€two€thousand€names.€ÏThe€names€came€from€a€pro€rata€apportionment€of€persons€from€each€of€the€seventeenÏvoting€districts€in€the€county.€€Ms.€Loveday€stated€that€she€did€not€know€exactly€howÏjurorsðð€names€were€put€into€the€box€but€that€she€thought€that€voting€lists,€tax€lists,€andÏinquiries€into€the€community€were€used.€€When€the€names€were€drawn€from€the€pool,€aÏlist€was€made€and€titled€"Jury€Commission€Report."€€The€identical€list€sent€to€the€sheriffÏwas€titled€"Sheriffððs€Venire."€€€Jurors€were€summoned€from€the€list.€€On€cross„¼examination,€Ms.€Loveday€stated€that€she€had€no€knowledge€that€any€person€wasÏâ âsystematically€excluded€from€either€the€jury€pool€or€jury€venire€based€upon€their€gender.€Ð è5à.2 ÐOn€redirect€examination,€the€jury€list€of€persons€serving€on€juries€from€November€1989Ïto€March€1990€was€admitted€into€evidence.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àAlfred€Newman,€an€experienced€jury€commissioner€from€Sevier€County,Ïtestified€that€in€1989,€for€example,€if€three€thousand€jurors€were€needed,€theÏcommission€would€get€a€printout€of€all€the€voters€in€each€district,€and€they€would€chooseÏten€percent€of€the€voters€in€each€district€to€be€on€the€list.€€The€commission€would€try€toÏchoose€an€equal€percentage€of€men€and€women.€€The€chosen€names€were€then€typed,Ïfolded€and€put€into€a€box.€€Mr.€Newman€stated€that€the€names€always€came€from€theÏelection€commission.€€He€further€stated€that€although€the€names€were€printedÏalphabetically€from€each€voting€district,€the€commission€would€go€over€the€whole€listÏrather€than€take€the€first€few€people€whose€ñ²ñœñ²ñnamesñ²ñ›ñ²ñ€started€with€"A."€€On€cross„¼examination,€Mr.€Newman€testified€that€he€did€not€know€of€anyone€who€systematicallyÏsought€to€exclude€women€from€sitting€on€a€jury€in€Sevier€County.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€was€represented€by€two€attorneys€at€the€trial.€€The€leadÏattorney€testified€that€he€had€been€retained€to€represent€the€petitioner€for€fifteenÏthousand€dollars.€€He€stated€that€he€had€tried€two€death€penalty€cases€before€theÏpetitionerððs€case€and€that€two€investigators€and€another€attorney€had€assisted€him€inÏthis€case.€€When€questioned€about€interviewing€witnesses,€the€attorney€stated€that€theÏinvestigators€interviewed€witnesses€and€placed€memoranda€in€the€case€file.€€He€couldÏnot€remember€if€any€of€the€petitionerððs€school€records€had€been€obtained.€€He€testifiedÏthat€he€had€not€contacted€law€enforcement€from€other€states€in€which€the€petitioner€hadÏlived€and€that€neither€he€nor€his€investigators€had€traveled€to€those€states€to€interviewÏwitnesses€concerning€the€petitionerððs€past.€€Ìâ âÐ è5à.2 Ðà ¸ àThe€attorney€stated€that€the€petitioner€was€interviewed€the€day€before€trialÏâ âby€Dr.€Pareau,€a€psychologist.€€The€attorney€could€not€remember€what€type€ofÏpsychological€evaluation€had€been€performed€by€Dr.€Pareau.€€He€recalled€that€only€fourÏpeople€testified€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€and€that€he€did€not€request€funds€forÏa€mitigation€specialist€to€retrieve€records€from€the€petitionerððs€past.€€He€admitted€thatÏwhen€the€district€attorneyððs€office€supplied€him€with€the€petitionerððs€arrest€record,€he€didÏnot€send€anyone€to€Ohio€to€check€on€those€prior€convictions€and€the€facts€surroundingÏthem.€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€obtain€any€transcripts€from€guilty€plea€hearings€or€trialsÏin€any€of€these€offenses€nor€did€he€investigate€the€validity€of€the€underlying€offenses.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€recalled€that€one€of€his€investigators€contacted€theÏpetitionerððs€mother€and€that€contact€possibly€was€made€with€an€aunt.€€He€stated€that€he€Ïobtained€only€a€partial€employment€history€in€that€he€only€checked€the€petitionerððsÏemployment€in€relation€to€where€he€was€working€around€the€time€the€murder€occurred.€ÏHe€admitted€that€he€did€not€perform€an€independent€investigation€to€determine€whetherÏthe€petitioner€had€a€history€of€alcohol€or€drug€abuse.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€further€admitted€that€he€did€not€request€the€assistance€of€aÏblood€or€fingerprint€expert€at€trial€but€rather€depended€on€the€state€expert.€€He€statedÏthat€even€though€one€of€the€items€introduced€into€evidence€at€trial€was€fingernailÏclippings€from€the€victim,€and€even€though€allegations€had€been€made€that€theÏpetitioner€had€scratches€on€him€the€day€after€the€incident,€he€did€not€secure€theÏservices€of€an€expert€to€test€the€fingernail€clippings.€€He€stated€that€he€could€not€recallÏhow€many€conferences€he€had€with€the€petitioner€before€trial€but€that€he€would€not€haveÏspoken€to€him€every€day€or€every€week.€€He€stated€that€he€filed€motions€challenging€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€and€a€motion€requesting€a€change€of€venue€butÏthat€he€did€not€request€an€expert€to€investigate€and€testify€as€to€the€extent€and€possibleÐ È7À04 Ðeffects€of€the€media€coverage.€€He€stated€that€he€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€theÏpetitionerððs€statements€to€two€investigators€but€that€he€had€only€been€given€theÏstatements€on€the€evening€the€jury€was€selected€and€did€not€have€time€to€look€at€them.€ÏHe€also€reported€that€he€was€not€given€the€statements€the€petitioner€purportedly€madeÏto€other€prisoners€until€that€same€evening€and€that€he€did€not€have€time€to€investigateÏthe€inmates€who€testified€at€trial€concerning€these€statements€and€their€prior€records€orÏthe€circumstances€surrounding€the€petitionerððs€statements.€€He€recalled€thatÏapproximately€thirty€pages€of€Jencks€material€had€been€given€to€him€that€sameÏevening.€€He€stated€that€he€had€only€twelve€to€sixteen€minutes€to€review€inconsistentÏstatements€of€the€stateððs€most€important€witness,€the€codefendant,€but€the€stateÏobjected€that€the€issue€had€been€raised€on€direct€appeal,€and€the€objection€wasÏsustained.€€The€attorney€stated€that€he€recalled€making€special€jury€requests.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€was€questioned€concerning€a€witness€named€MichaelÏFarreget€who€purportedly€had€indicated€that€he€could€have€identified€Robert€Truby€asÏbeing€at€the€victimððs€house€on€the€evening€of€the€murder.€€The€attorney€stated€that€heÏcould€not€recall€ever€having€talked€to€this€witness€or€the€state€ever€having€provided€himÏwith€this€witnessððs€statement.€€He€stated€that€he€could€not€imagine€knowing€about€thisÏwitness€and€not€calling€him€to€testify,€but€he€admitted€that€the€copy€of€Mr.€FarregetððsÏstatement€must€have€come€from€his€file€because€it€came€from€the€Capital€CaseÏResource€Center.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€recalled€that€he€filed€a€motion€for€a€continuance€because€€aÏwitness,€George€Tippens,€could€not€be€present€on€the€day€of€trial€due€to€a€back€injury.€ÏThe€attorney€recalled€that€Mr.€Tippens€would€have€testified€that€he€searched€the€areaÏsurrounding€the€victimððs€home€for€several€days€and€did€not€find€a€silver€and€turquoiseÏring€belonging€to€the€petitioner€that€was€later€found€by€one€of€the€victimððs€daughters.Ð È7À04 Їà ¸ àThe€attorney€was€questioned€as€to€whether€he€would€have€called€VickyÏWorth€who€allegedly€would€have€testified€that€she€saw€the€petitioner€walking€on€theÏnight€of€the€murder€rather€than€in€a€car.€€She€purportedly€would€have€also€testified€thatÏshe€saw€the€petitioner€after€the€time€the€murder€occurred€and€that€he€did€not€haveÏblood€or€scratches€on€him.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€attorney€stated€that€if€he€had€known€about€thisÐ ˆ€ Ðwitness,€he€would€have€called€her.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€acknowledged€that€he€retained€the€services€of€Dr.€DennisÏSpjut,€a€psychologist,€to€examine€the€petitioner.€€He€acknowledged€receiving€a€letterÏfrom€Dr.€Spjut€in€which€the€doctor€indicated€that€the€attorney€might€explore€theÏpossibility€of€alcohol€or€drug€abuse€and€brain€damage.€€He€testified€that€despite€theÏletter,€he€did€not€have€the€petitioner€examined€by€a€neuropsychologist.€€He€also€did€notÏcall€Dr.€Spjut€to€testify€on€the€petitionerððs€behalf€at€trial.€€The€attorney€stated€that€heÏrecalled€discussing€with€the€petitioner€whether€he€should€testify,€and€it€was€hisÏrecollection€that€the€petitioner€decided€not€to€testify€at€the€guilt€phase€and€that€he,€asÏñ²ñœñ²ñcounsel,ñ²ñ›œñ²ñ€hadñ²ñ›ñ²ñ€strong€feelings€that€the€petitioner€should€not€testify€at€the€sentencingÏphase€of€the€trial.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€recalled€that€during€the€jury€selection,€a€Mr.€Hodge€wasÏpresented€as€a€potential€juror.€€He€stated€that€at€the€time€Mr.€Hodge€was€called,€theÏattorney€had€used€all€of€the€petitionerððs€peremptory€challenges,€and€he€challenged€Mr.ÏHodge€for€cause,€but€the€challenge€was€not€granted.€€The€attorney€also€recalled€thatÏMr.€Hodge€blurted€out€during€the€cross„examination€of€April€Ward,€"What€differenceÏdoes€it€make?"€€He€stated€that€he€did€not€object€at€the€time€the€statement€was€madeÏbecause€he€was€hoping€that€nobody€heard€Mr.€Hodge€and€that€it€would€go€away.€€HeÏbrought€the€outburst€to€the€trial€courtððs€attention€outside€the€presence€of€the€jury€afterÐ è5à.2 Ðthe€cross„examination€of€Ms.€Ward.€€He€recalled€that€it€was€later€determined€thatÏanother€juror€heard€Mr.€Hodge€and€that€the€statement€was€loud€enough€for€the€courtÏreporter€to€hear€and€transcribe€it.€€The€attorney€stated€that€Mr.€Hodge€was€not€replacedÏwith€an€alternate€juror€until€just€before€the€jury€retired€to€deliberate.€Ô#† XìâXXX©Q#ÔÔ‡XG XX XìâÔ€Ô#† XìâX XXGx#ÔÔ‡XXX XìâÔIt€Ô#† XìâXXXRx#ÔÔ€XXX XìâÔwas€laterÐ ¨   Ðdetermined€that€the€alternate€juror€who€replaced€Mr.€Hodge€owned€a€wrecker€serviceÏthat€had€once€towed€the€petitionerððs€car.€€The€attorney€testified€that€he€did€not€interviewÏany€of€the€jurors€after€the€verdict€because€there€was€a€rule€in€that€particular€circuit€thatÏcounsel€could€not€talk€to€jurors.€€He€admitted€that€he€did€not€challenge€that€rule€onÏappeal.ÌÌà ¸ àÔ‡XXXXÔThe€attorney€admitted€that€parts€of€the€record,€including€the€voir€dire,Ð ÐÈ Ðclosing€arguments€and€jury€instructions€in€the€guilt€phase,€were€not€transcribed€and€thatÏhe€did€not€file€a€motion€to€supplement€the€record€with€these€transcriptions.€€However,Ïhe€indicated€that€co„counsel€was€primarily€in€charge€of€the€appeal.€€The€attorney€thenÏtestified€that€his€investigation€had€been€primarily€directed€toward€the€guilt€phaseÏbecause€there€was€little,€if€any,€physical€evidence€linking€the€petitioner€to€the€crime.€ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€the€attorney€stated€that€one„third€to€one„half€of€hisÏpractice€at€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€was€devoted€to€criminal€law.€€He€stated€thatÏhe€had€tried€at€least€two€prior€death€penalty€cases€and€numerous€homicide€and€firstÏdegree€murder€cases.€€He€stated€that€he€had€practiced€extensively€before€JudgeÏKenneth€Porter,€the€trial€judge€in€the€convicting€case,€and€that€he€would€haveÏstrenuously€objected€to€any€witnesses€called€by€the€state€of€whom€he€had€not€beenÏnotified.€€The€attorney€stated€that€he€recalled€that€he€had€discovery€of€all€the€witnessesÏcalled€by€the€state.€€To€refresh€his€memory,€the€attorney€was€shown€motions€toÏâ âsuppress€the€petitionerððs€statements€and€a€motion€to€dismiss€challenging€theÐ ð5è.2 Ðconstitutionality€of€the€death€penalty.€€He€was€also€shown€a€motion€in€which€heÏrequested€a€jury€instruction€regarding€legal€presumptions.€€Ìâ âÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€stated€that€his€criminal€investigator,€Ms.€Van€Helton,€andÏJane€LaFollette€assisted€him€in€this€case€and€that€he€had€placed€a€great€deal€ofÏconfidence€in€their€assessments.€€He€stated€that€the€three€of€them€had€weekly€meetingsÏconcerning€their€investigations.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€recalled€that€a€psychologist€had€been€retained€by€theÏpetitionerððs€aunt€and€that€the€psychologist€examined€the€petitioner€and€testified€at€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€The€attorney€stated€that€it€was€his€understanding€that€theÏpetitionerððs€aunt€raised€him€and€that€she€had€been€primarily€responsible€for€acquiringÏlegal€representation€for€him.€€She€was€also€the€person€from€whom€the€attorney€obtainedÏmost€of€his€information€concerning€the€petitionerððs€background.€ÌÌà ¸ àWhen€questioned€concerning€his€performance,€the€attorney€stated€that€heÏthought€he€had€done€as€good€a€job€as€he€could€have€done€with€the€judge€denying€hisÏmotion€for€a€continuance€although€statements€of€witnesses€were€not€provided€to€himÏuntil€the€day€before€trial.€€The€attorney€stated€that€he€relied€upon€experts€from€the€T.B.I.Ïlaboratory€to€testify€concerning€the€lack€of€physical€evidence€linking€the€petitioner€to€theÏcrime.€€He€testified€that€it€was€his€opinion€that€being€able€to€use€the€stateððs€witnesses€toÏprove€the€petitionerððs€case€was€advantageous€and€that€other€experts€were€not€needed.€ÏHe€stated€that€his€investigators€had€done€a€good€job€in€this€case.€€In€summary,€heÏstated€that€he€thought€he€raised€every€issue€on€appeal€that€needed€to€be€raised€and€heÏhad€spent€adequate€time€conferring€with€the€petitioner.Ìâ âÐ è5à.2 Ðà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€post„conviction€attorney€informed€the€court€that€he€wasÏâ ânot€calling€the€former€co„counsel€for€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorney.€€However,€the€stateÏwas€allowed€to€call€co„counsel€out€of€order.€€Co„counsel€testified€that€he€assisted€in€theÏdefense€of€the€petitioner€and€that€he€primarily€drafted€motions€and€conducted€theÏresearch€needed€for€the€case.€€He€also€stated€that€he€prepared€the€appellate€brief€in€theÏcase.€€He€recalled€that€he€was€present€when€the€lead€attorney€discussed€with€theÏpetitioner€the€option€of€testifying€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€and€that€there€was€Ïconcern€about€the€petitionerððs€prior€record€and€certain€statements€the€petitioner€hadÏmade€to€detectives€and€cellmates.€€He€stated€that€it€was€the€petitionerððs€decision€not€toÏtestify.€€He€recalled€that€the€petitioner€also€elected€not€to€testify€at€the€sentencing€phaseÏof€the€trial€and€that€defense€counsel€was€successful€in€keeping€the€petitionerððs€priorÏcriminal€record€from€the€jury.€€He€stated€that€he€was€primarily€responsible€forÏcoordinating€the€psychological€services€with€Dr.€€Brietsteinððs€office€and€that€he€was€Ïsatisfied€with€their€findings.€€He€recalled€that€Dr.€Pareau€from€Dr.€Brietsteinððs€office€Ïtestified€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€He€stated€that€although€the€jury€voir€direÏand€closing€arguments€were€not€transcribed,€he€did€not€recognize€any€errors€in€thoseÏphases€of€the€trial.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€co„counsel€testified€that€he€wanted€a€mug€ñ²ñœñ²ñshotÏphotographñ²ñ›ñ²ñ€of€the€petitioner€taken€within€three€or€four€days€of€the€crime€to€beÏintroduced€because€it€showed€that€the€petitioner€had€no€scratches€on€him.€€He€statedÏthat€it€was€the€lead€attorneyððs€decision€not€to€use€the€photograph€because€he€thought€itÏmade€the€petitioner€look€bad.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€was€shown€a€note€dated€January€27,€1990,€andÐ H0@), Ðsigned€by€investigator€Jane€LaFollette€which€stated€that€she€had€spoken€with€Dr.ÏBrietstein€that€day,€two€days€before€trial,€and€that€he€told€her€that€he€could€not€be€at€theÏtrial.€€Co„counsel€recalled€that€Dr.€Brietstein€suggested€that€Dr.€Pareau€examine€theÐ è5à.2 Ðpetitioner€and€that€he€€requested€that€the€petitioner€be€transported€to€Dr.€PareauððsÏoffice.€€Co„counsel€recalled€that€Dr.€Pareau€had€not€spoken€with€the€petitioner€beforeÏthat€time.ÌÌà ¸ àCo„counsel€acknowledged€that€he€did€not€request€that€the€stateððs€closingÏargument€be€transcribed,€but€he€recalled€that€he€included€as€an€issue€on€appeal€aÏstatement€made€by€the€district€attorney€concerning€"running€rabbits."€€The€state€Ïresponded€that€this€issue€was€waived€because€closing€arguments€had€not€beenÏtranscribed,€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€refused€to€address€the€issue.€€Co„¼counsel€admitted€that€he€did€not€have€the€voir€dire€transcribed€even€though€he€raisedÏissues€on€appeal€concerning€certain€jurors.€€He€also€stated€that€he€did€not€raise€issuesÏconcerning€the€constitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€on€appeal.€ÌÌà ¸ àBonnie€Loveday,€an€employee€of€the€Sevier€County€Election€Commission,Ïtestified€that€she€worked€as€Register€at€Large€for€eighteen€and€one„half€years.€€Ms.ÏLoveday€was€shown€copies€of€sheriffððs€venires€for€a€two„year€period.€€According€to€Ms.ÏLovedayððs€calculations,€three€hundred€and€fifty„five€males€and€one€hundred€and€fifty„¼two€ñ²ñœñ²ñfemalesñ²ñ›ñ²ñ€could€be€identified€on€the€lists.€€However,€approximately€one€hundred€andÏñ²ñœñ²ñfortyñ²ñ›ñ²ñ€persons€whose€names€were€on€the€venires€could€not€be€found€on€the€computer€inÏorder€to€verify€their€gender.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Ann€Marie€Charvat,€a€certified€clinical€sociologist,€testified€that€she€hadÏbeen€involved€in€two€capital€case€post„conviction€hearings€and€three€or€four€capitalÏcase€sentencing€hearings€before€her€testimony€in€this€case.€€She€said€that€she€is€aÏmitigation€specialist€whose€role€is€to€identify€and€substantiate€mitigating€factors.€Ìâ âÐ è5à.2 Ðà ¸ àDr.€Charvat€explained€that€she€met€the€petitioner€in€1994€when€she€was€Ïâ âemployed€by€the€Capital€Case€Resource€Center,€and€she€was€asked€to€develop€aÏsocial€history€for€him.€€She€stated€that€she€first€met€with€the€petitioner€and€interviewedÏhim€concerning€his€background.€€She€said€she€then€constructed€a€time€line€in€which€sheÏattempted€to€document€the€chronology€of€the€petitionerððs€life.€€In€constructing€the€timeÏline,€Dr.€Charvat€stated€that€she€interviewed€approximately€ñ²ñœñ²ñfortyñ²ñ›ñ²ñ€people.€€Dr.€CharvatÏtestified€that€she€traveled€to€Peoria,€Illinois,€where€the€petitioner€grew€up,€and€Ïsubstantiated€severe€physical€abuse€and€neglect€from€the€petitionerððs€parents.€€SheÏstated€that€she€learned€that€the€petitioner€had€been€an€exploited€child€who€had€sufferedÏphysical€abuse,€extreme€emotional€maltreatment,€and€sexual€abuse.€€She€stated€thatÏthe€witnesses€that€she€interviewed€in€Peoria€stated€that€no€one€had€contacted€themÏprior€to€the€petitionerððs€trial.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Charvat€explained€that€in€addition€to€interviewing€witnesses,€she€Ïcollected€documents€ñ²ñœñ²ñthatñ²ñ›ñ²ñ€ñ²ñœñ²ñrevealedñ²ñ›ñ²ñ€that€the€petitioner€had€attended€thirteen€differentÏschools.€€She€also€learned€that€the€petitioner€ñ²ñœñ²ñwasñ²ñ›ñ²ñ€absent€from€school€an€inordinateÏamount€of€time€and€that€at€times,€agencies€and€schools€had€attempted€to€intervene.€ÏHowever,€when€the€petitionerððs€parents€were€contacted€by€authorities,€they€wouldÏmove.€€Some€of€the€people€Dr.€ñ²ñœñ²ñCharvat€interviewedñ²ñ›ñ²ñ€stated€that€the€petitioner€stayed€outÏof€school€on€numerous€occasions€because€he€was€bruised,€and€his€stepfather€did€notÏwant€authorities€to€learn€of€the€abuse.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Charvat€explained€that€she€reviewed€the€mitigation€efforts€made€onÏthe€petitionerððs€behalf€at€trial.€€She€stated€that€after€reviewing€the€transcripts€of€the€trialÏand€interviewing€a€number€of€people€who€participated€in€the€hearing,€she€believedÏmitigation€efforts€were€insufficient.€€She€questioned€Dr.€Pareauððs€reliance€on€oneÏinterview€with€the€petitioner€and€his€parents€in€ñ²ñœñ²ñreachingñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€an€opinion€on€mitigation.€€Dr.Ð È7À04 ÐCharvat€also€noted€that€no€one€interviewed€people€in€Illinois€about€the€petitioner€evenÏthough€the€petitioner€spent€his€childhood€there.€€She€stated€that€it€was€her€professionalÏopinion€that€the€social€history€of€the€petitioner€as€established€at€the€sentencing€hearingÏwas€inadequate.€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Mary€Pam€Auble,€a€neuropsychologist,€testified€that€she€conducted€anÏevaluation€of€the€petitioner€based€upon€an€interview€with€the€petitioner,€variousÏbackground€records€including€Dr.€Charvatððs€report,€testimony€from€the€sentencingÏhearing,€and€a€psychological€evaluation€of€the€petitioner€conducted€prior€to€trial€by€Dr.ÏPareau.€€She€also€said€she€conducted€a€neuropsychological€evaluation€of€the€petitionerÏñ²ñœñ²ñthatñ²ñ›ñ²ñ€included€the€results€of€standardized€tests€taken€by€the€petitioner€involving€theÏassessment€of€intelligence,€memory,€attention,€and€personality.€€Dr.€Aubleððs€report€was€Ïintroduced€into€evidence.€€Dr.€Auble€testified€that€her€assessment€revealed€that€theÏpetitioner€suffered€from€dementia€and€moderate€depression.€€She€defined€dementia€asÏmemory€impairment.ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Auble€stated€that€because€the€tests€themselves€do€not€reveal€muchÏabout€a€patientððs€history,€she€relied€on€the€petitionerððs€social€history€to€determine€thatÏhe€had€suffered€physical€and€sexual€abuse.€€She€stated€that€he€had€no€consistent€careÏgivers€and€that€his€family€history€revealed€that€his€father€and€brother€had€suffered€fromÏa€form€of€psychosis.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDr.€Auble€stated€that€her€evaluation€revealed€that€when€the€petitioner€is€inÏan€emotional€or€stressful€situation,€his€thinking€becomes€muddled,€and€he€avoids€thoseÏtypes€of€situations.€€She€testified€that€intoxicants€would€decrease€the€petitionerððsÏimpulse€control€and€affect€his€reasoning.€€It€was€Dr.€Aubleððs€opinion€that€the€petitionerÏwould€have€significantly€less€control€over€his€actions€in€emotional€situations,€and€hisÐ È7À04 Ðcontrol€would€be€worse€if€he€were€intoxicated.€€Dr.€Auble€stated€that€prior€to€theÏpetitionerððs€trial,€Dr.€Pareau€had€not€conducted€a€neuropsychological€evaluation.€€SheÏstated€that€additional€testing€should€have€been€done.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Auble€admitted€that€the€testing€similar€to€hersÏthat€Dr.€Pareau€performed€presented€similar€results.€€She€admitted€that€being€in€prisonÏwould€contribute€to€a€personððs€depression.€€She€also€admitted€that€if€the€petitioner€wereÏfacing€trial€on€that€day,€she€would€find€him€competent€to€stand€trial.€€On€redirectÏexamination,€Dr.€Auble€stated€that€she€believed€that€the€petitioner€would€have€aÏdiminished€capacity€to€form€specific€intent€in€a€highly€emotional€situation€in€which€heÏhad€consumed€intoxicants.€Ìà ¸ àÌà ¸ àHolly€Carr,€deputy€clerk€for€the€Sevier€County€Circuit€Court€Clerkððs€Office,Ïtestified€that€she€was€the€caretaker€of€the€criminal€filings€in€that€office.€€She€submitted€aÏcertified€copy€of€the€final€jury€in€the€petitionerððs€trial.€€The€copy€revealed€that€the€jury€Ìwas€composed€of€six€males€and€six€females.€€The€clerk€also€submitted€a€certified€copyÏof€the€death€penalty€notice€in€the€petitionerððs€case.€€On€cross„examination,€Ms.€CarrÏtestified€that€on€the€verdict€form,€the€jurors€did€not€use€the€language€that€the€murderÏwas€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€but€used€terminology€including€cruel,€torture€andÏdepravity.€€She€also€admitted€that€she€did€not€know€whether€the€petitionerððs€counselÏreceived€a€copy€of€the€notice€that€the€state€would€be€seeking€the€death€penalty€beforeÏtrial.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€entered€written€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€lawÏstating€that€the€petitionerððs€claims€concerned€four€general€areas:€(1)€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€(2)€trial€court€errors,€(3)€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€(4)€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€statutes.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€theÐ È7À04 Ðpetitioner€failed€to€show€prejudice€by€any€of€the€accusations€made€against€counsel€Ïduring€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€It€also€stated€that€the€petitioner€did€not€proveÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€during€the€appellate€stage€of€his€trial.€€However,€theÏcourt€concluded€that€the€petitioner€met€his€burden€of€proof€relative€to€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€and€that€there€was€aÏreasonable€probability€that€if€mitigation€evidence€had€been€presented,€the€result€of€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€trial€would€have€been€different.€€The€trial€court€ordered€a€newÏsentencing€hearing.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€alleged€guilt€phase€errors€concerning€theÏconvicting€courtððs€refusal€to€grant€funds€for€expert€and€investigative€services,€failure€toÏadvise€the€petitioner€regarding€his€failure€to€testify,€admission€of€irrelevant€andÏprejudicial€evidence,€failure€to€allow€the€petitioner€to€depose€George€Tippens,€failure€toÏaddress€juror€misconduct,€and€denial€of€the€petitionerððs€right€to€compulsory€processÏwere€either€waived€for€failure€to€raise€them€at€an€earlier€hearing€or€were€without€meritÏbecause€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€present€adequate€proof€at€the€post„convictionÏevidentiary€hearings.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€alleged€penalty€phase€errors€of€theÏconvicting€court€were€moot€due€to€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€grant€a€new€sentencingÏhearing.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€all€claims€regarding€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€were€either€waived€for€failure€to€present€them€at€an€earlier€hearing€or€thatÏthe€petitioner€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proof€due€to€the€failure€to€present€proof€at€theÏevidentiary€hearings.€€All€errors€concerning€the€constitutionality€of€the€death€penaltyÏwere€deemed€waived€for€failure€to€raise€them€at€an€earlier€hearing€or€ñ²ñœñ²ñwere€foundñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€to€beÏwithout€merit.ÌÐ È7À04 Ðà ¸ àIn€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€determinations,€we€are€guided€by€certain€rulesÏunder€the€post„conviction€law€applicable€to€this€case.€€The€burden€was€on€the€petitionerÏat€the€hearing€to€prove€his€case€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€On€appeal,€theÏtrial€courtððs€findings€are€conclusive€unless€the€record€preponderates€against€itsÏdeterminations.€€òòTurner€v.€Stateóó,€698€S.W.2d€90,€91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€TheÐ ˆ€ Ðburden€now€rests€on€the€appealing€party€to€illustrate€why€the€record€preponderatesÏagainst€the€judgment.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð H@  ÐÌÓ  Óò òI.€€EFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óÐ  ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àUnder€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€is€made,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counselððsÏperformance€was€deficient,€and€(2)€that,€but€for€the€deficiency,€there€is€a€reasonableÏprobability€that€the€result€would€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466Ð ˆ€ ÐU.S.€ñ²ñœñ²ñ668,€687,ñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€ñ²ñœñ²ñ104ñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984).€€Also,€we€note€that€the€approach€to€theÏissue€of€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€does€not€have€to€start€with€an€analysis€ofÏan€attorneyððs€conduct.€€If€prejudice€is€not€shown,€we€need€not€seek€to€determine€theÏvalidity€of€the€allegations€about€deficient€performance.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104Ð %  ÐS.€Ct.€at€2069.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€first€asserts€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€haveÏthe€jury€voir€dire,€the€closing€arguments,€and€the€guilt€phase€jury€instructionsÏtranscribed.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€the€problem€is€compounded€because€the€courtÏreporter€and€the€trial€court€clerk€have€now€stated€that€the€tapes€of€the€hearing€haveÏbeen€misplaced€and€possibly€destroyed.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€the€transcript€ofÏthe€voir€dire€was€especially€important€because€two€issues€regarding€jurors€were€raisedÏon€appeal.€€On€appeal,€the€petitioner€questioned€the€qualifications€of€two€jurors,€oneÏwho€was€related€to€a€state€witness€by€marriage€and€another€who€owned€the€wreckerÐ È7À04 Ðservice€that€towed€the€petitionerððs€car€when€a€stateððs€witness€worked€on€it.€€However,Ïthe€supreme€court€addressed€the€qualification€issue€on€direct€appeal€and€concludedÏthat€the€petitioner€had€not€shown€that€the€jurors€were€biased€or€prejudiced.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€raised€a€second€issue€about€a€juror€who€madeÏinappropriate€comments€during€the€cross„examination€of€the€stateððs€primary€witness,ÏApril€Ward.€€The€juror€commented,€"Whatððs€the€difference?"€when€defense€counselÏasked€Ms.€Ward€why€she€lied€to€law€enforcement€officers€regarding€whom€she€had€toldÏabout€the€crime.€€However,€on€direct€appeal,€the€supreme€court€dismissed€this€issue,Ïconcluding€that€the€petitioner€waived€the€issue€by€not€requesting€a€mistrial€after€theÏjuror€was€dismissed€by€the€trial€court.€€The€supreme€court€further€concluded€that€even€ifÏnot€waived,€the€issue€was€without€merit€because€there€was€no€indication€in€the€recordÏthat€jurors€who€remained€were€prejudiced€by€the€jurorððs€remark.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏhave€the€jury€instructions€and€closing€arguments€ñ²ñœñ²ñfrom€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trialÏtranscribed.ñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€co„counsel€testified€that€he€recalled€that€theÏaforementioned€portions€of€the€transcript€had€not€been€prepared€but€stated€that€he€didÏnot€raise€any€issues€on€appeal€that€would€have€required€those€portions.€Ô#†XXXXNz#ÔÔ‡XG XXXÔ€Ô#†XX XXGÝÄ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔThe€directÐ È(À!$ Ðappeal€record€substantiates€co„counselððs€recollection.Ô#†XXXX Å#ÔÔ‡XG XXXÔÐ °*¨#& ÐÌà ¸ àÔ#†XX XXGºÅ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔPost„conviction€counsel€inferentially€asserts€that€the€petitionerððs€trialÐ h.`'* Ðattorneys€were€ineffective€òòperóó€òòseóó€by€their€failure€to€have€portions€of€the€trial€transcribed.€Ð H0@), ÐHowever,€in€òòBransford€v.€Brownóó,€806€F.2d€83,€86„87€(6th€Cir.€1986),€the€Sixth€CircuitÐ (2 +. ÐCourt€of€Appeals€concluded€that€although€the€jury€instructions€portion€of€the€transcriptÏwas€not€prepared€and€although€the€missing€portions€were€irretrievably€lost,€theÏpetitioner€should€be€denied€relief€because€he€failed€to€present€the€court€with€anythingÐ È7À04 Ðupon€which€it€could€base€a€finding€of€prejudice.€€As€in€òòBransfordóó,€the€petitioner€in€theÐ  Ðpresent€case€has€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€omission€of€theseÏportions€of€the€transcript.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€next€asserts€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€Ïinvestigate€adequately€all€possible€defenses€so€as€to€enable€him€to€make€an€informedÏand€reasonable€decision€as€to€a€theory€of€defense.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€trialÏcounsel€was€on€notice€of€the€need€to€investigate€the€petitionerððs€mental€state€but€did€notÏdo€so.€€He€contends€that€this€failure€rendered€his€counsel€unable€to€make€informedÏdecisions€or€adequately€and€effectively€represent€the€petitioner.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitionerððs€lead€attorney€testified€thatÏhe€retained€the€services€of€Dr.€Dennis€Spjut,€a€psychologist,€to€examine€the€petitionerÏprior€to€trial.€€He€acknowledged€receiving€a€letter€from€Dr.€Spjut€in€which€the€doctorÏindicated€that€the€petitioner€functioned€in€the€borderline€range€of€intelligence€and€thatÏthe€attorney€might€explore€the€possibility€of€alcohol€or€drug€abuse€resulting€in€symptomsÏsimilar€to€brain€damage.€€He€admitted€that€he€did€not€have€a€neurologist€orÏneuropsychologist€examine€the€petitioner€but€stated€that€he€obtained€the€services€ofÏanother€psychologist€from€the€office€of€Dr.€Brietstein€to€examine€the€petitioner€the€dayÏbefore€trial€in€order€to€prepare€for€sentencing.€€The€attorney€repeatedly€stated€that€hisÏtheory€of€defense€was€that€the€petitioner€did€not€commit€the€crime€and€that€his€primaryÏfocus€had€been€on€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€due€to€the€lack€of€physical€evidenceÏconnecting€the€petitioner€to€the€crime.€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€assessing€the€effectiveness€of€counsel,€we€are€guided€by€the€principleÏthat€this€courtððs€responsibility€is€not€to€second€guess€strategic€and€tactical€choices€ofÏcounsel.€€In€fact,€we€will€defer€to€counselððs€tactical€choice€if€the€choice€was€reasonableÐ È7À04 Ðwhen€viewed€from€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time€the€choice€was€made€and€if€it€wasÏbased€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ð èà ÐCt.€at€2065;€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982);€òòUnited€States€v.€Decosteróó,Ð È À Ð487€F.2d€1197,€1201€(D.C.€Cir.€1973).ÌÌà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€petitioner€denied€committing€the€crime,€and€counselÏpresented€evidence€that€he€had€been€wrongly€identified€as€the€perpetrator.€€TheÏpetitionerððs€trial€counsel€was€aware€of€the€petitionerððs€mental€problems€but€chose€not€toÏpursue€that€evidence€in€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€A€defense€of€diminished€capacityÏbased€upon€the€petitionerððs€borderline€intelligence€and€alcohol€and€drug€abuse€couldÏhave€compromised€his€primary€defense€that€he€did€not€commit€the€offense.€€WeÏconclude€that€counsel€ñ²ñœñ²ñwasñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€not€ineffective€for€failing€to€present€this€defense€in€the€guiltÏphase€of€the€trial.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€next€asserts€that€because€substantial€exculpatoryÏinformation€was€either€withheld€by€the€prosecution€or€was€not€investigated€and€used€byÏcounsel€in€the€petitionerððs€defense,€the€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€the€trial€wasÏundermined€in€violation€of€the€Sixth,€Eighth,€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution.€ñ²ñœñ²ñ€Theñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€petitioner€initially€argues€that€he€was€not€given€the€statementsÏof€April€Ward,€the€stateððs€chief€witness,€until€late€in€the€afternoon€before€the€morningÏshe€was€to€testify.€€However,€this€issue€was€addressed€on€direct€appeal,€and€a€majorityÏof€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€"defense€counsel,€and€his€defenseÏteam,€were€given€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€examine€and€prepare€to€use€theÏstatements€in€cross„examining€April€Ward."€€ñ²ñœñ²ñòòCaughronóó,ñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€855€S.W.2d€ñ²ñœñ²ñatñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€ñ²ñœñ²ñ535ñ¨ñ€(Tenn.›€1993)ñ¨ñ.ñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€Ð (2 +. ÐAccordingly,€this€issue€has€been€previously€determined.€€T.C.A.€ðð€ñ²ñœñ²ñ40„30„112(a)Ï(repealedñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€1995).ÌÐ È7À04 Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€either€the€state€withheld€the€statements€ofÏMichael€Farreget€and€Vicky€Worth€or€that€if€his€attorney€knew€of€Mr.€Farregetððs€or€Ms.ÏWorthððs€statements,€he€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€call€them€as€ñ²ñœñ²ñwitnesses.€ñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€TheÏstatement€made€by€Mr.€Farreget€was€to€Special€Agent€David€Davenport€of€the€T.B.I.Ïand€related€that€he€observed€a€dark„colored€car€sitting€in€front€of€the€victimððs€houseÏaround€7:00€or€7:30€p.m.€on€the€day€before€her€body€was€discovered.€€Mr.€Farreget€Ïidentified€Robert€Trudyððs€car€as€the€one€he€had€observed.€€The€statements€allegedlyÏmade€by€Vicky€Worth€reflected€a€lack€of€noticeable€scratches€on€the€ñ²ñœñ²ñpetitionerñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€and€theÏpetitionerððs€lack€of€transportation€on€the€night€of€the€murder.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€attorney€testified€that€he€did€not€recall€Ïhaving€been€shown€the€statement€of€Michael€Farreget,€but€he€later€admitted€that€theÏcopy€of€the€statement€must€have€come€from€his€file€because€it€came€from€the€CapitalÏCase€Resource€Center.€€He€testified€that€he€did€not€know€how€the€statement€got€intoÏthe€file€but€that€had€he€seen€it,€he€would€have€called€Mr.€Farreget€as€a€witness.€€HeÏthen€admitted€that€the€statement€could€have€been€in€the€information€given€to€him€duringÏtrial.€€He€testified€that€he€did€not€recall€the€name€of€Vicky€Worth€but€did€remember€thatÏthere€were€several€people€employed€near€the€victimððs€business€ñ²ñœñ²ñwhoñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€said€they€had€seenÏthe€petitioner€the€morning€following€the€killing.€€The€attorney€stated€that€if€he€had€knownÏñ²ñœñ²ññ©ñthatñ©ññªññ©ñ€ñ©ññªññ©ñ€sñ©ññ«ñomeoneñ«ññ¬ñabout›€a›€witness›€whoñ¬ññ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€had€allegedly€seen€the€petitioner€around€the€time€of€the€murder€whoÏwould€have€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€not€driving€a€car€at€that€time,€he€would€haveÏcalled€her€as€a€witness.ÌÌà ¸ àTo€establish€a€violation€under€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.Ð (2 +. Ð1194€(1963),€the€petitioner€must€prove€that€the€state€suppressed€evidence,€that€theÏevidence€was€favorable€to€the€defense,€and€that€the€suppressed€evidence€was€material.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòStrouth€v.€Stateóó,€755€S.W.2d€819,€828€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€In€the€presentÐ È7À04 Ðcase,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€prove€that€the€state€withheld€this€evidence.€€TheÏevidence€reflects€that€a€copy€of€Mr.€Farregetððs€statement€came€from€a€file€counsel€sentÏto€the€Capital€Case€Resource€Center.€€The€record€does€not€contain€Ms.€Worthððs€allegedÏstatement.Ô#†XXXXÆ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔñ²ññ­ñœñ­ññ²ññ­ññ²ñ׃×ñ²ññ²ñ׃×ñ²ññ­ññ­ñ׃×ñ­ñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñÔ#†XXXXwã#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€€This€court€does€not€consider€statements€made€by€counsel€during€a€hearingÐ ¨   Ðas€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€255€ñ²ñœñ²ñ(Tenn.ñ¯ñ,ñ¯ññ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€Crim.€App.€1990).€€TheÐ ˆ€ Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€prove€a€due€process€violation.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€claims€in€the€alternative€that€the€state€failed€to€provide€thisÏexculpatory€information€in€time€for€his€attorney€to€adequately€prepare€a€defense.€ÏHowever,€this€issue€has€been€previously€determined.€€In€the€majority€opinion€of€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court,€the€court€determined€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€itsÏdiscretion€in€denying€a€continuance€to€allow€the€petitioner€time€to€investigate€personsÏnamed€as€suspects€in€certain€statements€given€to€the€defense€by€the€state.€€òòCaughronóó,Ð ˆ€ Ð855€S.W.2d€at€535.€€The€court€concluded€that€the€petitioner€had€"failed€to€show€theÏmateriality€and€relevance€of€any€evidence€such€an€investigation€would€yield."€€òòId.óó€atÐ H!@ Ð534.ÌÌà ¸ àAlso€in€the€alternative,€the€petitioner€argues€that€his€trial€attorney€wasÏineffective€for€failing€to€use€the€statements€of€Mr.€Farreget€and€Ms.€Worth.€€However,Ïwhen€a€petitioner€contends€that€counsel€failed€to€present€witnesses€in€support€of€hisÏdefense,€these€witnesses€should€be€presented€by€the€petitioner€at€the€evidentiaryÏhearing.€€By€presenting€them,€the€petitioner€can€establish€that€the€failure€to€have€aÏknown€witness€testify€resulted€in€the€denial€of€evidence€material€to€the€petitioner.€€òòSeeóóÐ H0@), ÐòòState€v.€Blackóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€In€this€case,€theÐ (2 +. Ðpetitioner€did€not€present€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Farreget€or€Ms.€Worth.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€the€trial€court€had€insufficient€evidence€to€determine€whether€the€failureÏto€call€the€witnesses€was€deficient€performance€by€his€trial€attorney€or€if€such€failureÏconstituted€material€prejudice€to€the€petitionerððs€cause.€€Ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€has€not€been€shown.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.€€DENIAL€OF€EXPERT€AND/OR€INVESTIGATIVE€SERVICESÐ H@  ÐÓ  Óó óà ¸ àThe€petitioner€claims€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€denyingÐ (  Ðhis€request€for€the€expert€services€of€Mr.€Ronald€Lax,€an€investigator€employed€byÏInquisitorððs,€Inc.,€the€services€of€an€expert€to€examine€the€jury€selection€process€and€theÏcomposition€of€the€jury,€the€services€of€Dr.€Chris€Sperry,€a€pathologist€with€the€FultonÏCounty€Medical€Examinerððs€Office€and€the€services€of€Dr.€Murray€Smith,€MedicalÏDirector€for€Baptist€Drug€and€Alcohol€Center.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€the€servicesÏof€Mr.€Lax€were€needed€to€trace€former€cellmates€who€testified€for€the€state€at€trialÏconcerning€alleged€statements€of€the€petitioner.€€He€submits€that€the€services€of€juryÏexperts€were€needed€to€investigate€the€systematic€exclusion€and/orÏunderrepresentation€of€women€from€the€Sevier€County€Circuit€Court€venires.€€HeÏasserts€that€the€expert€services€of€Dr.€Sperry€were€needed€to€review€and€rebut€theÏtestimony€of€the€stateððs€medical€witness€at€trial,€Dr.€Cleland€Blake,€as€to€the€nature€andÏtiming€of€the€victimððs€death.€€Last,€he€contends€that€the€services€of€Dr.€Murray€Smith,ÏMedical€Director€of€Baptist€Hospital€Drug€and€Alcohol€Center,€were€needed€in€order€forÏhim€to€show€the€effects€of€alcohol€on€the€mental€state€of€a€person€with€a€marginal€I.Q.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€initially€granted€funds€for€the€expert€services€of€aÏneuropsychologist€and€for€the€services€of€a€paralegal€to€investigate€and€collectÏinformation€regarding€the€question€of€underrepresentation€of€women€in€the€SevierÏCounty€jury€pool.€€The€trial€court€issued€a€second€order,€renewing€its€grant€of€funds€forÐ È7À04 Ðthe€expert€services€of€a€neurologist€but€denying€all€other€requests,€concluding€that€theÏpetitionerððs€documentation€did€not€support€a€particularized€need€for€the€services.€€AÏthird€order€was€issued€granting€the€petitioner€funds€to€secure€the€services€of€a€legalÏexpert.€€Finally,€a€fourth€order€was€issued€granting€the€petitioner€funds€to€secure€theÏservices€of€a€mitigation€specialist,€Anne€Marie€Charvat,€but€concluding€that€aÏparticularized€need€had€not€been€shown€to€warrant€funds€for€investigative€services€toÏconduct€juror€interviews€and€to€discover€the€outcomes€of€the€trials€of€state€inmateÏwitnesses€who€testified€against€the€petitioner.€€The€trial€court€also€denied€the€servicesÏof€a€demographer€and€a€statistician€for€the€same€reason.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€928€(Tenn.€1995),€the€TennesseeÐ ÈÀ ÐSupreme€Court€held€that€T.C.A.€ðð€40„14„207(b)€applies€to€post„conviction€cases€andÏthat€petitioners€can€receive€state€paid€professional€services.€€However,€the€courtÏcautioned€that€its€application€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„14„207(b)€to€post„conviction€capital€casesÏ"should€not€be€interpreted€as€a€ððblank€checkðð€requiring€trial€judges€to€authorize€funds€inÏevery€case."€€òòId.óó€€In€order€to€receive€state€funding€for€expert€services,€the€petitionerÐ (#  Ðmust€demonstrate€that€the€"services€are€necessary€to€ensure€the€protection€of€theÏpetitionerððs€constitutional€rights."€€òòId.óó€€As€the€court€explained,€"a€petitioner€mustÐ è&à" Ðdemonstrate€by€specific€factual€proof€that€the€services€of€an€expert€or€an€investigatorÏare€necessary€to€establish€a€ground€for€post„conviction€relief€and€that€the€petitioner€isÏunable€to€establish€that€ground€for€post„conviction€relief€by€any€other€availableÏevidence."€€òòId.óóÐ h.`'* ÐÌà ¸ àThe€discretion€to€grant€a€request€for€expert€services€rests€with€the€trialÏcourt,€and€its€decision€will€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€unless€there€is€a€showing€of€anÏâ âabuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€261€(Tenn.€1994).€€Upon€aÐ è5à.2 Ðreview€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏdenying€funding€for€the€services€in€question.Ìâ âÌà ¸ àIn€his€motions€requesting€an€investigator,€the€petitioner€failed€to€specify€byÏfactual€proof€that€such€services€were€necessary€to€establish€a€ground€for€post„¼conviction€relief€and€that€he€was€unable€to€establish€such€ground€by€other€reasonableÏmeans.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion€requesting€an€expert€to€investigate€jury€selectionÏand€jury€composition€and€a€statistician€to€review€the€findings,€the€petitionerððs€presentÏattorney€admitted€that€he€had€acquired€much€of€the€needed€information€concerning€theÏjury€selection€but€claimed€that€he€needed€a€statistician€to€interpret€the€information.€€TheÏtrial€court€determined€that€a€statistician€was€not€needed€because€the€court€could€makeÏa€determination€on€the€proof€before€it€whether€the€percentage€of€women€in€the€venireÏwas€statistically€disproportionate.€€Furthermore,€because€the€petitioner€was€granted€aÏnew€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€funds€for€medical€experts€is€nowÏmoot.€€Moreover,€Dr.€Smithððs€testimony€would€have€been€cumulative€in€light€of€Dr.ÏAubleððs€testimony€that€intoxicants€would€have€decreased€the€petitionerððs€impulseÏcontrol.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€acted€within€its€discretion€in€denying€theÏrequested€services.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.€€UNDERREPRESENTATION€OF€WOMEN€ON€SEVIER€COUNTY€JURIESÐ ¨* #& ÐÓ  Óó óà ¸ àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€he€set€forth€a€prima€facie€case€that€there€was€Ð ˆ,€%( Ða€systematic€underrepresentation€of€women€on€the€jury€venire€of€his€specific€case€andÏon€the€venire€of€juries€for€the€preceding€two€years€in€Sevier€County.€€He€points€to€theÏfact€that€his€jury€panel€was€only€thirty€percent€women,€although€women€in€SevierÏCounty€comprised€about€fifty€percent€of€the€adult€population.€€Ìâ âÐ è5à.2 Ðà ¸ àFirst,€we€note€that€the€record€reveals€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€state€Ïâ âfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€regarding€this€issue€as€required€by€T.C.A.€ðð€40„¼30„118(b).€€However,€even€if€a€trial€court€fails€to€comply€with€this€duty,€a€reversal€is€notÏwarranted€if€the€record€reflects€the€reasons€for€the€trial€courtððs€actions.€€òòState€v.Ð ¨   ÐSwansonóó,€680€S.W.2d€487,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€In€òòSwansonóó,€this€court€statedÐ ˆ€ Ðthat€the€primary€intent€of€the€statute€was€"to€facilitate€appellate€review€of€the€lowerÏcourtððs€proceedings€.€.€.€."€€òòId.óó€€If€the€record€contains€the€reasons€for€the€trial€courtððsÐ H@  Ðaction€ñ²ñœñ²ññ°ñ"ñ°ñsufficientñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€to€effectuate€meaningful€appellate€ñ²ñœñ²ñreview,ñ±ñ"ñ±ññ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€then€we€may€consider€theÏissues€even€though€there€has€not€been€full€compliance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„118(b).€ÏSuch€a€record€exists€in€this€case.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€òòTaylor€v.€Louisianaóó,€419€U.S.€522,€95€S.€Ct.€692€(1975),€the€UnitedÐ ¨  ÐStates€Supreme€Court€held€that€women€could€not€be€systematically€excluded€from€juryÏservice.€€The€Court€determined€that€Louisianaððs€constitutional€and€statutory€provisionsÏexempting€women€from€jury€service€unless€they€had€previously€filed€a€writtenÏdeclaration€of€their€desire€to€be€subject€to€such€service€were€unconstitutional€becauseÏthey€violated€the€fair€cross„section€requirements€of€the€Sixth€and€FourteenthÏAmendments.€€òòTayloróó,€419€U.S.€at€537„38,€95€S.€Ct.€at€701„02.€€In€òòDuren€v.€Missourióó,Ð è&à" Ð439€U.S.€357,€99€S.€Ct.€664€(1979),€holding€unconstitutional€a€Missouri€statute€thatÏexcluded€women€from€jury€duty€if€they€requested€exemption,€the€Court€reaffirmed€itsÏholding€in€òòTayloróó.€€It€stated€as€follows:Ð ˆ,€%( ÐÓÓÓ  Óà8 ¸ àIn€order€to€establish€a€prima€facie€violation€of€the€fair„¼cross„section€requirement,€the€defendant€must€show€(1)Ïthat€the€group€alleged€to€be€excluded€is€a€ð ðdistinctiveððÏgroup€in€the€community;€(2)€that€the€representation€ofÏthis€group€in€venires€from€which€juries€are€selected€isÏnot€fair€and€reasonable€in€relation€to€the€number€of€suchÏpersons€in€the€community;€and€(3)€that€thisÏunderrepresentation€is€due€to€systematic€exclusion€ofÏthe€group€in€the€jury€selection€ñ²ñœñ²ñprocess.ñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓÓ  ÓòòDurenóó,€439€U.S.€at€364,€99€S.€ñ²ñœñ²ñCt.ñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€at€668.Ð È7À04 Їà ¸ àIn€the€present€case,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€not€met€the€finalÏtwo€requirements.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Bonnie€Loveday,€an€employee€of€theÏSevier€County€Election€Commission,€was€shown€copies€of€sheriffððs€venires€fromÏNovember€1988€until€November€1989.€€Ms.€Loveday€determined€that€the€veniresÏcontained€three€hundred€and€fifty„five€males€and€one€hundred€and€fifty„two€females€onÏthe€computer€list.€€However,€Ms.€Loveday€could€only€speculate€as€to€the€gender€ofÏapproximately€one€hundred€and€forty€persons€who€had€been€on€the€list€but€could€not€beÏfound€in€the€computer€records.€€Although€the€petitioner€asserts€that€the€venires€for€theÏtwo€years€up€to€and€including€the€one€for€his€trial€were€only€thirty€percent€femaleÏwhereas€adult€women€in€Sevier€County€comprised€about€fifty€percent€of€the€totalÏpopulation,€the€computer€records€do€not€support€this€claim.ÌÌà ¸ àMore€importantly,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€that€anyÏunderrepresentation€was€due€to€the€systematic€exclusion€of€the€group€in€the€juryÏselection€process.€€At€the€hearing,€Helen€Loveday,€former€clerk€of€the€Sevier€CountyÏCircuit€Court€and€secretary€of€the€Sevier€County€Jury€Commission,€testified€that€at€eachÏcourt€term,€the€judge€of€the€Circuit€Court€would€order€names€to€be€drawn€from€the€juryÏpool.€€The€jury€pool€came€from€a€secured€box€containing€approximately€two€thousandÏnames,€and€these€names€came€from€a€pro€rata€apportionment€of€persons€from€theÏseventeen€ñ²ñœñ²ñvotingñ²ñ›ñ²ññ²ññ²ñ€districts€in€the€county.€€She€stated€that€she€did€not€know€exactly€howÏjurorsðð€names€were€selected€for€the€box€but€that€she€had€no€knowledge€that€any€personÏwas€systematically€excluded€from€either€the€jury€pool€or€jury€venire€based€upon€gender.ÌÌà ¸ àAlfred€Newman,€a€jury€commissioner€from€Sevier€County€andÏcommissioner€at€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€trial,€testified€that€names€for€the€jury€poolÏwere€selected€from€a€printout€of€voters€in€each€district.€€He€stated€that€ten€percent€of€theÏnames€of€voters€in€each€district€would€be€chosen,€typed,€and€put€in€the€secured€box.€Ð È7À04 ÐHe€testified€that€the€commission€would€try€to€choose€an€equal€percentage€of€men€andÏwomen.€€Before€each€term€of€court,€the€commission€would€remove€the€number€ofÏnames€required€and€place€them€on€the€jury€commission€report€which€was€later€copiedÏas€the€sheriffððs€venire.€€He€stated€that€the€selection€was€conducted€blindly€and€that€heÏdid€not€know€of€anyone€who€systematically€sought€to€exclude€women€from€sitting€on€aÏjury.€€From€these€facts,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€a€primaÏfacie€case€of€systematic€exclusion.€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€records€of€the€petitionerððsÏoriginal€trial,€direct€appeal€and€post„conviction€proceeding,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€determinations€in€this€case€are€correct.€€The€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_____________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€à Ð àà (# àÐ ø%ð! ÐÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€à h àà À àà  àÐ 810*- ÐÌà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÔ#†X¹HXXX¹Haã#Ôñ}ñ›ñ}ññ}ññ}ñ