ÿWPCn& ¯lI:Å"G¡eÆ^ó8áX”{rBÏ}V7‘Š/²²kçÄ|¢¼šs†—=…Ê_\u2ë‘hÝïŒnŒoØaU¦Í^ׇ*´6=«# éÙ Ø·§7©aá@DŸ2?x’­z·€{CÉÏEFŽz™uUóCs_åx,hr̆µÒ]ãÚ€ÈÙ˜Ò?{Ti? wÏZd|›Dñs›À«„†G\‘a®Hð=¸r©‹ýç`ú¾@qé¹°V¿Ûn$u–ß?¨¥5ïÀ”¨÷ÒH„O̤ÂL´¤UHnÎÑ(•¼¶®!Ža¡ümWT&´š 5”Œ5Þã‘'cýÊ„|7¢¯ÙàkÅ ZoÎiÐÜdâáÎFÙ/—Ã{½~·Ä'c&C¸/’y#JÆ˃MîY$í¶Ùú¶Ôó‚¦ðLdá7if…çݤXšbbiÚ–Ópq^sscD ˆkO`°~ZÜÏïG½ï s‰‹RRB.°xAÁ |m÷®Sð(t~µbƒ« 'ÆÎY@Xç”Ú#f„\¼¹×e…á¥Aõ+´ÁÛ[¬±Sø§\7&Ófuz…Ý{m¾æ“µ|—¹3Ô¦‰£â9¹Œ%º<~gÅØŸ$wæ=ž*…# F U :Q %‹ 0G‘ w@Ø 4 ,  ; E 0‹M 0DØ5QØg?ÿU©T–ý“U:£"Ý"U:û#û#û#û#û#û#û#û#û#û#û#û# B5$5$5$5$5$5$5$5$ D3R$R$R$ 0D…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$…$ AOÉ$Æ%% 0DÞ% D/"& BQ&˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MSÈðððÈð0nLÐ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(þ,$¡¡Ô€XoÌXXXÔ Û"UÜ"bÝ"bÞ"Dß"à"Dá"ã"Dä"å"Ó€ýhµ&x3|xð" Ò°ÒÝ ƒ ´ÿÝÔ€X)XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€this€appeal€by€the€state,€our€review€is€limited€to€the€propriety€of€theÐ ° Ðpost„conviction€courtððs€findings€sustaining€some€of€the€petitionerððs€claims.€€PriorÏto€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€court€dismissed€other€claims€as€being€waived€orÏpreviously€determined,€and€after€the€hearing,€the€court€denied€the€followingÏineffective€assistance€claims€in€its€ð ðFindings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Lawðð:€(1)Ïchoice€of€defense€strategy;€(2)€failure€to€request€adequate€independent€analysisÏof€the€hair€samples,€the€fingernail€scrapings,€a€fingerprint€found€on€a€check€in€theÏvictimððs€pocket,€bloody€tire€tracks€at€the€crime€scene,€and€the€defendantððsÏclothes;€(3)€failure€to€use€a€jury€selection€expert;€(4)€the€lack€of€pretrialÏaccessibility€of€counsel€to€the€petitioner;€(5)€failure€to€file€more€pretrial€motions;Ï(6)€failure€to€seek€redaction€of€the€petitionerððs€pretrial€statements;€(7)€inadequateÏadvice€of€counsel€concerning€the€petitionerððs€right€to€testify€at€trial;€(8)€improperÏor€inadequate€òòvoir€direóó€of€prospective€jurors;€(9)€failure€to€object€to€improperÐ ð@  Ðprosecutorial€commentary;€(10)€failure€to€object€to€improper€jury€instructions;€(11)Ïgeneral€inadequacy€in€objecting€to€trial€court€errors€or€evidence€presented€atÏtrial;€(12)€failure€to€make€an€opening€statement;€and€(13)€inadequate€appellateÏpreparation€and€briefing.€€The€post„conviction€court€also€denied,€after€theÏhearing,€a€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€that€the€state€had€failed€to€discloseÏexculpatory€evidence€and€had€ð ðfailed€to€reveal€all€promises,€deals,€agreements.€.Ï.€made€by€the€state€with€any€witness€or€potential€witness.ðð(;(3·¼$¤¤Ý ƒþ,!ÝÔ€X¿ÃXXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó +Ò°ÒÝ ƒ ´ÿÝÔ€X)XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝSome€of€the€proffered€evidence€came€with€barbs.€€Debra€Boggs€admittedÐ ° Ðthat,€when€the€petitioner€was€drinking,€he€had€threatened€her€life€and€hadÏphysically€abused€her. Ñ H Ñ ÎÒ°Òà ` àÝ ƒ ´ÿÝÔ€X)XXXÔà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝUpon€the€petitioner€requesting€that€Curtis€be€allowed€toÐ ° Ðsummarize€his€interviews,€the€state€announced,€ð ðMy€agreement€with€Mr.ÏRichardson€.€.€.€€is€I€have€no€objection€to€Mr.€Curtis,€subject€to€[the€courtððs]Ïapproval,€summarizing€and€presenting€what€is€obviously€blatant€hearsay€in€orderÏto€expedite€matters.ðð Ñ ° Ñ õÒ°ÒÝ ƒ ´ÿÝÔ€X)XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€its€oral€findings€of€fact,€the€post„conviction€court€emphasized€itsÐ ° Ðreliance€upon€the€live€testimony€of€Bowen. ŸÒ°ÒÝ ƒ ´ÿÝÔ€X)XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€post„conviction€court€found€as€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€theÐ ° Ðfailure€to€develop€inconsistencies€between€the€facts€of€the€murder€and€theÏpetitionerððs€pretrial€statements.€€The€court€was€especially€concerned€withÏcounselððs€failure€to€stress€the€lapse€of€time€between€the€victimððs€discovery€of€theÏpetitionerððs€involvement€in€burglary€and€the€murder.€€The€court€opined€that€theÏfailure€to€develop€this€line€of€proof€prejudiced€the€petitioner€in€countering€the€soleÏaggravating€circumstance€in€the€penalty€phase€that€he€killed€the€victim€in€order€toÏavoid€detection€and€prosecution€for€the€burglary.€€The€record€does€notÏpreponderate€against€these€findings.€€Accordingly,€these€findings€contribute€toÏthe€cumulative€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€during€the€penalty€phase. ŒÒ°ÒÝ ƒ ´ÿÝÔ€X)XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€n.€2,€òòsupraóó. Ò°ÒÝ ƒ ´ÿÝÔ€X)XXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€this€appeal€by€the€state,€our€review€is€limited€to€the€propriety€of€theÐ ° Ðpost„conviction€courtððs€findings€sustaining€some€of€the€petitionerððs€claims.€€PriorÏto€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€court€dismissed€other€claims€as€being€waived€orÏpreviously€determined,€and€after€the€hearing,€the€court€denied€the€followingÏineffective€assistance€claims€in€its€ð ðFindings€of€Fact€and€Conclusions€of€Lawðð:€(1)Ïchoice€of€defense€strategy;€(2)€failure€to€request€adequate€independent€analysisÏof€the€hair€samples,€the€fingernail€scrapings,€a€fingerprint€found€on€a€check€in€theÏvictimððs€pocket,€bloody€tire€tracks€at€the€crime€scene,€and€the€defendantððsÏclothes;€(3)€failure€to€use€a€jury€selection€expert;€(4)€the€lack€of€pretrialÏaccessibility€of€counsel€to€the€petitioner;€(5)€failure€to€file€more€pretrial€motions;Ï(6)€failure€to€seek€redaction€of€the€petitionerððs€pretrial€statements;€(7)€inadequateÏadvice€of€€€€€€€counsel€concerning€the€petitionerððs€right€to€testify€at€trial;€(8)Ïimproper€or€inadequate€òòvoir€direóó€of€prospective€jurors;€(9)€failure€to€object€toÐ ð@  Ðimproper€prosecutorial€commentary;€(10)€failure€to€object€to€improper€juryÏinstructions;€(11)€general€inadequacy€in€objecting€to€trial€court€errors€or€evidenceÏpresented€at€trial;€(12)€failure€to€make€an€opening€statement;€and€(13)Ïinadequate€appellate€preparation€and€briefing.€€The€post„conviction€court€alsoÏdenied,€after€the€hearing,€a€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€that€the€state€hadÏfailed€to€disclose€exculpatory€evidence€and€had€ð ðfailed€to€reveal€all€promises,Ïdeals,€agreements.€.€.€made€by€the€state€with€any€witness€or€potential€witness.ðð, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€X¿ÃXXXÔÔ€îǶîXX¿ÃÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ù„îîǶÔÐ  ÐÌò òJune€17,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô¡äôù„ÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒþ,!ÝÔ€X¿ÃXXXÔÝ  ÝÑ7€¿ÃXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  Óò òÓÓñÜ"ñÑ€ ?T ÑñÜ"ññÝ"ñÑ€Oa ÑñÝ"ññå"ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E± tt0"H°¨Órßñå"ñIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ ° ÐAT€KNOXVILLEó óÐ ˆØ Ðò òJANUARY€1999€SESSIONó óÐ `° ÐÌÓ  Óò òÓÓÌMICHAEL€LEE€MCCORMICK,ó óà À àà  à)Ð ð @  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àò òAppelleeó ó,à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9802„CR„00052ó óÐ Â  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òvsó ó.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ò ò€€€€€€Hamilton€Countyó óÐ ”ä  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àó óà  à)€€€€€€ò òHonorable€John€K.€Byers,Ð f¶  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àó óà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òSitting€by€DesignationÐ R¢ Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àò òAppellantó ó.à h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€ò òÐ >Ž Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àó ó)€€€€€ò ò€(Post„Conviction€„€First€Degree€Ð *z Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àó ó)ò ò€€€€€€Murder€„€Death€Penalty)ó óÐ f Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌÌò òFOR€THE€APPELLEE:à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€FOR€THE€APPELLANT:ó óÐ Î ÐÌò òT.€MAXFIELD€BAHNERà h àó óà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÐ  ð Ð1000€Tallan€Buildingà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Attorney€General€&€ReporterÐ ŒÜ ÐTwo€Union€SquareÌChattanooga,€TN€37402à h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÐ X¨ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ó óSolicitor€GeneralÐ D” Ðò òMICHAEL€E.€RICHARDSONÐ 0€ Ðó ó202€Market€Court€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ò òDON€UNGURAIT€(at€hearing)ó óÐ  l ÐChattanooga,€TN€37402à h àà À à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Deputy€Attorney€GeneralÐ !X Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243à x àÐ Ô"$! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òKENNETH€W.€RUCKER€(on€Ð  $ð# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€appeal)Ìó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Assistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ x&È!% Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€37243Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€€€€€€€€€€Ð *)z$( Ѐ€€€€€ò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€WILLIAM€H.€COX,€IIIó óÐ *`%) Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ò òJOSEPH€A.€REHYANSKIÐ È,(, Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€ó óAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ ´-)- Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€600€Market€Street€„€Court€Bldg.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€Chattanooga,€TN€37402ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€_____________ÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÐ ¶627 ÐÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGEó óÐ z9Ê4: ÐÌÐ L;œ6< ЇÌÓÓÓ  Óò òÔ€¼&c¼XX¿ÃÔOPINIONÐ –æ ÐÌÔ€X¿ÃX¼¼&cÔÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àó óThe€State€of€Tennessee€appeals€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Courtððs€Ð æ 6 Ðgrant€of€post„conviction€relief€to€the€petitioner,€Michael€Lee€McCormick.€€In€1987,Ïa€Hamilton€County€jury€convicted€the€petitioner€of€the€1985€first€degree€murder€ofÏDonna€Jean€Nichols.€€The€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty€based€upon€its€findingÏthat€the€murder€was€committed€for€the€purpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with€orÏpreventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecution€of€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð â2 Ððð39„2„203(I)(6)€(1982)€(repealed€1989).€€The€conviction€and€sentence€were€affirmedÏby€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€McCormickóó,€778€S.W.2d€48€(Tenn.Ð zÊ Ð1989).€€On€May€20,€1990,€the€petitioner€filed€the€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÏpresently€under€review.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€post„conviction€courtÏordered€a€new€trial€based€upon€its€findings€that€the€petitioner€had€receivedÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€both€the€guilt€and€penalty€œphases›€of€the€trial.€ÏOn€appeal,€the€state€raises€the€following€issues:ÌÒ` ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ à1.€€Whether€the€lower€court€erred€in€finding€that€trialÏcounsel€inadequately€investigated€potential€witnesses€and€thatÏany€such€inadequacy€prejudiced€the€defendant.ÌÌà ¸ à2.€€Whether€the€lower€court€erred€in€finding€that€theÏdefendant€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€trial€and€that€any€such€ineffectiveÏassistance€prejudiced€the€petitioner.€€ÌÌà ¸ à3.€€Whether€some€of€the€claims€of€the€petitioner€haveÏbeen€waived.Ìà ¸ àÌÒ` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓAfter€oral€argument€of€the€issues,€review€of€the€partiesðð€briefs€and€the€law,€andÏreview€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€action€of€the€post„conviction€court.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.€€òòFacts€of€the€Murder€Caseóó.ó óÐ n1¾,1 ÐÓ  ÓÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€facts€of€the€murder€case€are€set€forth€in€the€following€excerpt€fromÏthe€Supreme€Courtððs€direct„appeal€opinion:ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àAt€about€2:00€a.m.€Thursday,€February€14,€1985,€the€body€of€the€¼à ` àvictim€was€discovered€in€a€parking€area€along€Brainerd€Road€in€Chattanooga.Ð 9à4: ÐÒ` Ò.€.€.Ìà ¸ àTwo€head€wounds€were€apparent,€as€well€as€one€on€the€hand.€Ì.€.€.€€Ìà ¸ àAn€autopsy€later€that€morning€showed€that€Jeanie€Nichols€had€beenÏshot€at€very€close€range.Ì.€.€.€€Ìà ¸ àAt€4:46€a.m.€the€[victimððs]€car€was€found€in€an€auto€service€parking€lotÏthat€was€frequently€used€by€customers€of€the€adjacent€Beach€Club,€a€singlesððÏnight€spot.€Ì.€.€.€€Ìà ¸ àFaint€smudges€of€blood€stained€the€covers€of€the€front€seats,€and€aÏthick€film€of€blood€covered€the€frame€and€exterior€panel€below€the€passengerÏdoor.€Ì.€.€.€€Ìà ¸ àThe€victim€was€at€home€until€approximately€9:30€on€the€night€of€theÏ13th.€€At€9:45€she€met€a€man€she€dated€frequently,€[Dewayne€Hines,]€andÏthey€had€drinks€at€Mervððs€restaurant.€€When€they€separated€at€11:30,€JeanieÏNichols€was€driving€the€car€later€found€near€the€Beach€Club.€€She€announcedÏshe€was€going€to€ð ðhitðð€Brainerd€Road,€by€which€her€companion€understoodÏshe€planned€to€visit€various€night€spots€in€the€area.Ì.€.€.€€Ìà ¸ àDefendant€was€a€friend€of€Nicholsðð€younger€brother€Hap,€with€whomÏshe€shared€an€apartment€in€their€grandmotherððs€home.€Ì.€.€.€€Ìà ¸ àThe€two€men€regularly€consumed€drugs€together€and€had€committedÏa€burglary€at€[a€Georgia]€college€and€stolen€electronic€equipment.€€When€theÏvictim€completed€her€pharmacy€degree€and€moved€to€Chattanooga€in€1984,Ïshe€discovered€these€activities€and€McCormickððs€identity.€€She€insisted€thatÏthe€stolen€equipment€be€moved€from€the€house€and€that€her€brother€end€hisÏassociation€with€Defendant.€€Hap€Nichols€related€all€this€to€Defendant€at€theÏtime,€as€McCormick€later€admitted,€and€he€removed€the€equipment.€ÏAccording€to€family€members,€Jeanie€was€very€proud€of€her€career,€hadÏworked€her€way€through€school,€and€had€undertaken€to€straighten€out€herÏbrotherððs€life.€Ì.€.€.€€Ìà ¸ àIt€was€also€learned€that€Defendant€had€visited€at€the€home€of€a€formerÏgirlfriend,€near€his€parentsðð€home,€from€9:30€to€11:10€p.m.€on€February€13.€ÏHe€was€driving€his€employerððs€red€truck,€and€he€left€saying€it€was€too€earlyÏto€go€home.€€This€witness€reported€that€Defendant€was€intoxicated€andÏbehaved€in€a€bizarre€fashion€and€he€spent€some€time€removing€somethingÏhe€had€hidden€under€her€house.€€At€this€point€McCormick€was€questioned€byÏDetective€Dudley€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department.€Ì.€.€.€€Ìà ¸ àHe€said€he€had€met€a€childhood€friend€at€Benniganððs€on€the€eveningÏof€February€13.€€They€had€a€few€drinks€and€left€in€separate€vehicles€for€theÏBrainerd€Beach€Club.€€He€had€left€the€Beach€Club€at€11:00€or€11:30€p.m.€andÏgone€straight€to€his€parentsðð€home,€where€he€lived.€Ì.€.€.€€Ìà ¸ àDefendant€consented€to€the€gathering€of€samples€of€hair,€saliva,€etc.Ïand€to€a€search€of€his€house€and€vehicles.€€With€one€exception,€nothing€ofÏinterest€was€found.€€A€hair€collected€from€the€interior€of€the€victimððs€car€wasÏdetermined€to€have€features€similar€to€his,€and€could€have€come€from€theÏDefendant.Ì.€.€.€€Ìà ¸ àShortly€after€this€interview€and€search,€Defendant€left€town€and€spentÏsome€time€in€Arizona.€€He€returned,€was€convicted€of€the€college€burglary,Ð  :p59 Ðand€served€a€sentence€followed€by€parole.€Ì.€.€.€€Ìà ¸ àMcCormick€and€the€victim€had€been€seen€together.€€An€employee€ofÏthe€Revco€Drug€Store,€where€Jeanie€Nichols€worked€at€the€time€of€her€death,Ï[Donna€Lawson,]€testified€she€and€the€victim€had€gone€out€together€duringÏthis€time.€She€reported€three€disturbing€encounters€she€witnessed€betweenÏNichols€and€McCormick€during€the€three€weeks€before€the€murder.€€Twice€heÏhad€come€to€the€pharmacy€counter€with€another€man€and€engaged€the€victimÏin€conversation.€€On€February€7€he€and€another€man€had€approached€her€atÏa€bar,€and€they€talked€privately€for€a€long€time.€€Each€of€these€conversationsÏleft€the€normally€talkative€and€cheerful€victim€in€a€depressed€mood.Ìà ¸ àAlmost€two€years€after€the€murder,€January€21,€1987,€ChattanoogaÏPolice€arranged€for€Defendant€to€meet€Eddie€Cooper€in€a€Georgia€paroleÏoffice.€€Cooper€was€an€undercover€officer€posing€as€a€parolee.€€The€twoÏmoved€into€a€motel€apartment€together€and€over€the€next€four€weeks€CooperÏgained€Defendantððs€confidence€and€included€him€in€several€purportedÏtransfers€of€stolen€cars.Ìà ¸ àEarly€on,€Defendant€asked€if€they€needed€to€go€armed€in€theseÏtransactions€and€said€he€had€a€.45€calibre€handgun.€€He€conversed€aboutÏmurderers€he€had€met€in€prison€and€professed€to€know€about€contractÏmurder,€but€he€made€no€mention€of€the€Nichols€killing.€€Cooper€then€hintedÏhe€had€been€offered€twenty€thousand€dollars€to€perform€a€murder€inÏKnoxville.Ìà ¸ àOn€February€9,€Detective€Dudley€staged€the€arrest€of€a€customer€inÏa€bar€in€the€presence€of€the€Defendant€and€Cooper,€and€he€spoke€toÏDefendant.€€Defendant€was€visibly€shaken.€€Cooper€demanded€to€knowÏwhether€Defendant€was€under€suspicion,€in€light€of€their€mutual€illegalÏactivities.€€Defendant€explained€about€the€burglary€conviction€and€the€murderÏinvestigation.€€Over€the€next€few€days€Cooper€pursued€the€subject,Ïostensibly€concerned€about€their€safety€and€Defendantððs€trustworthiness.€ÏWhen€asked€why€anyone€would€kill€a€woman,€Defendant€replied,€ð ðForÏinstance,€a€woman€knew€more€about€you€than€you€wanted€them€to€know,Ïpossibly€enough€that€would€put€you€in€the€penitentiary.€.€.€€Thereððs€someÏthings€you€just€donððt€tell€on€yourself.ðð€€He€claimed€he€had€refused€oneÏthousand€dollars€to€kill€Jeanie€Nichols,€but€he€knew€the€murderer.€€AccordingÏto€him€the€motive€related€to€the€drug€inventory€at€her€place€of€employmentÏand€she€ð ðwas€going€to€spill€her€guts.ðð€€Defendant€also€said€Nichols€had€beenÏshot€three€times€with€a€9€mm€or€.45€calibre€weapon,€once€in€the€temple,€onceÏbehind€the€ear,€and€once€in€the€hand.€€He€stated€the€gun€ð ðwasnððt€two€inchesÏfrom€her€head.ðð€€Later€he€said€he€did€not€know€why€she€had€been€killed.Ì.€.€.Ìà ¸ àOn€February€17,€1987,€the€Defendant€unexpectedly€began€to€confessÏto€Nicholsðð€murder.€€Cooper€managed€to€record€the€conversation,€which€wasÏplayed€for€the€jury€along€with€several€previous€conversations.€€DefendantÏsaid€that€he€had€killed€Nichols€but€not€for€$1,000.00.€€Supposedly,€she€wasÏð ðholding€outðð€some€drugs.€€He€claimed€that€he€had€killed€her€ð ðover€someÏmoneyðð€and€said€he€had€been€paid€$3,500.00€but€did€not€name€who€had€paidÏhim.€€He€and€Nichols€had€met€at€the€Beach€Club€and€left€together.€€He€hadÏthen€killed€her,€dumped€her€body€in€Eastgate,€parked€her€car€at€an€automaticÏtransmission€business€near€the€Beach€Club,€and€driven€away€in€his€van.Ì.€.€.€Ìà ¸ àDefendantððs€parents€testified€that€.€.€.€he€had€come€home€that€eveningÏbetween€11:00€and€11:30€p.m.€€Shortly€thereafter€he€went€out€again€for€a€fewÏminutes€but€did€not€take€a€vehicle.€€He€returned€around€12:10€a.m.€andÏremained€with€his€mother€in€the€living€room€from€1:00€to€2:00€a.m.,€and€heÏretired€at€3:00€a.m.Ìà ¸ àAt€the€sentencing€phase€the€State€presented€no€further€proof.€€InÏmitigation,€Defendantððs€father€described€his€sonððs€serious€drinking€problem,Ð  :p59 Ðwhich€had€begun€at€age€14€or€15.€€It€became€worse,€and€was€complicatedÏby€marijuana€use,€after€his€discharge€from€the€Air€Force€in€1974.€€He€hadÏtwice€entered€treatment€programs,€but€in€1984€when€he€returned€home€afterÏhis€divorce,€the€drinking€had€become€constant.€€Defendantððs€alcoholism€wasÏcorroborated€by€the€trial€testimony€of€various€acquaintances.€€In€addition,Ïcounsel€argued€Defendant€had€no€significant€criminal€history.€€T.C.A.€39„2„¼203(j)(1),€(8).ÌÌÌÒ` ÒÓÓòòMcCormickóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€49„52.Ð  p  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€this€evidence,€McCormick€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murderÏand€sentenced€to€death.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.€€òòFacts€of€the€Post„Conviction€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñHearingóó.Ð €Ð ÐñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñÌa.ó óÐ @ ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Rodney€Strong,€one€of€the€petitionerððsÏtrial€attorneys,€testified€that€he€had€practiced€law€since€1978€and€had€participatedÏin€several€murder€trials€and€four€or€five€capital€cases€by€the€time€of€the€petitionerððsÏtrial.€€Strong€and€his€co„counsel,€Paul€Bergmann,€investigated€the€case€themselvesÏby€obtaining€personal€history€from€the€defendant€and€by€interviewing€a€number€ofÏwitnesses.€€They€did€not€petition€the€court€for€state€funds€to€compensate€anÏinvestigator€or€for€expert€services.€€Counsel€determined€that€there€was€no€need€forÏexpert€psychological€testimony€after€becoming€acquainted€with€the€petitioner€and€ñØ"ñœ›ñØ"ñÏdiscussing€the€petitionerððs€case€with€Ken€Stallings,€a€mental€health€counselor€whoÏhad€counseled€the€defendant€for€a€substance€abuse€problem.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àCounselððs€bill€for€compensation€reflected€that€Strong€spent€22.8€hoursÏinvestigating€the€case.€€Counsel€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€defendantððs€pre„trialÏstatements.€€Once€the€trial€court€overruled€the€motion€to€suppress€the€undercoverÏtapes€made€by€Cooper,€the€defense€strategy€was€to€show€that€the€defendantððsÏstatements€to€Cooper€that€he€had€killed€the€victim€were€manifestations€of€hisÏpropensity€to€lie€about€his€deeds€and€experiences.€€The€defense€relied€upon€theÐ  :p59 Ðlack€of€physical€evidence€that€tied€the€defendant€to€the€murder€and€upon€theÏdefendantððs€motherððs€testimony€that€the€defendant€was€home€at€the€time€the€crimeÏwas€committed.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àAt€trial,€the€defense€tried€to€show€that€the€petitioner€had€a€reputationÏfor€lying€and€was€known€to€claim€falsely€that€he€had€fought€in€the€war€in€Vietnam.€ÏThe€defense€also€relied€upon€the€petitionerððs€history€of€being€dependent€on€alcohol€Ïto€support€the€claim€that€the€inculpative€statements€given€to€the€undercover€agentÏwere€made€merely€to€curry€favor€with€the€agent,€who€was€providing€a€temporaryÏresidence€for€the€petitioner.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOne€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€at€the€trial€of€the€case,€Donna€Lawson,Ïtestified€that€prior€to€the€night€the€victim€was€killed,€she€had€seen€the€victim€and€theÏpetitioner€conversing€three€times.€€Twice€Lawson€saw€the€two€talking€in€the€RevcoÏstore€where€Lawson€and€the€victim€worked,€and€the€week€before€the€shooting,€sheÏsaw€them€talking€in€a€night€club.€€In€his€post„conviction€hearing€testimony,€StrongÏacknowledged€that€Lawson€had€been€a€former€client€of€his€and€that,€based€uponÏthis€representation,€he€knew€she€had€previously€pleaded€guilty€to€felony€bad€checkÏcharges.€€At€trial,€counsel€declined€to€use€the€€prior€admission€or€convictions€toÏimpeach€Lawsonððs€testimony.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àStrong€testified€that€he€tried€to€develop€proof€at€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñtrialñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€to€suggest€that€aÏboyfriend€of€the€victim,€David€Shore,€was€a€jealous€individual€and€that€at€the€timeÏof€her€death,€the€victim€was€dating€another€man,€Dewayne€Hines.€€The€victim€andÏHines€had€been€seen€together€at€an€establishment€called€Mervððs€on€the€night€ofÏFebruary€13,€1985.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àCounsel€did€not€investigate€the€whereabouts€of€Dewayne€Hines€afterÏhe€left€Mervððs€on€February€13,€nor€did€they€investigate€the€whereabouts€of€DavidÐ 09€48 ÐShore€that€night.€€Counsel€did€not€talk€to€any€of€the€employees€of€the€BrainerdÏBeach€Club€nor€check€charge€slips€to€ascertain€identities€of€customers€that€wereÏserved€at€the€Brainerd€Beach€Club€on€the€night€of€February€13€or€early€morningÏhours€of€February€14.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€only€physical€evidence€which€the€prosecution€used€in€the€trial€wasÏa€hair€found€in€the€victimððs€automobile€which€contained€properties€similar€to€a€strandÏof€the€petitionerððs€hair.€€The€defense€did€not€attempt€to€obtain€independent€analysisÏof€the€hair,€nor€did€it€attempt€to€obtain€independent€analysis€of€the€clothes€worn€byÏthe€petitioner€on€the€night€of€February€13„14.€€The€defense€did€not€attempt€to€obtain€Ïthe€victimððs€fingernail€scrapings€once€the€prosecutor€informed€counsel€that€the€testsÏon€the€scrapings€were€ð ðnegative.ðð€€Through€the€pre„trial€statement€of€the€petitionerððs€Ïthat€was€taken€by€Officer€Dudley€prior€to€the€undercover€operation,€the€trialÏevidence€showed€that€the€defendant€admitted€to€drug€and€alcohol€use€and€toÏvarious€criminal€convictions,€including€indecent€exposure.€€Defense€counsel€did€notÏobject€to€these€portions€of€the€statement€being€admitted€into€evidence€because€theyÏwished€to€demonstrate€the€petitionerððs€problem€with€alcohol€and€that€he€hadÏpersisted€in€denying€his€involvement€in€the€victimððs€murder€despite€the€witheringÏinterrogative€tactics€of€Dudley.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDefense€counsel€was€aware€prior€to€trial€that€Jeff€Bowen,€a€securityÏguard€at€the€Brainerd€Beach€Club,€saw€a€ð ðgirl€who€looked€like€Nichols€and€wasÏdressed€like€Nichols€leave€with€an€unidentified€male.ðð€€Counsel€elected€not€toÏpursue€this€information€and€did€not€call€Bowen€to€testify€at€trial.€€Counsel€had€noÏrecollection€of€a€composite€drawing€of€the€man€who€Bowen€saw€leave€the€club€withÏthe€victim€on€the€night€of€February€13„14,€although€Bowenððs€statement€and€a€copyÏof€the€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñdrawing€apparentlyñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€were€given€to€defense€counsel€during€discovery.€€StrongÏopined,€upon€seeing€the€composite€drawing€for€the€first€time€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing,€that€had€the€figure€in€the€drawing€been€given€a€beard,€it€would€haveÐ 09€48 Ðresembled€the€petitionerððs€likeness.€€Strong€recounted€his€belief€that€had€the€juryÏconcluded€the€man€meeting€Bowenððs€description€was€the€petitioner,€then€BowenððsÏtestimony€would€be€the€only€trial€testimony€to€put€the€petitioner€in€the€victimððsÏpresence€on€the€night€of€her€death.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àñØ"ñœñØ"ñThe€guilt€phase€of€the€trialñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€concluded€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñwith€a€verdict€of€guilty€of€firstÏdegree€murder€atñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€approximately€5:00€p.m.€on€Saturday€afternoon,€and€the€trial€courtÏñØ"ñœñØ"ñproceededñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€with€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€on€Saturday€evening.€€The€defenseÏrelied€upon€the€trial€testimony€of€Ralph€Lindsay,€which€supported€the€fact€that€theÏpetitioner€had€an€alcohol€problem,€and€upon€the€€testimony€of€the€petitionerððs€father.€ÏThe€petitioner€did€not€testify€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñinñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€either€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñphaseñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€of€the€trial.€€No€expert€witnesses€wereÏused€in€either€phase€of€the€trial.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àPaul€Bergmann,€Strongððs€co„counsel,€did€not€recall€much€of€counselððsÏtrial€preparation€activities.€€He€testified€that€counsel€either€talked€or€attempted€to€talkÏto€all€of€the€witnesses€whose€names€had€been€given€them€by€the€defendant€and€hisÏfamily€and€all€of€the€witnesses€named€on€the€stateððs€witness€lists.€€Bergmann€spentÏa€total€of€42.1€hours€investigating€the€case€and€interviewing€witnesses.€€He€did€notÏrecall€that€either€himself€or€Strong€had€interviewed€Jeff€Bowen.€Specifically,€he€didÏnot€recall€interviewing€Jeff€Bowen,€reading€Bowenððs€statement€given€to€the€police,Ïor€previously€seeing€the€composite€drawing€made€from€Bowenððs€description€of€theÏman€who€allegedly€accompanied€the€victim€œñÚ"ñañÚ"ññØ"ñœñØ"ñs›€sheñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€left€the€Brainerd€Beach€Club.€ÏBergmann€acknowledged€that€the€petitioner€had€a€full€beard€at€the€time€of€theÏhomicide,€whereas€the€figure€in€the€Bowen€drawing€was€clean„shaven€except€for€aÏmustache.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àBergmann€acknowledged€that€the€ð ðpathologyðð€of€lying€might€be€anÏissue€that€required€specialized€knowledge€within€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€702Ïand€703.Ð 09€48 ÐÓ  Óò òb.ó óÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àJeff€Bowen€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€the€policeÏasked€him€to€view€the€victimððs€body€at€the€hospital€for€purposes€of€identification.€ÏBased€upon€her€distinctive€clothing,€he€identified€her€as€the€woman€he€saw€leavingÏthe€Brainerd€Beach€Club€several€hours€earlier€in€the€company€of€a€man€who€wasÏimmaculately€dressed€in€coat€and€tie.€€Bowen€described€the€man€as€being€neatlyÏgroomed,€clean„shaven€except€for€possibly€a€mustache,€ð ðone€of€those€guys€thatÏlooks€like€his€shirt€was€starched€and€the€whole€shot,€so€I€mean€he€was€sharp.ðð€ÏBowen€did€not€specify€the€time€when€the€couple€departed.€€He€had€no€recollectionÏof€being€contacted€by€defense€counsel.€€He€further€testified€that€the€man€he€sawÏwith€the€victim€did€not€resemble€the€photograph€of€the€petitioner€which€was€takenÏa€few€days€after€the€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñhomicide.ÌñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñÌÓ  Óò òc.ó óÐ ` ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€called€William€L.€Curtis,Ïa€private€investigator€who€had€formerly€served€as€an€FBI€special€agent.€€Curtis€Ïconducted€an€investigation€of€the€homicide€as€part€of€the€petitionerððs€preparation€for€Ïhis€post„conviction€hearing,€and€in€the€course€of€the€investigation,€Curtis€interviewedÏa€number€of€persons.€€With€the€assent€of€the€court€and€the€state,׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Curtis€wasÐ p&À!$ Ðallowed€to€testify€what€various€persons€had€said€in€their€interviews€with€him.€€ManyÏof€these€persons€were€subpoenaed€and€available€to€testify,€and€the€testimony€ofÏCurtis€was€apparently€used€by€stipulation€as€a€device€for€abbreviating€the€hearing.€ÏIn€this€vein,€Curtis€summarized€several€interviews,€chief€among€which€are€theÏfollowing:ÌÒ` ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ à1.€€Clarence€Parton€was€manager€of€the€Revco€inÏChattanooga€where€the€victim€worked€as€a€pharmacist€in€1985.€Ð 3à.2 ÐLawson€was€also€an€employee€of€this€store,€and€Parton€saidÏthat€Lawsonððs€credibility€was€suspect€and€that€she€wasÏultimately€fired€for€taking€merchandise€from€the€store.€€Ìà ¸ à2.€€Barbara€Tallent€worked€at€the€Revco€and€indicatedÏthat€she€had€never€seen€the€petitioner€in€the€store€talking€toÏthe€victim,€as€Lawson€had€testified,€but€she€had€seen€DewayneÏHines€in€the€store€talking€with€the€victim.€€Tallent€did€notÏbelieve€that€Lawson€was€a€credible€individual.€€Ìà ¸ à3.€€Dick€Dangler€was€the€Revco€security€manager€whoÏsaid€that€the€victimððs€keys€to€the€store€were€never€recovered.€Ïà ¸ à4.€€Susie€Wilson€was€a€bartender€at€the€Brainerd€BeachÏClub€who€recognized€the€photograph€of€Dewayne€Hines€andÏsaid€that€he€was€a€regular€at€the€club€in€February€of€1985.€€SheÏdid€not€recognize€the€photograph€of€the€defendant.Ìà ¸ à5.€€Jane€McDonald€was€a€customer€at€the€BrainerdÏBeach€Club€on€the€night€of€February€13,€1985€and€saw€theÏvictim€coming€into€the€club€accompanied€by€two€men.€€She€didÏnot€recognize€the€two€men€and€did€not€connect€either€of€themÏto€the€photograph€of€the€petitioner.€€Ìà ¸ à6.€€Dana€Sokohl,€an€acquaintance€of€the€victimððs,Ïexamined€a€composite€picture€that€had€been€drawn€to€theÏspecifications€of€a€woman€named€Joyce€Mahn.€€The€compositeÏpicture€was€allegedly€meant€to€depict€a€man€that€Mahn€saw€inÏthe€Brainerd€Beach€Club€parking€lot€on€the€night€of€FebruaryÏ13.€€Sokohl€told€Curtis€that€the€man€in€the€picture€looked€likeÏDavid€Shore,€the€former€fianc€of€the€victim.€€ÌÒ` ÒÒ°` ÒÌà ` àà ¸ àNone€of€the€potential€witnesses€identified€above€had€been€interviewedÏby€defense€counsel€prior€to€the€trial.€€Ð 09€48 ЇÓ  Óò òd.ó óÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àDoctor€Gillian€Blair,€a€clinical€psychologist,€testified€at€the€post„¼conviction€hearing€that€the€petitioner€had€psychiatric€hospitalizations€prior€to€theÏvictimððs€murder€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñand€in€the€pastñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€had€been€diagnosed€with€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñpsychosis.ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€€He€had€a€longÏhistory€of€chronic€dependence€on€alcohol€which€probably€contributed€to€the€previousÏfinding€of€psychosis.€€The€petitioner€had€a€chronic€need€to€bolster€his€self€image€byÏtelling€fantastic€lies€about€himself€and€persisting€in€these€lies€even€in€the€face€ofÏhard€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñDoctor€BlairñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€opined€that€a€previous€diagnosis€of€post„¼traumatic€stress€disorder€was€incorrect€and€without€foundation.€€After€administeringÏa€battery€of€tests€to€the€petitioner,€she€determined€that€his€full€scale€IQ€was€in€theÏhigh€average€range.€€He€had€no€organic€damage€and€was€neither€psychotic€norÏsociopathic.€€He€had€no€manic€depressive€disorder,€was€not€delusional€norÏparanoid,€but€he€may€have€suffered€from€a€bipolar€disorder€or€cyclothymia.€€SheÏfound€that€he€was€hypomanic€and€that€he€exhibited€extreme€anxiety€and€agitation,Ïpressured€speech,€distractibility,€and€flight€of€ideas.€€The€petitioner€had€a€negativeÏview€of€himself€and€pursued€an€extremely€strong€need€for€acceptance€and€approvalÏfrom€others.€€She€opined€that€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñhisñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€propensity€to€lie€stemmed€from€this€need€but€thatÏthe€trait€itself€did€not€indicate€a€disorder€and€did€not€require€specialized€expertise€toÏunderstand.€€Blair€opined€that€the€defendant€could€be€vulnerable€to€coercion€orÏmanipulation€in€making€false€statements.€€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñÌñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñÌÓ  Óò òe.ó óÐ ,`'* ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àDebra€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñBoggs,€the€petitionerððs€ex„wife,ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñtestified€thatñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€he€was€a€greatÏhusband€and€father€when€he€was€not€drinking.€€When€he€was€in€periods€of€sobriety,Ïhe€was€always€helping€other€people,€serving€on€the€volunteer€fire€department,€andÏvolunteering€for€the€Boy€Scouts.€€He€had€rescued€a€drowning€girl€from€a€swimmingÏpool€and€revived€a€heart€attack€victim€by€administering€cardio„€pulmonaryÏresuscitation.€€She€admitted€that€the€petitioner€was€a€different€individual€when€heÏwas€drinking€and€that€he€had€once€threatened€her€life€and€had€assaulted€her€on€aÐ 09€48 Ðfew€occasions.€€ÌÓ  Óò òf.ó óÐ à ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àJohn€Kilborn,€a€forensic€scientist€with€a€specialty€in€the€analysis€of€hairÏsamples,€testified€that€the€FBI€specialist€testified€inaccurately€at€the€trial€when€heÏsaid€that€properties€of€the€petitionerððs€hair€sample€were€similar€to€ð ðuniqueðð€propertiesÏof€a€hair€found€in€the€victimððs€car.€€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñKilborn€testifiedñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€that€hair€could€not€serve€as€theÏbasis€of€positive€identification€as€in€the€case€of€DNA€evidence€or€fingerprints€andÏthat€the€€hair€segment€found€in€the€victimððs€vehicle,€although€it€had€properties€similarÏto€the€petitionerððs€hair€sample,€could€not€serve€as€a€reliable€basis€for€comparisonÏbecause€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñit€was€not€añØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€full€hair€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñstrand.ÌñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€€ÌÓ  Óò òg.ó óÐ P  ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àSeveral€witnesses€appeared€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€to€testifyÏthat€the€petitioner€had€an€alcohol€problem€and€that€he€was€never€known€to€beÏñØ"ñœñØ"ñviolent.ÌñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€€ÌÓ  Óò òh.ó óÐ °"  ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitioner€testified€at€the€hearing€that€he€had€submitted€a€long€listÏof€names€of€possible€witnesses€to€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñcounsel,ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€but€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñonlyñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€his€parents€and€Ralph€LindsayÏtestified€for€the€defense€at€trial.€€He€complained€that€prior€to€trial€he€had€difficultyÏcontacting€his€attorneys€from€the€jail.€€He€did€not€know€that€he€could€have€petitionedÏfor€state€funds€for€expert€and€investigator€assistance€until€he€began€his€post„¼conviction€proceeding.€€He€only€met€with€Ken€Stallings€one€time.€€He€was€not€awareÏof€Jeff€Bowen€prior€to€trial.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€elected€not€to€testify€at€theÏtrial.€€He€maintained€that€he€did€not€know€the€trial€would€consist€of€two€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñphases,ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€norÏthat€he€had€a€right€to€testify€at€the€penalty€phase€even€if€he€had€not€testified€duringÏthe€guilt€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñphase.ÌœñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññÛ"ñÌñÛ"ñ›Ð 09€48 ÐÑ ?T ÑÑH°ÑÑ  ÑñÜ"ñœñÜ"ñÓ  Óò òI.ó óÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àCharles€Fels,€a€Knoxville€lawyer,€testified€as€an€expert€on€the€rangeÏof€competence€for€counsel€under€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Generally,€he€opined€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñthatÏcounselñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€in€a€capital€case€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñisñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€obliged€to€interview€all€of€the€stateððs€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñwitnesses,ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñtoñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñÏinvestigate€the€defendantððs€background,€education,€and€medical,€psychological€andÏmilitary€history,€and€to€examine€scientific€reports€and€independently€investigate€theÏaccuracy€of€expert€findings.€€He€found€the€total€hours€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñreported€forñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€interviewingÏwitnesses€to€be€very€minimal.€€He€highlighted€the€failure€of€counsel€to€use€the€Ïcomposite€picture€that€was€based€upon€Bowenððs€description€and€the€failure€toÏuncover€Jane€McDonaldððs€knowledge€that€the€victim€entered€the€Brainard€BeachÏClub€in€the€presence€of€two€men,€neither€of€whom€were€the€petitioner.€€Fels€opinedÏthat€the€hair€analysis€should€have€been€attacked€along€the€same€lines€as€JohnÏKilbornððs€post„conviction€testimony.€€Further,€he€opined€that€trial€counsel€was€remissÏin€not€seeking€independent€forensic€analysis€of€the€victimððs€fingernail€scrapings€andÏthe€defendantððs€clothing.€€Fels€opined€that€the€number€of€pre„trial€motions€wereÏminimal€and€that€the€issues€raised€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€were€limited€and€tooÏgeneral.€€He€was€particularly€critical€of€counselððs€failure€to€file€motions€in€limine€inÏorder€to€redact€from€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñpetitionerððsñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€various€pre„trial€statements€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñañØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€number€of€damagingÏrevelations€that€were€not€probative€of€the€issues€on€trial.€€He€cited€counselððs€failureÏto€object€to€various€other€components€of€evidence€and€to€comments€made€by€theÏprosecutor€during€the€closing€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñarguments.ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€€Finally,€he€opined€that€trial€counselððsÏperformance€during€the€penalty€phase€was€deficient€because€psychologicalÏevidence€had€not€been€adequately€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñexplored.ÌñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñÌÓ  Óò òj.Ð °1-0 ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àó óAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€state€called€Dr.€John€Spencer,€aÐ 3à.2 Ðclinical€and€forensic€psychologist,€who€testified€that€although€the€petitioner€wasÏantisocial,€he€was€not€psychotic,€had€no€organic€brain€damage,€and€is€intelligent.€ÏñØ"ñœñØ"ñDoctorñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€Spencer€opined€there€was€no€basis€for€referring€the€case€to€an€expert€in€theÏfield€of€false€confessions€and€that€a€lay€witnessðð€anecdotal€information€about€theÐ ;`6: ÐÑOaÑÑ°HÑÑ  Ñœpetitionerððs›€lying€was€more€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñsignificant€evidenceñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€than€could€be€offered€by€an€expertÏwitness.€€ð ðPathological€liarðð€is€not€a€diagnostic€category€but€merely€a€description€ofÏpeople€who€are€often€antisocial€and€who€lie€frequently.ÌÌñØ"ñœ›ñØ"ñÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àò òIII.€€òòPost„conviction€Courtððs€Findings.óóó óÐ 0 € ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àBased€upon€the€evidence,€much€of€which€is€summarized€above,€theÏpost„conviction€court€sustained€the€petition€in€the€following€particulars:ÌÒ` ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ à1.€€Counselððs€representation€was€prejudicially€deficientÏin€failing€to€develop€and€use€the€information€supplied€by€JeffÏBowen,€including€the€composite€drawing.€€The€post„convictionÏcourt€found€that€the€Bowen€evidence€ð ðwould€have€been€highlyÏbeneficial€to€the€defense€theory,ðð€especially€ð ðwhere€the€caseÏcontained€little€to€no€physical€evidence€against€the€defendant.ðð€Ïà ¸ à2.€€Counselððs€investigation€was€prejudicially€deficient€inÏthe€failure€to€interview€other€employees€from€the€BrainardÏBeach€Club€and€other€witnesses€ð ðwho€may€have€seen€theÏvictim€on€the€night€of€the€murder€with€someone€other€than€the€Ïdefendant.ððÌà ¸ à3.€€Counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€develop€mitigationÏevidence€from€lay€witnesses€for€use€at€the€sentencing€hearing.Ìà ¸ à4.€€Although€standing€alone,€the€failure€to€useÏpsychological€evidence€to€explain€the€defendantððs€propensityÏto€lie€in€the€guilt€phase€would€have€been€innocuous,€the€post„¼conviction€court€found€that€ð ðin€combination€with€all€the€otherÏdeficiencies€in€this€case€such€an€error€has€much€greaterÏweightðð€and€that€ð ðthe€absence€of€a€psychological€expert€at€theÏsentencing€phase€is€a€more€obvious€deficiency€because€a€Ïpsychological€expert€could€have€helped€to€more€fully€explainÏthe€defendantððs€tendencies€to€lie€and€his€propensity€to€beÐ 09€48 Ðinfluenced€by€alcohol€and/or€drugs.ðð€€Ìà ¸ à5.€€Counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€impeach€theÏtestimony€of€Donna€Lawson,€the€only€trial€witness€to€place€theÏpetitioner€in€the€victimððs€company€at€any€time.Ìà ¸ à6.€€Counsel€failed€to€ð ðfocus€the€juryððs€attention€onÏseveral€inconsistencies€between€the€defendantððs€statementsÏand€the€facts€of€the€stateððs€case.ðð€€Particularly€glaring€was€theÏfailure€to€emphasize€the€amount€of€time€that€passed€betweenÏthe€victimððs€discovery€of€the€petitionerððs€act€of€burglary€and€herÏmurder,€because€this€factor€served€as€the€sole€basis€forÏimposing€the€death€penalty.Ìà ¸ à7.€€Counsel€was€deficient€in€failing€to€object€to€improperÏcomments€by€the€prosecution€during€the€trial€and€duringÏargument,€which€failures€ð ðcontribute€to€the€overall€finding€thatÏthe€defendant€did€not€receive€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€and€that€this€case€was€prejudiced€by€counselððsÏperformance.ððñá"ñœ×ƒ×ñá"ññá"ñ׃×ñá"ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כР°"  ÐÐ $à" ÐÒ` ÒÒ°` ÒÓ  Óò òIV.€€òòStandards€for€Establishing€and€Reviewing€Ineffective€Assistance€ofÐ ° ÐCounselóó.Ð à ÐÓ  Óó óà ` àà ¸ àAll€of€the€post„conviction€courtððs€bases€for€granting€post„convictionÐ pÀ Ðrelief€were€instances€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWhen€a€defendant€seeks€relief€on€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel,€he€must€first€establish€that€the€services€rendered€or€the€advice€givenÏwas€below€ð ðthe€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.ðð€ÏòòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€he€must€show€that€theÐ ° Ðdeficiencies€ð ðactually€had€an€adverse€effect€on€the€defense.ðð€€òòStrickland€v.Ð à ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2067€(1984).€€There€must€be€aÐ pÀ Ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€error,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÏwould€have€been€different.€€òòIdóó.€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñat€694,ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068;€òòseeóó€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708Ð 0€ ÐS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€€Should€the€defendant€fail€to€establishÏeither€factor,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€scrutiny€of€counselððs€performance€must€be€ð ðhighly€deferential,ððÏand€the€reviewing€court€must€refrain€from€concluding€ð ðthat€a€particular€act€orÏomission€of€counsel€was€unreasonableðð€merely€because€the€strategy€employed€wasÏunsuccessful.€€òòStricklandóó,€€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065.€€ð ðA€fair€assessment,ððÐ P( #& Ðthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€said,€entails€making€every€effort€to€ð ðeliminateÏthe€distorting€effects€of€hindsightðð€and€evaluating€the€ð ðconduct€from€counselððsÏperspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€104€S.€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñCt.€at€2065.€€TheñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€court€promulgated€a€ð ðstrongÐ ð-@), Ðpresumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€of€reasonableÏprofessional€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñassistance.€.€.€.ððñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€€òòIdóó.,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065.€€The€court€added:Ð °1-0 ÐÓÓà ` àà ¸ à[S]trategic€choices€made€after€thorough€investigation€of€law€andÌà ` àà ¸ àfacts€relevant€to€plausible€options€are€virtually€unchallengeable;Ì€à ` àà ¸ àand€strategic€choices€made€after€less€than€complete€investigationÐ p5À04 Ðà ` àà ¸ àare€reasonable€precisely€to€the€extent€that€reasonable€professional€Ìà ` àà ¸ àjudgments€support€the€limitations€on€investigation.€€In€other€words,Ìà ` àà ¸ àcounsel€has€a€duty€to€make€reasonable€investigations€or€to€makeÌà ` àà ¸ àa€reasonable€decision€that€makes€particular€investigation€à Ð àÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àunnecessary.Ð  :p59 Їà ` àà ¸ àIn€any€ineffectiveness€case,€a€particular€decision€not€to€investigateÌà ` àà ¸ àmust€be€directly€assessed€for€reasonableness€in€all€the€circumstances,Ìà ` àà ¸ àapplying€a€heavy€measure€of€deference€to€counselððs€judgments.ÌÌòòÓÓIdóó.€at€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ690„691,ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066.€€The€court€acknowledged€that€ð ðinquiry€intoÐ pÀ Ðcounselððs€conversations€with€the€defendant€may€be€critical€to€a€proper€assessmentÏof€counselððs€investigation€decisions€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ.€.€.€.ððñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€€òòIdóó.€at€691,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066.€€Ð 0 € ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWith€respect€to€the€prejudice€prong€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€a€showing€that€ð ðerrors€had€some€conceivable€effect€on€the€outcome€of€theÏproceedingðð€is€insufficient.€€òòIdóó.€at€693,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2067.€€Rather,€the€defendantÐ ° Ðmust€show€there€is€a€ð ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessionalÏerrors,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€reasonableÏprobability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñòòIdóó.ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€Ð P  Ðat€694,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€In€assessing€the€claim€of€prejudice,€the€ð ðcourt€shouldÏpresume,€absent€challenge€to€the€judgment€on€grounds€of€evidentiary€insufficiency,Ïthat€the€judge€or€jury€acted€according€to€law.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2068.€€TheÐ ð@ Ðreviewing€court€must€consider€œtheñÞ"ñ€ððñÞ"ññß"ñ€ð ðñß"ñtotality›€of€the€evidence€before€the€judge€or€juryððÏand€should€take€into€account€the€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€the€evidenceÏsupporting€the€verdict€or€conclusion.€òòIdóó.€at€695,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.Ð $à" ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€death€penalty€cases,€the€sentencer€may€not€be€precluded€fromÏconsidering€any€aspect€of€a€defendantððs€character€or€record€as€a€basis€for€aÏsentence€less€than€death.€€òòLockett€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586,€604„05,€98€S.€Ct.€2954,Ð ,`'* Ð2964„65€(1978)€(plurality€opinion);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòJohnson€v.€Texasóó,€509€U.S.€350,€361,Ð ð-@), Ð113€S.€Ct.€2658,€2666€(1993).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€thatÏmitigating€evidence€is€relevant€to€sentencing€hearings€and€should€be€heard.€€òòSeeóóÐ °1-0 ÐòòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€541,€107€S.€Ct.€837,€839€(1987);€òòEddings€v.Ð 3à.2 ÐOklahomaóó,€455€U.S.€104,€113„15,€102€S.€Ct.€869,€876„77€(1982).Ð p5À04 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThere€is€no€legal€requirement€and€no€established€practice€that€theÐ 09€48 Ðaccused€must€offer€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€trial.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,Ð ° Ð772€S.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn.€1989).€€In€fact,€in€many€death€penalty€cases,€counselÏhas€properly€seen€fit€not€to€offer€any€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase.€€òòMelsonóó,€772Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€at€421.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àð ðA€strategy€of€silence€may€be€adopted€only€after€a€reasonableÏinvestigation€for€mitigation€evidence€or€a€reasonable€decision€that€an€investigationÏwould€be€fruitless.ðð€€òòTafero€v.€Wainwrightóó,€796€F.2d€1314,€1320€(11th€Cir.€1986).€Ð Ð  ÐCourts€have€held€counselððs€representation€beneath€professionally€competentÏstandards€when€counsel€did€not€conduct€enough€investigation€to€formulate€anÏð ðaccurate€life€profileðð€of€a€defendant.€€òòJackson€v.€Herringóó,€42€F.3d€1350,€1367€(11thÐ pÀ ÐCir.),€òòcertóó.€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñòòdismissedóóñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€òòsubóó€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñòònomóóñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€òòJackson€v.€Jonesóó,„„„U.S.„„„,€116€S.€Ct.€38€(1995).€ItÐ P  Ðis€impossible€that€ð ða€ððstrategicðð€decision€can€be€reasonable€when€the€attorney€hasÏfailed€to€investigate€his€options€and€make€a€reasonable€choice€between€them.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð ` Ð(quoting€òòHorton€v.€Zantóó,€941€F.2d€1449,€1462€(11th€Cir.€1991)).Ð ð@ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€extent€of€investigation€required€depends€critically€uponÏinformation€supplied€by€the€defendant.€€òòBurger€v.€Kempóó,€483€U.S.€776,€795,€107€S.Ð $à" ÐCt.€3114,€3126€(1987);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWhitmore€v.€Lockhartóó,€8€F.3d€614,€621€(8th€Cir.Ð p&À!$ Ð1993).€€ð ð[W]hen€the€facts€that€support€a€certain€potential€line€of€defense€areÏgenerally€known€to€counsel€because€of€what€the€defendant€has€said,€the€need€forÏfurther€investigation€may€be€considerably€diminished€or€eliminated€altogether.€€AndÏwhen€a€defendant€has€given€counsel€reason€to€believe€that€pursuing€certainÏinvestigations€would€be€fruitless€or€even€harmful,€counselððs€failure€to€pursue€thoseÏinvestigations€may€not€later€be€challenged€as€unreasonable.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ð °1-0 Ðat€691,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€petitionerððs€burden€of€proof€in€all€post„conviction€cases€filedÏbefore€May€10,€1995,€is€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576Ð 09€48 ÐS.W.2d€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€A€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€following€a€post„¼conviction€hearing€have€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.€€òòBratton€v.€Stateóó,€477€S.W.2dÐ à Ð754,€756€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971).€€On€appeal,€those€findings€are€conclusive€unlessÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,Ð P   Ð900€(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌÓ  Óò òV.€òòAppellantððs€Issuesóó.Ð ð@  ÐÌÓ  Óó óà ` àà ¸ àNow,€we€apply€the€above€legal€principles€to€the€issues€the€state€hasÐ ° Ðpresented.ÌÌÓ  Óò òa.€€Ineffective€Assistance€„€Guilt€PhaseÐ P  ÐÓ  Óó óà ` àà ¸ àThe€state€asserts€that€the€lower€court€erred€in€finding€ineffectiveÐ 0€ Ðassistance€of€counsel€through€inadequate€investigation€and€preparation€at€trial.€ÏWithin€this€rubric,€the€state€argues€that€the€post„conviction€court€erroneouslyÏconcluded€that€(1)€trial€counsel€had€failed€to€interview€Jeff€Bowen,€(2)€the€petitionerÏhad€shown€prejudice€from€counselððs€failure€to€interview€other€customers€or€staff€ofÏthe€Brainerd€Beach€Club,€and€(3)€trial€counsel€failed€to€fully€develop€its€theory€ofÏdefense.€€The€state€asserts€that€counsel€interviewed€Bowen€and€made€a€tacticalÏdecision€not€to€call€him€as€a€witness€and€that€the€record€reflects€no€prejudice€to€theÏpetitioner€because€of€the€failure€to€discover€Jane€McDonaldððs€knowledge€of€theÏevening€of€February€13,€1985.€€The€state€posits€that€counsel€effectively€presentedÏits€theory€by€using€a€number€of€lay€witnesses€to€establish€an€alibi€and€to€attack€theÏvalidity€of€the€undercover€statements€by€showing€the€petitionerððs€dependence€onÏalcohol€and€his€propensity€to€lie€and€tell€grandiose€tales.€€It€argues€that€theÏpetitionerððs€post„conviction€expert,€Dr.€Blair,€failed€to€establish€any€pathology€orÏpersonality€problems€beyond€those€established€by€lay€witnesses€who€testified€atÏtrial.ÌÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àAlthough€Strong€assumed€that€Bergmann€interviewed€Bowen,ÏBergmann€did€not€recall€speaking€with€Bowen.€€Clearly,€Strong€did€not€interviewÏBowen,€and€Bowen€himself€did€not€recall€either€defense€attorney€contacting€him.€ÏWe€find€that€a€factual€basis€existed€to€support€a€conclusion€that€neither€lawyerÏtalked€to€Bowen.€€Regardless,€the€crux€of€the€courtððs€concern€about€counselððsÏtreatment€of€Bowen€was€not€so€much€whether€they€had€interviewed€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñhim,ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€butÏwhether€they€had€properly€reacted€to€Bowenððs€description,€via€the€compositeÏdrawing,€of€the€man€Bowen€saw€leaving€the€club€with€the€victim.€€Strong,€whoÏviewed€the€composite€drawing€for€the€first€time€while€testifying€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing,€thought€the€likeness€resembled€the€petitioner,€but€Bowen€testified€that€theÏman€he€saw€did€not€resemble€the€February€1985€photograph€of€the€petitioner.€ÏBergmann€admitted€that,€at€the€time€of€the€murder,€the€petitioner€had€a€full€beard.€ÏBoth€Strong€and€Bergmann€testified€that€they€had€not€seen€the€drawing€prior€to€theÏpost„conviction€hearing,€but€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€state€hadÏfurnished€both€Bowenððs€statement€and€a€€copy€of€the€composite€drawing€to€counsel.€ÏBased€upon€the€testimony€it€heard,׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€the€court€found€counsel€was€remiss€in€notÐ Ð  Ðdeveloping€ð ðthis€information€[that]€would€have€been€highly€beneficial€to€the€defenseÏtheory.ðð€€Given€the€ð ðfactðð€nature€of€the€matter,€this€court€must€defer€to€the€finding€ofÏthe€post„conviction€court,€just€as€we€would€have€done€had€the€petitioner€notÏprevailed€in€the€court€below.€€In€other€words,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€courtððs€findings.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€the€issue€of€whether€counsel€was€ineffective€in€not€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñinvestigatingñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñÏthe€February€13,€1985€customers€and€staff€of€the€Brainerd€Beach€Club,€the€recordÏsupports€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€counselððs€performance€was€deficient.€ÏHowever,€the€record€demonstrates€no€prejudice€to€the€petitioner€with€the€exceptionÏof€(1)€the€failure€to€ferret€out€the€information€of€Jane€McDonald€that€the€victim€came€Ð p5À04 Ðinto€the€club€with€two€men,€neither€of€whom€were€the€petitioner,€and€(2)€the€failureÏto€obtain€readily€available€information€for€use€in€impeaching€the€testimony€of€DonnaÏLawson.€€Each€of€these€deficiencies€in€representation€had€prejudicial€impact.€€PartÏof€the€defense€theory€was€that€at€least€two€other€men€were€interested€in€the€victimÏand€at€least€one€of€them€may€have€been€jealous.€€Donna€Lawson€was€a€key€witnessÏin€that€she€provided€the€only€testimony€that€the€petitioner€and€the€victim€hadÏconversations€prior€to€February€13.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€counselððs€decision€not€toÏseek€expert€psychological€proof€to€use€during€the€guilt€phase€to€bolster€petitionerððsÏclaim€that€his€confession€was€false€was€deficient€representation€under€the€facts€ofÏthe€case.€€The€defendantððs€medical€record€reflected€earlier€findings€of€psychosis,Ïand€this€fact€alone€warranted€further€investigation€beyond€the€conference€with€KenÏStallings.€€However,€we€disagree€that€the€record€reflects€prejudice€as€a€result€of€theÏfailure€to€pursue€such€proof.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àEven€though€Dr.€Blair€testified€that€the€petitionerððs€poor€self„image€andÏneed€for€approval€made€him€vulnerable€to€being€manipulated€into€making€falseÏstatements,€the€information€would€not€appear€to€be€a€great€revelation€to€a€jury€whoÏhad€already€been€shown€that€the€petitioner€was€capable€of€fantastic€lies€in€order€toÏget€attention€and€to€enhance€his€stature€with€his€audience.€€Indeed,€Dr.€BlairÏacknowledged€that€no€psychological€expertise€was€needed€in€order€to€recognize€orÏunderstand€the€petitionerððs€lying€phenomenon.€€Consequently,€the€lay€proofÏpresented€on€this€issue€in€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€œñà"ñwas›€ñà"ñsubstantially›€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñduplicatedñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€€theÏproffer€of€Dr.€Blair.€€Moreover,€we€note€in€passing,€although€it€was€not€addressedÏat€the€post„conviction€hearing,€that€Dr.€Blairððs€testimony€might€not€have€beenÏadmissible€at€trial.€€Her€failure€to€affirm€that€expert€testimony€was€needed€toÏarticulate€the€petitionerððs€lying€problem€supports€a€finding€that€ð ðscientific,€technical,Ïor€other€specialized€knowledgeðð€would€not€ð ðsubstantially€assist€the€trier€of€fact€toÐ 09€48 Ðunderstand€the€evidence€or€to€determine€a€fact€in€issueðð€and€that,€accordingly,Ïexpert€testimony€is€not€required.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702.€€In€any€event,€the€post„¼conviction€court€itself€found€that€the€failure€to€pursue€expert€evidence€in€the€guiltÏphase€was€not,€òòipso€factoóó,€prejudicial.€€We€agree,€but€we€disagree€that€it€contributedÐ P   Ðanything€to€the€finding€of€aggregate€prejudice.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àTo€summarize€our€treatment€of€the€stateððs€first€issue,€we€hold€that€theÏstate€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€that€trial€counsel€deficiently€represented€the€petitioner,€to€the€pointÏof€prejudice,€in€failing€to€use€the€Bowen€evidence,€in€failing€to€discover€the€potentialÏtestimony€of€Jane€McDonald,€and€in€failing€to€impeach€the€testimony€of€DonnaÏLawson.€€Thus,€the€record€supports€the€conclusion€that€the€petitioner€receivedÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€during€the€guilt€phase€of€his€trial.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€evaluating€the€prejudicial€impact€of€counselððs€deficient€performance,Ïwe€have€considered€the€weight€of€the€case€against€the€petitioner,€òòseeóó€òòStricklandóó,€Ð Ð  Ð466€U.S.€at€695,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069,€and€we€are€aware€that,€usually,€prosecutionÏevidence€which€includes€a€confession€of€the€accused€amounts€to€a€strong€case.€ÏHowever,€the€confession€utilized€here€was€not€of€the€usual€variety.€€It€was€notÏsolemnized€by€a€formal,€official€interrogation€process.€€There€was€no€waiver€ofÏconstitutional€rights€and€no€overt€recording€of€the€confession.€€In€the€casual,Ïperhaps€manipulative,€setting€in€which€the€confession€was€elicited,€the€petitionerððsÏmendacious€propensities€only€sharpen€the€realization€that€this€confession€wasÏvulnerable€to€attack.€€It€did€not€pose€an€insurmountable€barrier€to€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñfindingñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€prejudiceÏfrom€deficient€performance€of€counsel,€especially€when€the€deficiency€hampered€theÏeffort€to€impugn€the€confession.€€In€this€vein,€evidence€that€would€have€bolstered€theÏpetitionerððs€claim€of€alibi€was€found€by€the€post„conviction€court€to€be€significant€toÏthe€theory€of€the€defense.€€Accordingly,€there€was€no€error€in€ordering€a€new€trial.ÌÐ 09€48 ÐÓ  Óò òb.€Ineffective€Assistance€„€Penalty€PhaseÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àó óIn€its€next€issue,€the€state€asserts€the€post„conviction€court€erred€whenÐ à Ðit€found€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€ÏWithin€this€rubric,€the€state€maintains€that€(1)€counsel€reasonably€relied€upon€theÏinformation€supplied€by€the€petitionerððs€one„time€mental€health€counselor,€KenÏStallings,€not€to€present€his€testimony€nor€to€seek€further€psychological€evidence,Ï(2)€the€petitioner€failed€to€establish€any€prejudice€in€the€absence€of€expertÏpsychological€proof,€and€(3)€counsel€was€excused€from€developing€further€mitigationÏproof€because€much€of€its€mitigation€proof€had€been€introduced€during€the€guiltÏphase.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOur€supreme€court€recently€addressed€the€duty€of€counsel€toÏinvestigate€and€present€mitigating€evidence€in€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363Ð 0€ Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€In€òòGoadóó,€the€court€found€trial€counsel€ineffective€for€failing€toÐ ` Ðinvestigate€and€explore€mitigating€evidence€relative€to€the€Veteran€AdministrationððsÏevaluation€of€Goad€and€his€symptoms€of€post„traumatic€stress€disorder.€€òòIdóó.€at€372„Ð Ð  Ð73.€€In€determining€whether€Goad€was€prejudiced€by€counselððs€deficientÏrepresentation,€the€court€set€forth€several€factors€to€consider:ÌÒ` ÒÒ°ÒÓÓWhere€the€alleged€prejudice€under€òòStricklandóó€involves€counselððsÐ p&À!$ Ðfailure€to€present€mitigating€evidence€in€the€penalty€phase€of€a€capitalÏtrial,€several€factors€are€significant.€€First,€courts€have€analyzed€theÏnature€and€extent€of€the€mitigating€evidence€that€was€available€but€notÏpresented.€€òòDeutscher€v.€Whitleyóó,€946€F.3d€1443€(9th€Cir.€1991);Ð 0*€%( ÐòòStephens€v.€Kempóó,€846€F.2d€642€(11th€Cir.€1988);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,Ð  +p&) Ð847€S.W.2d€521,€532€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòAtkins€v.€Stateóó,€911Ð ,`'* ÐS.W.2d€334€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Second,€courts€haveÏconsidered€whether€substantially€similar€mitigating€evidence€wasÏpresented€to€the€jury€in€either€the€guilt€or€penalty€phase€of€theÏproceeding.€€òòAtkins€v.€Singletaryóó,€965€F.2d€952€(11th€Cir.€1992);Ð Ð/ +. ÐòòClozza€v.€Murrayóó,€913€F.2d€1092€(4th€Cir.€1990);€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772Ð À0,/ ÐS.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn.€1989).€€Finally,€the€courts€have€consideredÏwhether€there€was€such€strong€evidence€of€aggravating€factors€thatÏthe€mitigating€evidence€would€not€have€affected€the€juryððsÏdetermination.€€òòFitzgerald€v.€Thompsonóó,€943€F.2d€€463,€470€(4th€Cir.Ð €4Ð/3 Ð1991);€òòElledge€v.€Duggeróó,€823€F.2d€1439€(11th€Cir.€1987).Ð p5À04 ÐÌÒ` ÒÒ°ÒñØ"ñœñØ"ñòòIdóó.€atñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€371.Ð P7 26 ÐÌÓÓÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àð ð[E]vidence€about€the€defendantððs€background€and€character€isÏrelevant€because€of€the€belief€.€.€.€that€defendants€who€commit€criminal€acts€that€areÏattributable€to€a€disadvantaged€background,€or€to€emotional€and€mental€problemsÏmay€be€less€culpable€than€defendants€who€have€no€such€excuse.ðð€€òòCalifornia€v.Ð P   ÐBrownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€544,€107€S.€Ct.€837,€841€(1987).Ð 0 € ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àHowever,€attorneys€representing€defendants€in€capital€cases€are€notÏobligated€to€parade€a€multitude€of€experts€and€witnesses€before€the€jury€at€everyÏsentencing€hearing€in€order€to€provide€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòSeeóóòòHarrisÐ ° Ðv.€Stateóó,€947€S.W.2d€156,€163€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(defendant€not€entitled€toÐ à Ðperfect€representation,€only€constitutionally€adequate€representation).€€Indeed,Ïdefense€counsel€could€reasonably€determine€after€adequate€investigation€andÏpreparation€that€some€types€of€traditional€ð ðmitigatingðð€proof€might€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñbeñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€looked€uponÏñØ"ñœñØ"ñunfavorablyñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€by€a€jury.€€òòSeeóó€òòIdóó.€at€168.Ð ` ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àThis€court€has€previously€recognized€that€such€proof€may€haveÏdoubtful€effect€in€ð ðlessening€[a€defendantððs]€culpability€in€the€eyes€of€the€jury.ðð€ÏñØ"ñœñØ"ñòòHarriesñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€v.€Stateóó,€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ958€S.W.2d€799,€807ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€(Tenn.€Crim.€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñApp.€1997),ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÐ $à" Ð(Tenn.€1997);€òòseeóóòòalsoóó€òòRickman€v.€Bellóó,€131€F.3d€1150,€1157€(6th€Cir.€1997)€(findingÐ p&À!$ Ðcounselððs€performance€deficient€where€he€ð ðsucceeded€in€creating€a€loathsomeÏimage€for€Rickman€„„€€one€that€would€make€a€juror€feel€compelled€to€rid€the€worldÏof€himðð).Ìà ` àà ¸ àÌà ` àà ¸ àAny€deficiencies€of€counsel€in€presenting€mitigation€proof€centerÏaround€the€absence€of€(1)€expert€psychological€proof€that€would€have€amplified€theÏpetitionerððs€alcohol€problems€and€(2)€lay€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñwitnessesððñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€testimony€that€would€haveÏhighlighted€relevant€background€or€personality€information€including€redeemingÏtraits€and€good€deeds.ÌÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€this€appeal,€the€state€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€lower€courtððs€finding€of€deficient€representation€becauseÏexpert€psychological€proof€was€not€sought€for€the€sentencing€phase.€€TheÏpetitionerððs€medical€history€reflected€a€previous€finding€of€psychosis,€and€Dr.€BlairÏopined€that€the€earlier€diagnosis€was€likely€related€to€the€petitionerððs€alcoholÏdependency.€€The€prior€hospitalizations€and€diagnosis€should€have€alerted€counselÏto€fully€explore€the€potential€for€expert€assistance.€€Strongððs€single€conference€withÏKen€Stallings€was€not€adequate€investigation€of€the€issue.€€Stallingsðð€credentials€asÏa€psychologist€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñwere€in€doubt,ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€he€expressed€antipathy€toward€the€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñpetitioner,ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€and€theÏpetitioner€only€met€with€him€one€time.€€Under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€whereÏthe€petitionerððs€record€reflected,€accurately€or€not,€that€he€had€been€psychotic,€itÏwas€incumbent€upon€counsel€to€fully€explore€and€develop€the€potential€for€expertÏevidence.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€considering€the€prejudicial€effect€of€this€deficiency€of€performance,Ïwe€use€the€òòGoadóó€analysis.€€In€the€first€two€factors,€we€look€at€the€nature€and€extentÐ Ð  Ðof€the€mitigating€evidence€that€was€available€and€not€presented€and€the€extent€toÏwhich€similar€mitigating€evidence€was€nevertheless€presented€to€the€jury€in€eitherÏphase€of€the€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€371.€€Clearly,€the€extent€of€theÐ p&À!$ Ðpetitionerððs€alcohol€problem€was€presented€to€the€jury.€€The€nature€of€the€problemÏmight€have€been€amplified€by€testimony€such€as€Dr.€Blairððs,€but€she€did€notÏappreciably€add€to€the€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€alcohol€problem€that€wasÏpresented€at€trial.€€At€trial,€proof€of€the€petitionerððs€dependence€on€alcohol€wasÏample€and€cogent.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€third€òòGoadóó€factor€„„€whether€there€wasÐ Ð/ +. Ðsuch€strong€evidence€of€aggravating€factors€that€the€mitigating€evidence€would€notÏhave€affected€the€juryððs€verdict€„„€weighs€heavily€in€the€petitionerððs€favor.€€€òòSeeóó€òòidóó.€Ð 3à.2 Ðâ âThe€proof€that€the€petitioner€killed€the€victim€in€order€to€avert€arrest€or€conviction€„„Ð p5À04 Ðthe€solitary€basis€for€imposing€the€death€penalty€„„€was€not€strong.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€an€aside,€weÐ ° Ðâ ânote€that€Dr.€Blairððs€proffer€does€not€contain€the€sort€of€invidious€information€that€hasÏcondemned€proposed€mitigating€proof€in€other€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòGrosclose€v.€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñStateóó,€130ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñÐ pÀ ÐF.3d€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ1161ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€(6th€Cir.€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ1997),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€„„„U.S.„„„,€118€S.€Ct.€1826€(1998);ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€òòState€v.Ð P   ÐPat€Bondurantóó,€No.€01C01„9606„CC„00236,€slip€op.€at€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ99„101€(Tenn.ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€Crim.€App.,Ð 0 € ÐNashville,€Mar.€18,€1998€),€òòTennóó.€òòCodeóó€òòAnnóó.€òòðð€39„13„206(a)(1)óó€òòappóó.€òòdocketedóóÐ `  Ð(Tenn.€1998).€€We€believe€that€the€failure€to€seek€expert€psychological€evidenceÏwas€not€prejudicial,€in€and€of€itself,€on€the€issue€of€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñsentencing.ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€€We€must,€however,Ïexamine€the€other€mitigation€claim€before€drawing€a€conclusion.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àñØ"ñœñØ"ñCounselñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñfailedñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€to€utilize€biographical€facts€which€would€haveÏpersonalized€the€non„testifying€petitioner€before€the€sentencer€and€may€haveÏrevealed€redeeming€traits€and€deeds.€€To€be€sure,€the€petitionerððs€post„convictionÏproffer,€in€showing€that€the€petitioner€had€been€a€helpful,€caring€father,€spouse,€andÏneighbor,€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñduplicatedñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñproofñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€that€was€introduced€at€trial.׃ ð ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€However,€the€trial€jury€didÐ ð@ Ðnot€hear€that€the€petitioner€was€credited€with€saving€the€lives€of€two€people.€€SuchÏevidence€should€have€had€some€impact€upon€a€jury€that€was€considering€a€deathÏpenalty.€€We€have€considered€the€fact€that€the€petitionerððs€decision€not€to€testify€atÏthe€sentencing€hearing€surprised€counsel€and€precluded€them€from€using€someÏfacts€to€which€the€petitioner€could€have€testified.€€The€petitionerððs€unexpectedÏrefusal€to€testify€would€have€hampered€counsel€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñinñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€trying€to€personalize€him€beforeÐ 0*€%( Ðthe€jury;€yet,€no€motion€for€continuance€was€made.€€Accordingly,€the€post„convictionÏevidence€showed€that€mitigation€should€have€included€available€proof€that€was€notÏotherwise€imparted€to€the€sentencer,€and€as€we€have€already€seen,€proof€of€theÏsingle€aggravating€sentencing€factor€was€not€great.€€We€conclude€that€the€failure€toÏpresent€biographical€evidence€in€mitigation€of€the€sentence€was€more€prejudicialÏthan€the€absence€of€expert€proof.€€Moreover,€these€combined€deficiencies€wereÏprejudicial€to€the€point€of€supporting€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€in€the€sentencing€phase.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ð  ÐÌò òÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À à€€€€€c.€Waiveró óÐ à ÐÓ¶ûÓà ` àà ¸ àIn€the€stateððs€final€issue,€it€argues€that€the€issues€of€prosecutorialÏmisconduct€and€certain€trial€court€errors€were€waived€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñwhen€they€were€not€objectedÏto€nor€raised€on€direct€appeal€andñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€that€waiver€may€not€be€avoided€through€theÏmechanism€of€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñineffectiveñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€assistance€of€counsel.€€Presumably,€the€state€refers€to€theÏissues€generally€treated€by€the€trial€court€in€its€findings€and€conclusions€as€follows:ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àPetitioner€also€claims€that€counsel€failed€to€object€to€improper€Ìà ` àà ¸ àcomments,€etc.,€by€the€prosecution€and€to€other€improper€actionsÌà ` àà ¸ àby€the€prosecution€and€counsel€failed€to€file€a€motion€for€a€mistrial€¼à ` àà ¸ àdue€to€improper€arguments€by€the€prosecution.€.€.€.€Counsel€did€Ìà ` àà ¸ ànot€object€to€any€of€these€comments.€Admittedly,€some€of€the€Ìà ` àà ¸ àprosecutorððs€comments€were€speculative.€€Some€may€have€evenÌà ` àà ¸ àbeen€improper.€€Standing€alone€many€of€these€comments€may€notÌà ` àà ¸ àhave€amounted€to€sufficient€prejudicial€error;€when€viewed€in€Ìà ` àà ¸ àlight€of€the€other€errors€made€by€counsel,€however,€they€do€Ìà ` àà ¸ àcontribute€to€the€overall€finding€that€the€defendant€did€not€receiveÌà ` àà ¸ àthe€effective€assistance€of€counsel€and€that€his€case€was€prejudicedÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àby€counselððs€performance.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñstateñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Overtonóó,€874€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ1994),ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€Ð à.0*- ÐñØ"ñœòòóóñØ"ñañØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€post„conviction€case,€in€which€our€supreme€court€reviewed€claims€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€In€one€of€those€claims,€trial€counsel€had€failed€to€objectÏwhen€the€trial€court€had€used€inappropriate€jury€instructions€on€the€issue€of€force€inÏthe€commission€of€aggravated€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñrape.€€òòIdóó.€at€11.€€ñØ"ñ›œñØ"ñTheñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€supreme€court€found€that€theÐ `6°15 Ðerror€ð ðcould€haveðð€been€prejudicial€to€the€petitioner€and€ð ðmay€well€have€beenÏreversible€errorðð€had€it€been€objected€to€and€raised€on€appeal.€€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñòòIdóó.ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€€Nevertheless,Ð à Ðthe€supreme€court€held€that€the€claim€ð ðis€not€a€cognizable€ground€for€relief€in€a€post„¼conviction€petitionðð€because€it€does€not€implicate€a€constitutional€issue€as€isÏnecessary€in€a€post„conviction€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñcase.€ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€òòIdóó.€at€12.€€ð ðMoreover,ðð€the€high€court€said,€ð ðtoÐ 0 € Ðallow€every€error€committed€in€the€trial€court€to€be€recast€in€a€post„conviction€petitionÏas€an€€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€allegation€would€be€to€subvert€the€limitedÏpurposes€of€the€post„conviction€procedure.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€decline€to€apply€òòOvertonóó€to€hold€that€the€petitioner€has€waived€the€Ð à Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim€based€upon€the€failure€to€object€to€theÏalleged€prosecutorial€€misconduct.€The€underlying€trial€court€error€in€òòOvertonóó€wasÐ P  Ðdeemed€not€cognizable€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding,€presumably,€because€it€didÏnot€present€a€constitutional€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105Ð ` Ð(1991)(repealed€1995).€€However,€this€court€has€said,€ð ðProsecutorial€misconductÏqualifies€as€a€constitutional€basis€for€relief.ðð€€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€357,€366Ð Ð  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñFurthermore,€òòOvertonóó€does€not€account€forñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€ineffectiveÐ °"  Ðassistance€of€counsel€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñitselfñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñasñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€ñØ"ñœñØ"ña€constitutionalñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñissue.€€òòSeeóóñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€atÐ $à" Ð686,€104€S.€Ct.€at€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ2061„62.€€TheñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€constitutional€quality€of€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€is€not€always€dependent€upon€the€underlying€act€or€omission€beingÏconstitutionally€flavored.€For€instance,òò€óóthe€Supreme€Court€made€it€clear€that,€inÐ 0*€%( Ðcertain€circumstances,€the€failure€to€investigate€a€case€may€result€in€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€691,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066;€yet,€the€stateÐ ð-@), Ðand€federal€constitutions€contain€no€right€to€investigation€apart€from€the€right„to„¼counsel€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñprovisions.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€U.S.€Const.€Amend.€V;€Tenn.€Const.€Art.€I,€ðð€9.€Ð °1-0 ÐItñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€may€be€true€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñthat,ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€in€the€present€case€had€counsel€raised€the€misconduct€issuesÏon€direct€appeal,€the€appellate€courts€may€have€reviewed€the€merits€of€the€claimÏeven€in€the€absence€of€contemporaneous€objections€or€motions€for€mistrial.€òòSee,Ð P7 26 Ðe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€563€S.W.2d€564,€567€(Tenn.€1978)€(when€prosecutorððsÐ 09€48 Ðremarks€unnecessarily€raised€racial€issues,€the€defense€made€no€objection,€and€theÏtrial€court€should€have€intervened€òòsua€œsponte,ñã"ñ€ñã"ñ›œñä"ñ€ñä"ññä"ñ›ñä"ñóóñã"ñ€ñã"ñappellate›€court€reviewed€theÐ à Ðprosecutorial€misconduct€issue€on€the€merits).€€Nevertheless,€we€are€reluctant€toÏapply€the€òòOvertonóó€language€to€preclude€review€òòviaóó€waiver.€Ð P   ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àEven€though€the€state€makes€no€claim€on€the€prosecutorialÏmisconduct„ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€issue€other€than€waiver,€we€feelÏconstrained€to€review€the€issue€in€light€of€the€entanglement€of€this€issue€in€the€post„¼conviction€courtððs€overall€findings€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€The€reviewÏfirst€entails€a€determination€of€whether€prosecutorial€misconduct€occurred.€€òòState€v.Ð à ÐPulliamóó,€950€S.W.2d€360,€367€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€òòpermóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedòòóó€óó(Tenn.Ð pÀ Ð1997).€€That€determination€initially€requires€a€decision€about€whether€the€challengedÏconduct€is€improper.€€òòIdóó.€Although€trial€courts€have€discretionary€authority€to€controlÐ 0€ Ðthe€argument€of€counsel€and€counsel€has€wide€latitude€to€argue€the€facts€andÏreasonable€inferences€therefrom,€ð ð[c]losing€arguments€must€be€temperate,€must€beÏbased€upon€evidence€introduced€at€trial,€and€must€be€relevant€to€the€issues€at€trial.ððÐ Ð  ÐòòCokeróó,€911€S.W.2d€at€368.€€Most€of€the€restrictions€fall€upon€the€prosecutor,€who€is€Ð °"  Ðthe€representative€of€the€state€and€whose€duty€it€is€not€only€to€seek€convictions€butÏalso€to€achieve€justice€through€proceeding€fairly.€€òòIdóó.;€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€195€Tenn.Ð p&À!$ Ð94,€257€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€1953).€€The€prosecutorððs€argument€should€not€beÏcalculated€to€inflame€the€jury.€€òòCokeróó,€911€S.W.2d€at€368.Ð 0*€%( ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àOnce€prosecutorial€conduct€is€deemed€improper,€the€appellate€courtððsÏtask€is€to€determine€ð ðwhether€the€impropriety€affected€the€verdict.ðð€€òòPulliamóó,€950Ð Ð/ +. ÐS.W.2d€at€367.€€Prejudice€is€assessed€through€analyzing€the€misconduct€in€light€ofÏthe€factors€set€forth€in€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 3à.2 Ð1976):€(1)€the€misconduct€viewed€in€context€and€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€theÏcase;€(2)€any€curative€measures€taken€by€the€court€or€the€prosecutor;€(3)€the€intentÏof€the€prosecutor;€(4)€the€cumulative€effect€of€the€misconduct€in€view€of€theÐ 09€48 Ðconsequence€of€any€other€errors€in€the€trial;€and€(5)€the€ð ðrelative€strength€orÏweakness€of€the€case.ðð€òòJudgeóó,€539€S.W.2d€at€344.€Ð à ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à€If€misconduct€is€found€but€no€objection€was€made,€€the€next€layer€ofÏreview€in€the€post„conviction€context€is€to€determine€whether€the€failure€to€raise€orÏpreserve€the€substantive€issue€amounts€to€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòCokeróó,Ð `  Ð911€S.W.2d€at€371.€€€As€we€have€shown€above,€ineffective€assistance€requires€theÏpresence€of€both€the€elements€of€deficient€performance€and€prejudice.€€òòStricklandóó,Ð Ð  Ð466€U.S.€at€693,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2067.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à€€At€the€outset,€we€cannot€review€the€post„conviction€courtððs€actionsÏon€these€issues€with€the€deference€customary€in€post„conviction€appeals€becauseÏthe€lower€court€has€not€specified€which€of€the€prosecutorððs€actions€wereÏð ðspeculativeðð€or€which,€if€any,€were€ð ðimproper.ðð€€Moreover,€the€post„conviction€judgeÏdid€not€preside€over€the€trial,€and€his€review€of€alleged€misconduct€was€undertakenÏin€the€same€way€as€is€ours„„through€review€of€the€trial€transcript.€€Nevertheless,€theÏlower€court€apparently€found€that€some€of€the€objectionless€misconduct€resulted€inÏprejudicial€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€we€review€the€cited€actions€in€orderÏto€determine€if€any€of€them€provide€a€basis€in€the€record€to€support€the€lower€courtððsÏgeneral€finding€of€ineffective€assistance.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€trial€court€referenced€various€paragraphs€of€the€amended€post„¼conviction€petition€which€contained€allegations€of€such€misconduct;€however,€amongÏthese€allegations€only€the€ones€following€actually€specified€prosecutorial€actions:ÌÒ` ÒÒ°Ò1.€€In€closing€argument€during€the€guilt€phase,€the€prosecutor€madeÏreferences€to:Ìà ¸ àa.€€the€victimððs€good€character;Ìà ¸ àb.€€the€petitionerððs€decision€not€to€testify;Ìà ¸ àc.€€the€petitionerððs€alleged€possession€of€a€firearm€or€ð ðdopeðð€Ð 09€48 Ðà Ž àwhenñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€confronted€by€investigating€officers€after€the€murder;Ìà ¸ àd.€€the€petitioner€having€stolen€the€weapon€that€was€used€to€killÏñØ"ñœñØ"ñà ¸ àtheñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€victim;Ìà ¸ àe.€€the€dedication€of€the€investigating€police€officers€as€a€factor€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ¼à ¸ àjustifyingñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€a€guilty€verdict;€andÌà ¸ àf.€€the€duty€of€the€jury€to€convict€the€defendant,€in€keeping€with€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ¼à ¸ àtheñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€duties€carried€out€by€the€police.ÌñØ"ñœñØ"ñ2.ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€€In€closing€argument€during€the€penalty€phase,€the€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñà  àprosecutorñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñÐ Ð  Ðmade€references€to:Ìà ¸ àa.€€the€responsibility€for€the€penalty€decision€rested€elsewhere€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ¼à ¸ àthanñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€with€the€jury;Ìà ¸ àb.€€the€trial€being€necessitated€by€the€breakdown€of€plea€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ¼à ¸ ànegotiations;ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñÌà ¸ àc.€€a€life€sentence€requiring€that€mitigating€factors€outweighed€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ¼à ¸ àaggravatingñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€factors;€andÌà ¸ àd.€€the€jury€placing€weight€on€the€good€character€of€the€victim€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ¼à ¸ àandñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€the€grief€and€loss€experienced€by€her€family.ÌÒ` ÒÒ°ÒDefense€counsel€objected€to€none€of€these€comments€by€the€prosecutor.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àLooking€first€to€the€prosecutorððs€guilt„phase€final€argument,€we€findÏthat,€with€two€exceptions,€all€of€the€cited€comments€were€sufficiently€grounded€inÏrelevance€to€some€material€issue€or€were€within€the€prosecutorððs€prerogative€of€fairÏcomment€and€were€not€improper.€€The€exceptions€are€(1)€the€comment€that€theÏpetitioner€ð ðsteals€his€gunsðð€and€(2)€the€spate€of€comments€that€affirmed€the€meritsÏand€lifestyle€of€the€victim.€€We€judge€the€first€comment,€although€improper,€to€be€soÏbanal€under€the€first€òòJudgeóó€factor€as€to€be€utterly€lacking€in€impact.€Ð 3à.2 ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àñØ"ñœñØ"ñThe€guilt„phaseñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€comments€concerning€the€worth€of€the€victimððs€life€areÏmore€troublesome.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Zirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€874,€888€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 09€48 Ð1995)€(prosecutorial€commentary€ð ðregarding€the€personal€characteristics€of€theÏvictim€in€a€murder€case€is€generally€irrelevant€and€designed€to€evoke€jurorÏsympathyðð).€The€comments€were€illustrative€of€information€the€jury€had€received€andÏwere€generally€based€in€the€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñevidence.€ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€Moreover,€the€comments€praising€the€victimÏwere€logical€€responses€to€the€petitionerððs€final€argument€which€stressed€the€victimððsÏð ðdarker€side.ðð€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ€ThereñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€were€no€curative€measures€specifically€addressed€to€theÏprosecutorððs€comments€about€the€victim,€but€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€as€toÏthe€nature€of€argument,€the€difference€between€argument€and€evidence,€and€thatÏthe€jury€must€decide€the€case€based€ð ðsolely€and€alone€upon€the€evidence€.€.€.€andÏnot€from€any€other€source€nor€upon€speculation€or€conjecture€.€.€.and€the€law€asÏgiven€you€by€the€court.ðð€€The€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€on€the€burden€of€proofÏcarried€by€the€state€and€cautioned€them€to€undertake€their€deliberations€with€ð ðnoÏsympathy€and€no€prejudice.ðð€€The€prosecutor€was€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñblameworthyñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€in€that€his€likelyÏintent€was€to€portray€a€ð ðgood€and€evilðð€contrast€between€the€victim€and€theÏpetitioner.€In€light€of€the€other€errors€and€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñthe€relativeñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€strength€or€weakness€of€theÏstateððs€case,€the€misconduct€may€have€had€some€effect;€however,€uponÏassessment€of€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñall€theñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñfactors,ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€we€fail€to€see€that€any€prejudice€rose€to€the€level€ofÏdenying€the€petitioner€a€fair€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòZirkleóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€888.€Ð $à" ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à€Having€reached€that€determination,€we€conclude€that€trial€counselÏdeficiently€represented€the€petitioner€when€they€failed€to€object€to€these€commentsÏthat€we€have€deemed€improper.€However,€because€there€was€no€substantiveÏprejudice€resulting€from€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñtheñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€prosecutorððs€comments,€the€prejudice€element€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€not€shown.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à€Next,€we€look€at€the€comments€the€prosecutor€made€during€hisÏpenalty„phase€final€argument.€We€find€that,€in€context,€none€of€these€commentsÏwere€improper.€€ÌÐ 09€48 Ðà ` àà ¸ àWe€elaborate€only€on€one€of€the€issues.€The€prosecutor€argued€thatÏthe€jury€should€not€ð ðlet€anybody€come€up€here€and€tell€ñØ"ñœñØ"ññØ"ñœñØ"ñyou€youñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ñ›ñØ"ñ€are€an€executionerððÏand€that,€based€upon€the€status€of€our€capital€crime€law,€ð ð[i]f€the€jury€unanimouslyÏdetermines€that€at€least€one.€.€.€or€several€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñstatutoryñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€aggravating€circumstances€haveÏbeen€proved€by€the€State€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€[they]€are€notÏoutweighed€by€any€mitigating€circumstances,€the€sentence€shall€be€death.€€TakeÏnothing€upon€you€other€than€that.ðð€€€The€petitioner€claimed€below€that€this€argumentÏviolated€the€principles€established€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòCaldwell€v.€Mississippióó,Ð Ð  Ð472€U.S.€320,€105€S.€Ct.€2633€(1985).€€In€òòCaldwellóó,€the€prosecutor€argued€that€theÐ ° Ðjuryððs€decision€to€impose€the€death€penalty€€ð ðis€not€the€final€decision.€.€.€.€€Your€jobÏis€reviewable.€.€.€.€The€decision€you€render€is€automatically€reviewable€by€theÏSupreme€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñCourt.ðð€ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€òòCaldwellóó,€472€U.S.€at€325„26,€105€S.€Ct.€at€2637„38.€The€HighÐ P  ÐCourt€held€that€ð ðit€is€constitutionally€impermissible€to€rest€a€death€sentence€on€aÏdetermination€made€by€a€sentencer€who€has€been€led€to€believe€that€theÏresponsibility€for€determining€the€appropriateness€of€the€defendantððs€death€restsÏelsewhere.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€328„29,€105€S.€Ct.€at€2639.€€We€do€not€believe€that€òòCaldwellóóÐ Ð  Ðapplies€to€the€comments€in€the€present€case.€Here,€the€prosecutor€communicatedÏto€the€jury€that€they€functioned€under€the€law€of€the€state€in€discharging€theirÏprescribed€duties€and€that€a€responsible€decision€to€impose€the€death€penalty€didÏnot€cast€them€in€the€role€of€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñexecutioner.€ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€These€remarks€do€not€suggest€to€the€juryÏthat€their€decision€to€impose€the€death€penalty€would€be€temporary,€tentative,€orÏconditional,€depending€upon€the€review€of€higher€courts.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893Ð ,`'* ÐS.W.2d€908,€923€(Tenn.€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñ1994)ñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñœñØ"ñ.€òòButñØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€seeóó€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€563€S.W.2d€564,€568„89Ð ð-@), Ð(Tenn.€1978).ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àTo€summarize,€we€conclude€that€trial€counselððs€failure€to€object€to€theÏlisted€allegations€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€did€not€result€in€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€which€prejudiced€the€petitioner€in€either€phase€of€his€trial.€ÌÐ 09€48 ÐÓ  Óà @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àà @À àò òConclusion.ó óÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà ` àà ¸ àThe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€post„convictionÏcourtððs€ñØ"ñœñØ"ññÐ"ññÏ"ñgiñÏ"ññÐ"ññÑ"ñfindingsñÑ"ññØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€that€prejudicial€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€occurred€(1)€whenÏcounsel€failed€to€explore€or€utilize€the€information€held€by€Jane€McDonald€and€JeffÏBowen€and€(2)€when€they€did€not€use€readily€available€sources€of€impeachment€toÏimpeach€the€testimony€of€Donna€Lawson.€€Accordingly,€based€upon€these€grounds,Ïthe€record€supports€the€grant€of€a€new€trial.€Also,€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€post„conviction€courtððs€ñØ"ñœñØ"ññÒ"ñdecisionñÒ"ññÓ"ñfindingsñÓ"ññØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñ€that€prejudicial€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€occurred€in€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€when€counselÏfailed€to€investigate€or€present€both€expert€and€additional€lay€mitigation€evidence.€ÏThus,€apart€from€the€new€trial€which€has€now€been€granted,€the€record€supports€theÏlower€courtððs€grant€of€what€otherwise€would€have€been€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€ÏñØ"ñœñØ"ññÔ"ñAll€other€issues€are€resolved€in€favor€of€the€state.ñÔ"ññØ"ñ›ñØ"ñÌñØ"ñœñØ"ññÕ"ñÌñÕ"ññØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñà ` àà ¸ àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€ñØ"ñœñØ"ñJñÖ"ñudgeñÖ"ññ×"ñUDGEñ×"ññØ"ñ›ñØ"ññØ"ññØ"ñÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ______________________________ÌNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àÌà ` àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àÌÌà ` àà ¸ àÐ  :p59 Їà ` àà ¸ àÌ