ÿWPCô# …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ{ 4ƒ — w@¦ 0 æ 0Dð 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0|  0†† 0  Bœ 1u¹ 0d.U>’U*Ð D3úB)-DCV 0@™ AMÙ¦&fÌy2S«v~þvÓ| AOO"Æž" 0Dd# D/¨# B×#˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÔ¡¨ 3|xP :D;D<=BDCUDDEDFGÓ€(º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€)ÔÔ€)ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€)XÔÌÌMayÏ30,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ oÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€)ÔÓÓIt€is€unclear€from€the€record€whether€the€petitioner€filed€a€new€motion€for€reconsiderationÏafter€Judge€Russell€was€appointed€or€whether€Judge€Russell€was€acting€on€the€motion€taken€underÏadvisement€by€Judge€Perry.€€All€that€is€in€the€record€is€Dr.€Blair's€affidavit.Ì IÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€(ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ôÔÔ€)ÔÓÓWe€make€no€findings€as€to€whether€the€òòSmithóó€holding€on€the€presumed€illegality€of€aÏsubsequent€confession€following€an€initial€illegal€confession€is€a€new€constitutional€law€to€be€appliedÏretrospectively,€as€that€determination€is€not€necessary€to€resolve€this€issue.€€"[C]ourts›€do€not€decideÏconstitutional€questions€unless€resolution€is€absolutely€necessary€for€determination€of€the€case€andÏthe€rights€of€the€parties."€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995).€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€(ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÑ7€†HXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€)ÔÙ€€ÙßR€./,A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóÌà@ àMAY€1996€SESSIONÌÌGREGORY€THOMPSON,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€01C01„9506„CC„00180€Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà à*à àCOFFEE€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€William€S.€Russell,€JudgeÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Post„Conviction,€Death€Penalty)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà à*ÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓRobert€J.€Warnerà àà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonà àà àà àà àBoult,€Cummings,€Conners,€&€Berryà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€Reporterà àà àÌ414€Union€Street,€Ste.€1600à àà àÌP.O.€Box€198062à àà àà àà àKimberly€A.€ChanceÌNashville,€TN€€37219à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌJoseph€E.€Fordà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àà àÌMcBee€&€FordÌ17€S.€College€Streetà àà àà àC.€Michael€Layneà àà àà àà àÌWinchester,€TN€€37398à àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à307€S.€WoodlandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€147Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€TN€€37355ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àStephen€WeitzmanÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€œDistrict€Attorney›€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à307€S.€WoodlandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€147Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€TN€€37355Ìà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌœÌGARY›€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓò òòòÓ  ÓOPINIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner,€Gregory€Thompson,€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€ofÏpost„conviction€relief.€The€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder.€€The€juryÏsentenced€the€petitioner€to€death€based€upon€three€aggravating€circumstances:€€(1)€Ïthat€the€murder€was€heinous,€atrocious€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€orÏdepravity€of€mind;€(2)€€that€the€œmurder€was›€committed€œto›€avoid€prosecution;€and€(3)€Ïthat€the€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€committing€a€robbery€orÏkidnapping.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(i)(5),€(6),€and€(7)€(repealed€1989).€€OurÏsupreme€court€affirmed€the€œconviction›€and€sentence€on€February€27,€1989.€€òòState€v.ÏThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989).€€In€1990,€the€petitioner€filed€this€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief.€€œAt€the€conclusion€of›€an€evidentiary€œhearing€several€yearsÏlater,›€the€trial€court€denied€œthe›€claim.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€petitioner€presents€the€following€issues€forÏour€review:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€by€findingÏthat€the€petitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel;ÌÌ(2)€€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€by€denyingÏfunding€for€a€psychologist€or€psychiatrist€€and€anÏinvestigator;ÌÌ(3)€€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€by€refusingÏto€set€aside€the€order€designating€Judge€William€RussellÏto€hear€this€case€and€in€refusing€to€reinstate€JudgeÏBuddy€D.€Perry;ÌÌ(4)€€whether€erroneous€jury€instructions€definingÏdeliberation€and€premeditation€require€reversal;ÌÌœ(5)€›€whether€the€jury€instructions€on€the€"heinous,Ïatrocious€or€cruel"€aggravating€circumstance€œwere›Ïunconstitutionally€vague;ÌÌ(6)€œ€whether›€the€petitioner's€confession€was€unlawfullyÏobtained€and€illegally€admitted€at€his€trial;€ÌÌœ(7)€›€whether€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€instruct€the€juryÏon€the€effect€of€non„unanimity€and€the€option€toÏrecommend€life€imprisonment€violated€the€petitioner'sÏrights€under€the€œEighth›€and€œFourteenth›€œAmendments;›ÌÌœ(8)€›€whether€the€trial€court's€allowing€Dr.€Watson€to€testifyÏand€œintroduce›€œpsychiatric/psychological›€reports€throughÏhis€testimony€was€an€unconstitutional€denial€ofÏpetitioner's€rights;ÌÌœ(9)€›€whether€the€petitioner€was€denied€his€constitutionalÏright€to€a€trial€by€jury€by€the€exclusion€of€two€prospectiveÏjurors;€andÌÌ(10)€€whether€the€petitioner's€constitutional€rights€wereÏviolated€by€implicit€references€to€his€failure€to€œtestify.Ì›ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àWe€find€no€merit€in€the€first€four€issues.€€We€conclude€that€issues€five,Ïsix,€seven,€and€eight€were€previously€determined€by€our€supreme€court€on€directÍappeal€and€that€issues€nine€and€ten€are€waived.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àA€brief€review€of€the€convicting€evidence€is€helpful.€€On€January€1,Ï1985,€the€petitioner€and€œJoanne›€McNamara,€a€juvenile,€kidnapped€the€victim,ÏBrenda€Lane,€in€a€Wal„Mart€parking€lot€in€Shelbyville,€Tennessee.€€He€forced€theÏvictim€to€drive€them€to€an€isolated€area€outside€Manchester,€Tennessee,€where,€heÏstabbed€her€four€times€in€the€back€and€then€abandoned€her.€€After€his€arrest,€theÏpetitioner€confessed€to€the€crime€and€assisted€authorities€in€locating€the€body.€€HisÏconfession€was€introduced€as€evidence€during€the€trial.€€€€Ò ä ÒÒ  ÒÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X Ò€€à àà àAt€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial,€several€witnesses€testified€on€behalfÏof€the€petitioner.€€He€was€described€as€a€well„behaved,€good€student€prior€toÏleaving€home€in€1979.€€The€defendant's€girlfriend,€Arlene€Cajulao,€testified€aboutÏhis€life€after€he€left€home,€when€he€was€in€the€military€service€and€stationed€inÏHawaii.€€Dr.€George€Copple,€a€clinical€psychologist,€testified€about€the€generalÏabilities€of€the€petitioner€and€what€kinds€of€work€he€could€perform€during€hisÏimprisonment.€€Dr.€Robert€Watson€testified€œthat›€the€petitioner€exhibited€anti„socialÏadult€behavior,€was€not€remorseful,€and€malingered€mental€illness.€€A€moreÏcomplete€account€of€the€evidence€appears€in€œòòThompsonóó,›€768€S.W.2d€at€243.€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner€first€argues€that€his€œtwo€trial›€œattorneys›€performed€œtheirÏduties€ineffectively.›€€œIn€this€appeal,€the›€œstate›€contends€that€this€ground€for€relief€is€Ïbarred€as€having€been€previously€determined.€€During€the€course€of€the€evidentiaryÏhearing,€œhowever,€the›€petitioner€was€allowed€to€introduce€proof€that€his€trialÏcounsel€was€œineffective;€at€that€time,€the›€state€did€not€assert€œthe›€defense€of€previousÏdetermination,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112€(repealed€1995),€and€made€noÏobjections€to€the€admission€of€the€testimony.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€direct€appeal€from€the€conviction€and€sentence,€the€petitionerÏmade€two€separate€claims€regarding€his€trial€counsel:€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIssue€I:€€The€constitutional€rights€of€the€defendant,Ïpursuant€to€Article€I,€Sections€8€and€9€of€the€DeclarationÏof€œRights,›€Tennessee€Constitution,€and€under€the€œFifth,›ÏSixth,€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€of€the€United€States€ÏConstitution€were€denied€defendant€by€virtue€of€theÏappointments€of€attorneys€John€W.€Rollins€and€H.ÏThomas€Parsons,€when€they€were€disqualified€to€act€asÏcounsel€due€to€œtheir›€respective€representations€of€CoffeeÏCounty€and€Sheriff€Bobby€McCullough,€sheriff€of€CoffeeÏCounty.ÌÌÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÓÓÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒIssue€II:€€The€rights€of€the€defendant,€Gregory€Thompson,€toÏcompetent€counsel€pursuant€to€Article€I,€Sections€8€and€9€of€theÏDeclaration€of€Rights€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€under€theÏFifth,€Sixth,€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€were€denied€him€by€the€failure€of€the€court€to€appointÍcounsel€experienced€in€both€criminal€litigation€and€death€litigation,Ïneither€Doyle€E.€Richardson€nor€H.€Thomas€Parsons€having€everÏparticipated€in€a€death€penalty€œcase.Ì›ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àIn€resolving€œthe›€first€claim,€our€supreme€court€ruled€as€follows:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àPlainly,€an€accused€is€entitled€to€zealousÏrepresentation€by€an€attorney€unfettered€by€a€conflictingÏinterest.€€To€establish€a€denial€of€the€sixth€amendmentÏright€to€counsel,€it€is€sufficient€to€show€that€an€actualÏconflict€existed.€€If€an€attorney€actively€representsÏconflicting€interests,€no€analysis€of€prejudice€isÏnecessary;€it€is€presumed€that€his€divided€interestsÏadversely€affected€his€representation.€€But€as€counselÏconceded,€the€conflict€claimed€here€was€only€a€potentialÏone€and€quite€remote;€and€it€was€resolved€before€trial.€ÏWithout€a€showing€of€prejudice„„and€an€attorney's€goodÏfaith€assertion€of€his€disqualification€is€not€in€itselfÏineffective€representation„„there€is€no€denial€of€œcounsel.Ì›ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓœòòThompsonóó,›€768€S.W.2d€at€245€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà àà àAs€to€the€second€issue,€our€supreme€court€ruled€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ l ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àNeither€is€any€prejudice€apparent€in€this€recordÏfrom€counsel's€lack€of€experience€in€capital€cases€or€fromÏco„counsel€Rollins'€non„participation€or€from€inadequateÏcompensation€to€Defendant's€court„appointed€attorneys.€ÏWhile€it€is€understandable€that€counsel€would€second„guess€their€decisions€in€a€case€such€as€this,€òòthese€andÏrelated€questions€are€more€appropriately€raised€by€otherÏcounsel€when€the€present€attorneys€are€relieved€of€theirÏadvocacy€œrole.óóÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòThompsonóó,›€768€S.W.2d€at€245€(footnote€omitted)€(emphasis€added).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€argues€that€our€supreme€court€has€already€determined€theÏœpetitioner€received›€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€"A€ground€for€relief€isÏ'previously€determined'€if€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€meritsÏafter€a€full€and€fair€hearing."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)(1)€(repealed€1995).€ÏIneffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€generally€œ"'a›€single€ground€for€œrelief'"›€under€theÏpost„conviction€statute.€€òòCone€v.€Stateóó,€927€S.W.2d€579,€œ581„82›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€_____€U.S.€_____,€117€S.Ct.€309Ï(1996).€€œ"'[T]he›€fact€that€such€violation€may€be€proved€by€multiple€acts€or€omissionsÏdoes€not€change€the€fact€that€there€remains€only€one€ground€for€œrelief.'"›€€òòFrankÏMcCray€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9108„CR„00255,€slip€op.€at€œ10›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏNashville,€Sept.€11,€œ1992)€(quoting€òòWilliam€Edward€Blake€v.€Stateóó,€No.€1326,€slipÏop.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€March€19,€1991)).€€A›€petitioner€may€notÏrelitigate€previously€determined€grounds€for€relief€by€presenting€additional€factualÏallegations.€€òòConeóó,€927€S.W.2d€at€581„82.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€our€supreme€court€clearly€ruled€on€the€first€issue,€holding€that€aÏconflict€of€interest€did€not€deprive€the€petitioner€of€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€òòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€245.€€While€observing€that€the€conflict€issueÍwas€"thoroughly€litigated€in€the€trial€court,"€œour›€supreme€court€pretermittedÏconsideration€of€the€additional€factual€allegations€in€support€of€the€œclaim›€ofÏineffective€assistance.€€œòòId.ó󛀀The€court€ruled€that€"these€and€related€questions€areÏmore€appropriately€raised€by€other€counsel€when€the€present€attorneys€areÏrelieved€of€their€advocacy€role."€€œòòId.ó󛀀ÌÌà àà àIt€is€true€that€ineffective€assistance€is€a€single€ground€for€relief€and€aÏpetitioner€may€not€relitigate€the€issue€by€presenting€new€and€different€factualÏallegations€in€a€subsequent€proceeding.€€œIn€this€instance,›€however,€our€supremeÏcourt€has€deliberately€abstained€from€ruling€on€whether€some€of€the€factualÏallegations€entitle€the€petitioner€to€œrelief.€€Thus,›€those€œadditional›€allegations€shouldÏnot€be€considered€as€previously€determined.€€Except€for€the€allegation€that€hisÏcounsel€was€ineffective€for€laboring€under€a€direct€conflict€of€œinterest,€we€mustÏconclude€that€the›€issue€has€not€been€previously€determined.€€ÌÌà àà àœNevertheless,›€raising€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€on€directÏappeal€is€a€"practice€fraught€with€peril."€€òòState€v.€Jimmy€L.€Sluderóó,€No.€1236,€slip€op.Ïat€16€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Mar.€14,€1990).€€In€œòòSluderóó,›€our€court,€in€orderÏ"to€prevent€the€appellant€from€being€prejudiced€due€to€counsel's€ill„advised€attemptÏto€raise€this€issue,€[held]€that€the€appellant€may€raise€this€issue€in€a€proceedingÍbrought€pursuant€to€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act."€€œòòId.óó€(footnote€omitted).›€€AnÏappellant€runs€the€risk€of€having€the€issue€œresolved›€"without€an€evidentiary€hearingÏwhich,€if€held,€might€be€the€only€way€that€harm€could€be€shown„„a€prerequisite€forÏrelief€in€ineffective€trial€counsel€claims."€€€òòJimmy€Wayne€Wilson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€909,Ïslip€op.€at€10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€May€29,€1991).€€The€supreme€court'sÏrecognition€of€these€risks€may€have€been€the€basis€for€their€refusal€to€consider€theÏfull€issue.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€argues€œthat€his›€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€theÏfollowing€reasons:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(a)€€by€failing€to€object€to€hearsay€testimony€at€theÏhearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€the€confession;€ÌÌ(b)€€by€failing€to€interview€witnesses€who€could€haveÏbeen€beneficial€to€the€œpetitioner's›€case,€especially€at€theÏpenalty€phase;€ÌÌ(c)€€by€failing€to€adequately€investigate€prior€headÏinjuries€to€the€petitioner;€ÌÌ(d)€€by€failing€to€adequately€prepare€for€cross„examination€of€the€state's€witnesses;€ÌÌ(e)€€by€failing€to€prepare€and€present€defense€witnesses;€ÌÌ(f)€€by€"opening€the€door"€to€damaging€evidence€duringÏthe€penalty€phase€of€the€trial;ÌÌ(g)€€by€waiving€during€the€penalty€phase€the€right€toÏconfront€the€state's€expert€œwitness›€when€a€depositionÏwas€used€in€substitution€of€the€appearance€of€a€witness;ÌÌ(h)€by€failing€to€question€the€assistant€district€attorney€atÏthe€motion€for€new€trial€about€possible€œracist›€remarks,Ïwhich€would€have€been€useful€in€establishing€a€òòBatsonóóÏviolation;€and€ÌÌ(i)€€by€failing€to€object€to€comments€by€the€state€upon€hisÏfailure€to€testify.à àà àœÌ›ÌÓÓÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÌà àà àWhen€a€petitioner€seeks€post„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€must€first€establish€that€the€services€renderedÏor€the€advise€given€was€below€"the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases."€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Second,€heÏmust€show€that€the€deficiencies€"actually€had€an€adverse€effect€on€the€defense."€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€693€(1984).€€Should€the€petitioner€fail€toÏestablish€either€factor,€he€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€Recently,€our€supreme€courtÏdescribed€the€standard€of€review€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœà àBecause›€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongsÏof€the€test,€a€failure€to€prove€either€deficiency€orÏprejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€theÏineffective€assistance€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€need€notÏaddress€the€components€in€any€particular€order€or€evenÏaddress€both€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficientÏshowing€of€one€component.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒòòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€œ1996).Ì›ÌÓÓÌà àà àMoreover,€in€claims€of€ineffective€counsel,€the€petitioner€is€not€entitledÏto€the€benefit€of€hindsight,€may€not€second„guess€a€reasonably€based€trial€œstrategy,›Ïand€cannot€criticize€a€sound,€but€unsuccessful,€tactical€decision€made€during€theÏcourse€of€the€proceedings.€€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994);€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€627€S.W.2d€139,€œ142„43›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€Ñ€0ÑÇSuch€deference€to€tactical€decisions€of€counsel€applies€only€if€the€choices€areÏmade€after€adequate€preparation€for€the€case.€€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,Ï528€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àà àFinally,€on€appeal,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€areÏconclusive€and€will€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€them.€€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€756€S.W.2d€288,€289€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1988).€€The€burden€is€on€the€petitioner€to€show€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1978).Ìà àà àÌÓ  Ó(a)ÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner€argues€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€toÏhearsay€testimony€œat›€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€the€petitioner'sÏconfession.€€€On€direct€appeal,€our€supreme€court€summarized€the€factsÏsurrounding€the€defendant's€confession:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThompson€was€arrested€on€January€2€in€Marietta,ÏGeorgia,€and€transported€to€the€local€police€department.€ÏHe€was€advised€of€his€rights,€and€made€an€initialÏadmission€to€an€agent€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation€that€he€had€been€in€Shelbyville€and€boughtÏthe€vehicle€found€on€fire.ÌÌà àIt€is€undisputed€that€Defendant€then€invoked€hisÏright€to€counsel€and€all€questioning€ceased.€€T.B.I.ÏOfficer€œEubank[s]›€then€consulted€with€a€local€detectiveÏabout€securing€counsel,€and€Detective€Parker€called,€inÏturn,€a€judge€and€District€Attorney€General€Tom€Charron.€ÏGeneral€Charron€came€to€the€department€andÏintroduced€himself€to€œDefendant›€at€11:30€p.m.€ÏAccording€to€his€testimony,€he€understood€thatÏThompson€had€asked€to€see€him.€€He€identified€himselfÏas€a€prosecutor€and€repeatedly€advised€Defendant€ofÏhis€right€not€to€speak.€€He€explained€that€counsel€wouldÏbe€appointed€at€arraignment€at€eight€o'clock€in€theÏmorning.ÌÌœà à...›€€At€1:15€a.m.,€as€he€admitted€in€the€hearing,ÏThompson€asked€to€speak€to€this€attorney€again.€ÏAttorney€General€Charron€re„entered€the€room,Ïidentified€himself€again,€but€did€not€give€new€"Miranda"Ïwarnings.€€Thompson€then,€and€later,€confessed€to€theÏkidnapping„stabbing€and€drew€a€map€to€the€scene.€€HisÏstatements,€the€map,€and€resulting€evidence€wereÏintroduced€at€œtrial.Ì›ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓœòòThompsonóó,›€768€S.W.2d€at€247.ÌÌà àà àAs€stated€in€the€petitioner's€brief,€"[t]he€basi[c]€issue€at€the€hearingÏwas€whether€[he]€had€reinstituted€talking€to€the€authorities€after€having€requestedÏan€attorney."€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€T.B.I.€Agent€Jerry€Eubanks€testified€asÏfollows:€€"I€remember€Detective€Graham€coming€out€of€the€interview€room€andÏtelling€the€Attorney€General€that€Gregory€Thompson€wanted€to€talk€with€œhim."€€òòSeeóóÍòòState€v.€Crumpóó,€834€S.W.2d€265,€268„69€(Tenn.€1992).›€€The€petitioner€specificallyÏargues€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€the€admission€of€thisÏhearsay€evidence.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€any€prejudiceÏfrom€the€failure€to€object€to€the€hearsay.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370.€€Our€reviewÏof€the€transcript€establishes€œthat€the›€petitioner€actually€admitted€œduring›€theÏsuppression€hearing€that€he€wanted€to€talk€to€the€District€Attorney€again.€€WhenÏasked€on€cross„examination,€"Finally,€you€told€that€Detective€Graham€...€that€youÏwanted€to€see€that€lawyer€€[the€District€Attorney]€again,"€the€petitioner€respondedÏaffirmatively.€€Also,€the€following€exchange€occurred€during€cross„examination:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓAssistant€Attorney€General:€€Then€you€tell€Graham€thatÏyou€want€to€talk€to€him€again,€didn't€you?ÌÌPetitioner:€€Yes,€sir,€after€he€came€in.ÌÌAssistant€Attorney€General:€€You€told€somebody,€at€least,ÏI€say€Graham€...€you€told€him€that€you€wanted€to€talk€toÏthat€district€attorney?ÌÌPetitioner:€€œYes.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe›€petitioner€acknowledged€that€he€reinitiated€contact€with€the€District€Attorney.€ÏThe€hearsay€evidence€at€issue€was€not€necessary€to€establish€that€as€fact.€€€Thus,Ïthere€€has€been€no€showing€of€prejudice.€€œòòId.ó󛀀ÌÌÓ  Ó(b)ÌÓ  Óà àà à€€The€petitioner€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failingÏto€interview€witnesses€who€could€have€been€beneficial€to€œhis›€case,€especiallyÏduring€the€penalty€phase.€€Although€not€fully€articulated,€the€petitioner's€briefÏsuggests€that€the€witnesses€could€have€been€useful€to€show€that€head€injuriesÏœmight›€have€contributed€to€his€commission€of€the€offense.€€The€petitioner€specificallyÏcomplains€about€the€failure€to€interview€his€step„father,€his€attorney€in€the€military,Ïthe€mother€of€his€co„defendant,€a€witness€œwho€worked€with€the€petitioner€after›€hisÏhead€injuries,€a€woman€who€lived€in€the€residence€where€the€œarrest€was€made,›€andÏan€employee€at€the€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€œInstitute€(MTMHI).›Ìà àà àÌà àà àWhen€the€claim€of€ineffectiveness€is€predicated€upon€the€failure€toÏpresent€potential€witnesses,€their€testimony€should€be€offered€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing.€€In€this€manner€the€court€can€consider€whether€(a)€a€material€witnessÏexisted€and€could€have€been€discovered€but€for€counsel's€neglect,€(b)€€a€knownÏwitness€was€not€interviewed€by€counsel,€(c)€the€failure€to€discover€or€interview€aÏwitness€prejudiced€the€petitioner,€or€(d)€the€failure€to€call€certain€witnesses€deniedÏcritical€evidence€to€the€prejudice€of€the€petitioner.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2dÏ752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Here,€because€none€of€the€witnesses€testified€atÍthe€hearing,€the€petitioner€was€simply€unable€to€show€prejudice.€€We€cannotÏspeculate€upon€the€usefulness€of€these€witnesses€without€the€information€theyÏcould€have€œprovided.€€òòId.óó›ÌÌÓ  Ó€€€(c)ÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner€next€argues€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failingÏto€investigate€head€injuries€he€had€incurred€well€before€the€trial.€€The€petitionerÏcontends€that€he€had€been€hospitalized€twice€for€injuries€and€the€failure€to€produceÏevidence€of€that€at€trial€qualifies€as€ineffective€assistance.ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€made€the€following€findings€on€this€issue:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ1.€€Defense€counsel€made€an€adequate€investigation€ofÏtheir€client's€background€and€prior€medical€history.€ÏPresent€counsel€presented€no€proof€of€mental€problemsÏon€the€part€of€Mr.€Thompson€that€would€have€been€aÏdefense€to€the€charge,€or€that€would€constitute€a€shieldÏagainst€execution.ÌÌ2.€€Counsel€did€not€seek€expert€and€investigativeÏassistance€regarding€alleged€head€injuries€to€Mr.ÏThompson€during€his€youth,€or€to€testify€as€to€hisÏincompetency€at€the€time€of€his€confession€because€theÏfacts€and€circumstances€did€not€indicate€the€necessityÏfor€such€œaction.Ì›ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àDefense€œAttorney›€Parsons€testified€that€he€knew€about€the€headÏinjuries€the€petitioner€sustained,€"one€in€a€car€wreck€when€he€was€young€and€...Ïanother€as€a€result€of€an€assault€in€the€military."€€œWhile€he›€œacknowledged›€that€heÏ"probably"€did€not€put€these€facts€before€the€jury,€œAttorney›€Parsons€claimed€that€heÏwas€aware€of€the€possible€"significance"€of€the€injuries€but€œdid€not›€get€œall€of€the›Ïmedical€records.€€He€commented€that€testing€by€MTMHI€also€did€not€suggest€brainÏœdamage.›€€Attorney€Richardson€concluded€that€he€was€not€"as€thorough€as€[he]Ïshould€have€œbeen"›€but€contended€that€the€testing€by€Dr.€œCopple€and€MTMHI›€œdid€notÏreflect€€"brain›€damage."€€Attorney€Richardson€also€testified€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[We€d]id€try€to€hire€a€psychiatrist€but€that€was€notÏsuccessful€and€it€was...€the€type€thing€it€was€a€theory€asÏto€whether€to€go€with€his€good€character€and€reservoir€ofÏmoral€upbringing,€a€man€with€a€great€deal€of€ability€thatÏcould€be€used€in€the€penitentiary€and€a€life€sentencing.€€IÏdoubt€if€there€will€ever€be€another€man€on€death€row€thatÏhad€as€good€a€background€as€he€did.€€I€don't€know€ofÏany,€and€then€the€question€as€to€whether€to€mix€into€thatÏor€try€to€accentuate€some€brain€damage€that€we€hadn'tÏbeen€able€to€spot,€but€at€the€same€time,€probably€withÏsome€more€digging€may[be]€could€have€and€then€giveÏthe€jury€the€idea€that€this€man,€if€he€ever€gets€out€ofÏprison€with€some€brain€damage,€he€will€kill€...€somebodyÏelse,€that€is€kind€of€counter€productive.€€We€went€withÏone€strategy€and€probably€if€we€had€to€do€it€over€again,Ïwould€go€with€the€other€strategy€because€that€one€didn'tÏwork.€€œÌ›ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àDr.€Gillian€Blair,€a€clinical€psychologist,€who€reviewed€the€petitioner'sÏmedical€records€before€and€after€his€incarceration€and€read€the€reports€fromÏMTMHI,€conducted€a€basic€psychological€battery€and€neuropsychological€tests.€€AtÏthe€time€of€the€evidentiary€hearing€in€1995,€she€had€not€interviewed€the€petitionerÏin€three€years.€€Since€his€incarceration€for€this€crime,€however,€the€petitioner€hadÏbeen€diagnosed€with€bipolar€disorder,€schizo€affective€disorder,€œor€schizophrenia.›€ÏIt€was€Dr.€Blair's€opinion€that€in€order€to€determine€whether€the€petitioner's€medicalÏcondition€could€have€affected€his€behavior€at€the€time€of€the€murder,€more€testingÏand€background€investigation€would€need€to€be€conducted.€€She€specificallyÏtestified€that€she€could€not€give€an€opinion€on€the€petitioner's€œmental›€condition€atÏeither€the€time€of€the€murder€or€the€time€of€the€evidentiary€hearing.€ÌÌà àà à"[T]here€is€a€œ'greater›€duty€of€inquiry€into€[a]€client's€mental€healthÏimposed€for€[the]€penalty€phase€of€[a€capital]€œtrial.'"›€€œòòCooper€v.€Stateóó,›€847€S.W.2dÏœ521,€529›€œ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(quoting›€òòBertolotti€v.€Duggeróó,€883€F.2d€1503,Ï1516€(11th€Cir.€1989))€œ(second€and€third€alterations›€in€original).€€Even€if€œaÏpsychologically›€based€defense€could€not€be€supported€at€the€guilt€phase,€theÏevidence€may€be€useful€in€mitigation€at€the€sentencing€phase.€€œòòId.ó󛀜€Even›€whenÏcourt„ordered€examinations€result€in€a€finding€of€sanity,€defense€counsel€shouldÏalways€attempt€to€determine€whether€psychological€infirmities€may€be€used€asÍmitigating€evidence.€€œòòId.ó󛀀€€ÌÌà àà àHaving€determined€there€is€a€duty€to€investigate€whether€anyÏpsychological€impairments€might€qualify€as€mitigating€evidence,€we€nonethelessÏconclude€that€œthe€petitioner›€has€failed€to€demonstrate€any€prejudice€from€the€failureÏof€trial€counsel€to€further€investigate€the€head€injuries.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€toÏestablish€that€the€head€injuries€had€any€effect€upon€his€mental€stability€at€the€timeÏof€the€murder.€€Further,€he€has€failed€to€establish€that€any€type€of€psychologicalÏimpairment€in€general€may€have€existed€which€would€have€been€mitigatingÏevidence.€€Because€Dr.€Blair€declined€to€give€an€opinion€on€these€important€issues,Ïthe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€court's€finding€that€theÏdefense€attorneys€were€not€ineffective.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€decision€not€to€further€pursue€the€head€injuries€in€the€penaltyÏphase€of€the€trial€also€qualified€as€a€reasonable€strategy.€€Trial€counsel's€decisionÏto€emphasize€the€petitioner's€positive€qualities€rather€than€to€suggest€brainÏdamage,€while€unsuccessful,€was€based€upon€adequate€investigation.€€"[T]he€factÏthat€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failed€or€even€hurt€the€defense€does€œnot,›€alone,Ïsupport€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance."€€òòCooperóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€528.€€DeferenceÏmust€be€given€œto›€an€informed€trial€strategy.€€This€court€must€refrain€from€second„guessing€trial€counsel's€decision€to€emphasize€the€petitioner's€positive€attributesÏrather€than€possible€brain€damage.€€Because€two€experts€œdid€not›€detect€brainÏdamage,€counsel€cannot€be€faulted€œfor›€discarding€a€strategy€that€could€not€beÏsupported€by€a€medical€opinion.€ÌÓ  ÓœÌ(d)›€€ÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner€also€alleges€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏadequately€prepare€to€cross„examine€the€state's€witnesses.€€His€chief€complaint€isÏthat€œAttorney›€Parsons€was€ineffective€in€his€cross„examination€of€Dr.€CharlesÏHarlan,€then€the€State€Medical€Examiner.€€ÌÌà àà àAt€œtrial,›€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€the€victim€died€from€the€stab€wounds.€€€ÏHe€believed€that€she€lived€for€five€to€ten€minutes€after€sustaining€the€wounds€andÏwould€have€been€conscious€for€part€of€that€time.€€Attorney€Parsons,€who€cross„examined€œHarlan›€œacknowledged€that€he€had›€not€interviewed€Harlan€prior€to€trialÏand€conceded€his€surprise€that€the€state€utilized€the€pathologist€to€proveÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.€ÌÌà àà àAgain,€however,€the€petitioner€has€not€demonstrated€that€œanyÏdeficiency€in€the›€cross„examination€of€Dr.€Harlan€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€ÍThe€evidence€of€guilt,€including€the€elements€of€premeditation€and€deliberation,Ïwas€overwhelmingly€established€through€the€other€œwitnesses.€€In€our€view,€any›Ïfailure€to€more€effectively€cross„examine€Harlan€had€no€effect€on€the€outcome€ofÏthe€trial.€€Thus,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€œprejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2dÏat€370.›ÌÌÓ  Ó(e)ÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner€next€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€ineffectively€preparedÏthe€defense€witnesses€for€trial.€€He€specifically€complains€that€his€œthen›€girlfriendÏArlene€œCajulao›€was€not€properly€prepared€to€testify.€€During€the€penalty€phase€ofÏthe€trial,€Ms.€Cajulao€testified€that€she€met€the€petitioner€while€he€was€stationed€inÏthe€military€in€Hawaii,€where€they€became€romantically€involved.€€She€related€thatÏher€family€was€fond€of€the€petitioner€and€that€he€was€good€with€the€children€in€herÏfamily.€€She€recalled€œthat€the›€petitioner€was€assaulted€by€three€"guys"€who€struckÏhim€on€the€head€with€a€crowbar.€€She€related€that€the€petitioner,€who€hadÏunsuccessfully€sought€to€have€his€attackers€disciplined€by€the€military,€became€veryÏparanoid€after€the€assault.€€She€also€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€been€court„martialed€for€dislocating€an€officer's€shoulder€in€a€pushing€incident.€ÌÌà àà àDuring€her€cross„examination,€the€state€utilized€military€records€toÍestablish€that€the€petitioner€was€removed€from€the€œmilitary,›€not€only€because€of€theÏassault€œon›€œthe›€œofficer,›€but€also€because€he€had€struck€another€person€on€the€chestÏand€threatened€to€strike€another€person€with€a€torque€wrench€extension€bar.€€Ms.ÏCajulao€also€acknowledged€that€the€petitioner,€while€on€military€duty,€hadÏassaulted€a€roommate€with€a€deadly€weapon.€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€if€his€trial€counsel€had€spent€more€timeÏwith€the€witness,€his€negative€military€history€œcould›€have€been€avoided.€€At€the€post„conviction€œhearing,€Attorney›€Parsons€recalled€wishing€that€he€had€more€time€toÏmeet€with€the€witness.€€He€testified€that€his€strategy€at€trial€was€to€humanize€theÏpetitioner€by€calling€sympathetic€witnesses.€€He€was€aware€of€the€state'sÏopportunity€to€rebut€any€positive€testimony€about€the€petitioner€and€conceded€thatÏhis€only€other€option€would€have€been€to€present€no€mitigating€evidence€at€all.€€€€ÌÌà àà àAttorney€Richardson€testified€that€"[t]here€were€certain€witnesses€thatÏwe€had€to€face€a€problem€of€them€bringing€up€the€problems€that€he€had€in€theÏNavy."€€He€realized€that€the€cross„examination€of€Ms.€Cajulao€might€œbe€risky€but›Ï"didn't€realize€we€would€have€it€to€the€extent€that€it€ended€up€we€had€...."ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€defense€counsel's€awareness€of€the€possible€dangersÍinherent€in€the€cross„examination€and€their€decision€to€present€her€positiveÏtestimony€anyway€was€a€classic€tactical€decision.€€Because€the€strategy€was€basedÏupon€adequate€preparation,€this€court€must€not€second€guess.€€In€reviewingÏcounsel's€conduct,€a€"fair€assessment€...€requires€that€every€effort€be€made€toÏeliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€ofÏcounsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counsel'sÏperspective€at€the€time."€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689.€€In€our€view,€trial€counsel€hadÏlittle€choice€but€to€present€as€much€mitigating€evidence€as€possible€even€thoughÏthere€were€risks€inherent€in€that€strategy.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àMoreover,€there€œis€›nothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€additionalÏpreparation€time€with€the€witness€could€have€œprevented›€the€state€from€effectivelyÏcross„examining€her.€€If€Ms.€Cajulao€œwere›€to€testify€at€all€to€the€petitioner's€priorÏmilitary€background,€œthe€›state€would€be€entitled€to€rebut€that€testimony.€€InÏsummary,€we€cannot€hold€that€the€evidence€preponderated€against€the€finding€ofÏthe€trial€court€that€trial€counsel€had€performed€effectively.€ÌÌÓ  Ó(f)€€ÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€byÏopening€the€door€to€damaging€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase.€€First,€the€petitionerÍclaims€they€questioned€state€witness€Frank€Floied€"in€such€a€fashion€as€to€allowÏ[him]€to€comment€that€shortly€after€the€killing€the€[p]etitioner€appeared€'cool'€andÏacted€as€if€the€killing€was€nothing."€€At€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€Floied€testified€thatÏhe€spoke€directly€with€the€petitioner€on€the€telephone€the€evening€after€the€arrest.€ÏOn€cross„examination,€Attorney€Richardson€asked,€"Did€he€appear€to€be€motivatedÏin€attempting€to€tell€you€where€the€body€was€...?"€€Floied€responded€that€"he€wasÏthe€most€cool€and€direct€person€that€I've€ever€talked€to€in€this€œsituation....›€€I€hadÏsome€disbelief€that€he€could€have€done€it„„that€anyone€could€have€done€it€andÏdescribed€it€in€that€detail€as€if€it€was€nothing."€€The€record€shows€that€Floied'sÏanswer€to€the€question€was€œnot›€responsive€to€the€question€asked.€€Perhaps€trialÏcounsel€should€have€objected€and€sought€curative€instructions.€€Yet€the€petitionerÏhas€again€failed€to€establish€any€prejudice.€€Officer€Roy€Phillips€of€the€TennesseeÏHighway€Patrol€testified€that€he€gave€the€petitioner€a€speeding€ticket€only€hoursÏafter€the€murder€occurred.€€He€described€the€petitioner€as€"cool,€calm,€andÏœcollected....›€œ€[Y]ou'd›€think€he€had€just€come€from€church€the€night€I€stopped€him€...."€ÏThus€Floied's€remark,€while€probative€as€to€the€element€of€deliberation,€wasÏcumulative€and€may€have€been€admissible€anyway€had€the€state€asked€about€theÏpetitioner's€demeanor.€€In€any€event,€we€find€no€constitutionally€deficientÏœrepresentation›€in€this€regard.€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€the€trial€counsel€opened€the€door€toÏœdevastating›€œevidence›€by€asking€Dr.€Copple€about€his€good€qualities.€€He€points€outÏthat€the€state€was€then€able€to€present€damaging€evidence€in€rebuttal.€€Prior€to€trial,Ïa€œcompetency›€evaluation€by€MTMHI€suggested€the€petitioner€was€a€malingerer€andÏshowed€no€remorse.€€The€records€there€showed€the€petitioner€was€somewhatÏviolent€and€disruptive€while€at€the€facility.€€MTMHI€classified€the€petitioner€as€havingÏadult€antisocial€behavior.€ÌÌà àà àAttorney€Richardson€admitted,€"I€frankly€did€not€know€that€...€the€œ[s]tate›Ïcould€use€information€given€by€the€defendant€to€a€psychiatrist."€€Attorney€ParsonsÏtestified€that€their€strategy€was€to€emphasize€positive€attributes€of€the€petitioner€Ïand€show€the€jury€that€he€could€lead€a€productive€life€in€prison.€€Dr.€Copple'sÏtestimony€played€a€key€role€in€this€strategy.€€Although€both€trial€attorneysÏapparently€were€surprised€by€the€fact€that€the€state€could€use€the€informationÏacquired€by€MTMHI,€Attorney€Parsons€did€acknowledge€that€he€knew€that€positiveÏtestimony€by€Dr.€Copple€would€open€the€door€œfor›€the€state€to€present€negativeÏinformation.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àAgain,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€any€œprejudice€by€whateverÏdeficiency€there€may€have€been€in€the€performance€of€counsel.›€€The€evidence€doesÍnot€preponderate€against€the€finding€that€the€œsentence€would›€have€been€different€ifÏthe€attorneys€œhad€known€the›€information€collected€by€MTMHI€would€have€beenÏadmissible.€€In€our€view,€trial€counsel€had€little€choice€other€than€to€call€Dr.€CoppleÏin€an€effort€to€establish€adequate€mitigating€circumstances.€€Even€if€there€had€beenÏproof€that€trial€counsel€should€have€pursued€a€different€strategy,€there€has€been€noÏœindication›€that€another€strategy€would€have€been€more€effective.€€€€Because€the€juryÏfound€three€aggravators,€we€cannot€conclude€that€the€outcome€would€have€beenÏany€different€if€the€jury€had€not€heard€the€evidence€concerning€the€testing€byÏMTMHI.€€If€any€witness€testified€to€the€petitioner's€good€character,€the€state€wouldÏhave€been€entitled€to€rebuttal.€€The€only€other€option€would€have€been€to€presentÏno€proof€at€all.€€As€Attorney€Richardson€noted,€the€petitioner€had€a€relativelyÏproductive€background;€the€failure€to€present€some€evidence€of€his€prior€goodÏbehavior€might€have€qualified€as€ineffective€assistance.€€€œÇ›Ó  Ó(g)ÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner€next€submits€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€byÏallowing€a€deposition€to€be€used€rather€than€requiring€state€witness€Dr.€RobertÏGlenn€Watson€to€appear€at€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€The€petitioner€attendedÏthe€deposition;€Dr.€Watson€was€cross„examined€by€trial€counsel.€€At€the€sentencingÏphase,€the€deposition,€including€cross„examination,€was€read€into€evidence.ÌÌà àà àDr.€Watson€testified€that€the€petitioner's€intelligence€quotient€was€inÏthe€lower€average€range.€€There€was€no€real€evidence€of€brain€damage.€€HeÏbelieved€that€the€petitioner€had€malingered€on€one€test€which€indicatedÏschizophrenia.€€He€found€that€the€petitioner€was€untruthful€in€claiming€he€could€notÏread.€€He€œtestified€that›€the€petitioner€had€a€good€œself„concept€and›€tried€to€portrayÏhimself€in€a€positive€manner,€but€had€some€behavioral€problems€while€at€MTMHI.€ÏHe€recalled€that€the€petitioner€œhad€tripped›€œone›€patient€and€œhad€started›€a€fight.€ÏDiagnosed€as€having€adult€antisocial€behavior,€the€petitioner€showed€very€little€orÏno€emotion€or€expressions€of€empathy€when€talking€about€œthe€›murder.€€Dr.€WatsonÏobserved€no€evidence€of€remorse.€ÌÌà àà àThe€œpetitioner›€argues€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€waiving€his€rightÏto€confront€the€witness€at€trial€and€for€failing€to€comply€with€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€15.€ÍWe€need€not€address€whether€counsel€was€deficient€by€agreeing€to€the€depositionÏbecause€it€is€apparent€the€œpetitioner›€cannot€show€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€use€ofÏthe€deposition.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370€œ(a›€reviewing€court€need€not€assessÏwhether€counsel's€conduct€was€deficient€if€no€prejudice€can€be€found).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòEdward€Samuel€L.€Foy,€Jr.,€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9212„CR„00414Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Sept.€28,€1993),€a€similar€issue€was€raised.€€There,Ïœthe€deposition€was€taken€outside€the€petitioner's€presence;€the›€petitioner€arguedÏhis€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€comply€with€Rule€15€in€taking€a€deposition.€ÏœòòId.óó,›€slip€op.€at€6.€€The€petitioner€œcomplained€that›€"'[w]here€petitioner's€own€counselÏviolated€[his]€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€confrontation€...,€counsel's€performance€wasÏobviously€ineffective€and€deficient.'"€€œòòId.ó󛀜(alteration›€and€omission€in€original).€€OurÏcourt€œruled€that€it€was€purely€conjecture€to€suggest€"that›€the€jury€would€have€ruledÏfor€acquittal€had€the€deposition€testimony€been€excluded."€€œòòId.óó›ÌÌà àà àWe€conclude€œany›€claim€of€prejudice€œin€this€case€would€also€qualify€asÏmere›€speculation.€€In€fact,€the€decision€to€use€a€deposition€instead€of€live€testimonyÏœmay€have›€inured€to€the€benefit€of€the€petitioner.€€If€Dr.€Watson€œhad€appeared€inÏperson€at€the€trial,€there€is€at€least€the€possibility€that€his€stature€or€demeanor€mightÏhave€tended€to€accredit€his€testimony.€€An€impressive€witness€is€a€persuasiveÍwitness.€€The€reading€of€the€deposition€into€evidence€might€have€been€lessÏeffective€for€the€state.€€The›€petitioner€has€not€carried€his€burden€of€establishing€thatÏbut€for€the€deposition€testimony,€the€outcome€of€the€sentencing€hearing€would€haveÏbeen€different.€€ÌÌÓ  Ó(h)€ÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner€also€argues€œthat€his€counsel›€œwas›€ineffective€for€failingÏto€question€the€assistant€district€attorney€at€the€motion€for€new€trial€about€œracistÏremarks;€he›€contends€the€information€would€have€been€useful€in€establishing€aÏòòBatsonóó€violation.€€During€jury€selection,€only€one€African„American,€Alonzo€Walker,Ïwas€examined€as€a€prospective€juror.€€The€state€peremptorily€challenged€thatÏindividual.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Attorney€Parsons€testified€that€some€timeÏafter€voir€dire€but€before€the€motion€for€new€trial,€he€had€a€conversation€with€œtheÏassistant›€œdistrict›€œattorney,›€œwho›€purportedly€stated,€"I€hope€they€fry€that€nigger."€€OneÏof€the€grounds€raised€in€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏrefusing€to€enjoin€the€state€from€using€œperemptory›€challenges€to€exclude€anyÏAfrican„Americans.€€At€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€œthe€assistant€districtÏattorney€explained›€that€he€peremptorily€challenged€Walker,€not€due€to€his€race,€butÏbecause€he€was€not€strongly€in€favor€of€the€death€penalty.€€No€questions€wereÏasked€about€the€racist€comment.€ÌÌà àà àAt€the€post„conviction€œhearing,›€Attorney€Parsons€testified€that€he€wasÏupset€by€œthe€assistant€district€attorney's€remark.›€€Attorney€Richardson,€who€was€notÏpresent€at€the€time€the€comment€was€made,€did€recall€that€Attorney€Parsons€wasÏupset€about€the€conversation.€€œThe€assistant€district€attorney€flatly€denied›€havingÏmade€the€remark.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€order€denying€post„conviction€relief,€the€trial€judge€accreditedÏthe€testimony€of€œthe€assistant€district€attorney›€and€found€that€the€racist€commentÏhad€not,€in€fact,€been€made.€€Findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€judge€are€conclusiveÏon€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòClenny€v.ÏStateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€The€trial€judge€who€sees€andÏhears€the€witnesses€is€generally€in€a€better€position€than€this€court€to€assessÏcredibility.€€The€record€in€this€case€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€judge'sÏfinding.€€Thus,€our€scope€of€review€is€limited.€€Because€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏmeet€his€burden€of€proving€that€the€racist€remark€had€been€made,€trial€counselÏcould€not€have€been€ineffective€by€failing€to€œcross„examine.›€€This€issue€is,Ïtherefore,€without€merit.€€€€€ÌÌÓ  Ó(i)€€ÌÓ  Óà àà àFinally,€the€petitioner€insists€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€object€to€comments€by€the€state€upon€his€failure€to€testify.€€During€closingÏargument,€the€state€argued€that€no€defense€to€the€crime€had€been€offered.€€TheÏpetitioner€contends€that€his€trial€attorneys€should€have€objected€to€this€argument.ÌÌà àà àThe€law€clearly€prohibits€any€prosecutorial€comment€upon€theÏaccused's€election€not€to€testify.€€òòGriffin€v.€Californiaóó,€380€U.S.€609€(1965).€€To€do€soÏconstitutes€misconduct.€€œòòId.óó€at›€615.€€After€a€careful€review€of€the€trial€record,Ïhowever,€we€conclude€that€the€argument€did€not€qualify€as€a€comment€upon€theÏpetitioner's€failure€to€testify.€€In€our€view,€comments€by€the€state€were€a€reasonableÏassessment€of€the€evidence.€€In€òòState€v.€Blackmonóó,€701€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1985),€the€state€argued€there€had€been€no€"excuse€or€justification"Ïoffered€for€the€offense.€€Our€court€ruled€that€the€"comments€[were]€in€the€nature€ofÏarguments€that€the€State's€proof€is€uncontradicted€....€€Our€Courts€have€held€thatÏarguments€of€this€type€are€not€improper€comments€on€the€defendant's€exercise€ofÏhis€right€not€to€testify."€€œòòId.ó󛀀That€ruling€controls€the€disposition€of€the€case.€€BecauseÏthe€argument€was€not€improper,€there€was€no€ineffective€assistance€in€failing€toÏobject.€€à àà àÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner€next€argues€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€funds€forÏthe€employment€of€a€œpsychologist,›€œpsychiatrist,›€œor›€an€investigator€to€help€prepareÏfor€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„14„207(b)€provides€for€stateÏfunding€of€expert€services€in€capital€cases:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIn€capital€cases€where€the€defendant€has€been€found€toÏbe€indigent€by€the€court€of€record€having€jurisdiction€ofÏthe€case,€such€court€in€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing€may€in€itsÏdiscretion€determine€that€investigative€or€expert€servicesÏor€other€similar€services€are€necessary€to€ensure€that€theÏconstitutional€rights€of€the€defendant€are€properlyÏœprotected.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓIn›€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€928€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€court€ruled€thatÏthe€statute€also€"applies€to€post„conviction€œcapital€cases."›€€The€òòOwensóó€court€alsoÏprovided€guidelines€on€how€to€request€the€services€and€when€the€trial€court€shouldÏgrant€the€services:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àTo€obtain€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing,€a€capital€post„conviction€petitioner€must€submit€a€written€motion€to€theÏtrial€court,€alleging€why€under€the€particular€facts€andÏcircumstances€of€the€case,€investigative€or€expertÏservices€are€necessary€to€ensure€the€protection€of€theÏpetitioner's€constitutional€rights.€€A€bare€allegation€thatÏsupport€services€are€needed€is€not€sufficient.€€InÏaddition,€the€motion€must€include:€€(a)€€the€name€of€theÏproposed€expert€or€service;€(b)€€how,€when€and€whereÏthe€examination€is€to€be€conducted€or€the€services€are€toÏbe€performed;€(c)€€the€cost€of€the€evaluation€and€reportÏthereof;€and€(d)€€the€cost€of€any€other€necessaryÏservices,€such€as€court€appearances.€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.ÏRule€13,€ðð€2(B)(10).€€Once€the€petitioner€satisfies€theseÍthreshold€procedural€requirements,€the€trial€court€mustÏconduct€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing€on€the€œmotion.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòOwensóó,›€908€S.W.2d€at€928.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòOwensóó,€the€court€ruled€that€the€motion€should€be€granted€if€theÏproof€at€the€hearing€shows€the€services€are€necessary€to€protect€the€petitioner'sÏconstitutional€rights.€€œòòId.ó󛀀The€òòOwensóó€court€also€noted€the€statute€"vests€with€the€trialÏcourt€discretion€to€determine€if€investigative€or€expert€services€are€necessary€toÏensure€œthat›€the€movant's€constitutional€rights€are€œprotected."€€òòId.óó€at›€929.€€ÌÌà àà àAs€a€preliminary€matter,€the€state€argues€that€the€petitioner€is€notÏentitled€to€the€benefit€of€the€òòOwensóó€œdecision›€because€the€opinion€was€releasedÏafter€the€petitioner's€original€motion€was€filed.€€The€state€contends€the€petitioner'sÏmotion€should€be€reviewed€under€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€915,€927€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1988),€where€our€court€held€a€statutory€right€to€investigative€or€expertÏservices€only€applied€at€trial.€€œOn€certain€other€issues,€our›€supreme€court€œhasÏdecided›€that€the€new€rule€would€apply€to€all€cases€in€the€"pipeline€...€to€all€actionsÏpending€on€the€date€œthis›€decision€is€announced,€and€to€all€causes€of€action€arisingÏœsubsequently."€€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268,€274€(Tenn.€1987).›€€This€courtÏhas€previously€applied€the€"pipeline€approach"€to€this€very€issue.€€òòMichael€EugeneÍSample€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9505„CR„00131,€slip€op.€at€24€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏJackson,€Sept.€30,€1996),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,€Jan.€1,€1997).€€In€òòSampleóó,€our€courtÏheld€that€the€request€for€services€was€made€before€òòOwensóó€was€released;€the€panelÏnevertheless€used€the€standards€adopted€in€òòOwensóó€to€determine€whether€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€denying€the€services.€€œòòId.óó€€We›€will€attempt€to€do€so€here€as€well.€€Ì€€Ìà àà àOn€February€1,€1991,€the€petitioner€filed€an€òòex€parteóó,€sealed€motionÏseeking€funds€to€pay€for€a€psychologist€and€investigator.€€The€motion€alleged€thatÏfunding€was€necessary€to€establish€the€following:€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€€whether€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏpresent€proof€of€the€defendant's€œimpaired›€mentalÏcondition€at€the€time€of€the€offense€as€mitigatingÏevidence;ÌÌ(2)€€whether€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏinvestigate€the€petitioner's€head€injuries;€ÌÌ(3)€€whether€the€petitioner€was€mentally€competent€toÏgive€a€confession€or€knowingly€waive€his€right€toÏcounsel;ÌÌ(4)€€whether€the€petitioner€was€mentally€competent€toÏstand€trial;€andÌÌ(5)€€whether€the€petitioner€is€competent€to€be€executed.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€motion€was€supported€by€an€affidavit€œof›€Dr.€œGillian€Blair,›€a€licensedÏpsychologist.€€Dr.€Blair's€affidavit€included€information€about€the€cost€of€her€œservices›Íand€documented€her€review€of€the€petitioner's€œpost„incarceration€medical›€œrecords,Ïwhich€indicated€›€that€the€petitioner€had€suffered€from€"escalating€psychiatricÏproblems."€€Because€the€petitioner€had€been€diagnosed€as€œhaving€a€bipolar›Ïaffective€disorder,€œa€schizo„affective›€disorder,€œor€schizophrenia›€paranoid€type,€andÏwas€taking€lithium,€haldol,€and€œcogentin,›€it€was€Dr.€Blair's€opinion€"that€someÏdegree€of€such€impairment€œ[likely]€would›€have€existed€at€the€time€of€the€offense€andÏ...€would€...€have€been€significant€mitigating€evidence€...."€€ÌÌà àà àBrock€Mehler,€who€had€experience€in€investigation€and€in€theÏdevelopment€of€mitigating€circumstances€in€capital€cases,€also€submitted€anÏaffidavit€estimating€the€cost€of€investigative€services.€€The€document€sought€aÏdetailed€investigation€into€the€petitioner's€history€so€that€a€determination€could€beÏmade€of€the€effectiveness€of€trial€counsel€in€his€presentation€of€mitigatingÏcircumstances.€€€€Ìà àÌà àœà àThe›€motion€requesting€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing€was€denied.€€JudgeÏœGerald€Ewell›€did,€however,€indicate€he€would€allow€a€hearing€in€open€court€on€theÏmatter.€€The€petitioner€filed€a€motion€for€reconsideration€on€the€òòex€parteóó€aspect€ofÏthe€motion,€which€was€also€denied.€€œAfter›€an€open€hearing,€the€trial€court€deniedÏthe€motion€for€funds.€€Permission€for€an€interlocutory€appeal€was€œdenied.›€€ÌÌà àà àJudge€Ewell€subsequently€recused€himself€from€the€case€and€theÏpetitioner€renewed€his€motion€for€expert€funds€before€his€replacement,€JudgeÏBuddy€Perry.€€The€petitioner€relied€on€the€previous€motion€filed€as€well€as€œtheÏmemorandum€and›€applications€filed€seeking€interlocutory€œappeal.›€€Judge€PerryÏentered€an€order€staying€the€matter€pending€the€release€of€this€court's€opinion€œin›Ïthe€òòOwensóó€case.€€œòòSeeóó€òòGaile€K.€Owens€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9111„CR„00259€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€March€25,€1994),€òòrev'd€in€partóó,€908€S.W.2d€923€(Tenn.Ï1995).€›ÌÌà àà àLater,€Judge€William€Russell€was€designated€to€hear€the€case.€€Again,Ïthe€petitioner€attempted€to€renew€his€motion€for€an€òòex€parteóó€hearing€forÏconsideration€of€his€request.€€An€updated€version€of€Dr.€Blair's€affidavit€was€filed.€ÏJudge€Russell€denied€the€request:œ× ƒ1 ××  ×›€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àPetitioner€has€renewed€his€motion€for€State€fundsÏto€employ€a€licensed€psychologist€or€psychiatrist€toÏassist€in€the€preparation€of€this€case€for€post„convictionÏrelief.€€Funds€are€also€sought€for€an€investigator.€€œSuchÏfunds€may€only€be€made€available€when€there€is€aÏdemonstrated€need.€€The›€issue€of€the€petitioner's€mentalÍcompetency€was€thoroughly€litigated€upon€his€trial.€€TheÏCourt€finds€that€there€has€been€no€demonstrated€needÏfor€the€funds€requested,€and€the€motion€is€again€œdenied.ÌÌ›Ò 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àA€motion€to€reconsider€contended€that€the€expert€assistance€wasÏnecessary€to€establish€the€ineffectiveness€of€trial€counsel€for€failing€to€investigateÏ(1)€the€petitioner's€mental€state€at€trial€and€when€he€gave€his€confession€and€(2)€theÏeffect€of€his€head€injuries.€€In€a€pre„trial€hearing,€Judge€Russell€€stated,€"[t]he€oneÏissue€that€is€basically€new€and€will€require€some€expertise€on€is€the€matter€of€hisÏpresent€mental€health."€€At€that€point,€the€petitioner€discussed€the€motion€toÏreconsider€the€request€for€expert€services.€€The€trial€court,€ruling€that€"the€matter€ofÏfunding€now€is€not€necessary€to€get€her€testimony,"€found€that€Dr.€Blair€had€alreadyÏperformed€an€evaluation€and€could€be€subpoenaed€to€testify.€€When€the€petitionerÏargued€that€Dr.€Blair's€opinions€were€preliminary€and€that€more€testing€wasÏnecessary,€the€trial€court€denied€further€delay:€€"In€other€words,€and€I'm€notÏcondemning€you€gentlemen,€but€if€this€man€has€been€demented€for€months€orÏyears,€that€should€have€been€brought€before€the€Court€long€before€now."€€When€theÏpetitioner€argued€that€Dr.€Blair's€testimony€was€needed€to€establish€whether€trialÏcounsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€present€evidence€of€his€head€injuries,€JudgeÏRussell€agreed€to€hear€proof€on€that€saying,€"Let's€put€it€this€way.€€If€she€goesÍahead€and€there€is€something€more€than€a€delaying€tactic,€I€will€reconsider."€€ÌÌà àà àLater,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€providing€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àThe€œpetition[er]'s›€motion€to€reconsider€the€Court'sÏprevious€denial€of€pre„trial€funds€for€investigators€andÏexperts€is€overruled.ÌÌà àThe€State€is€ordered€to€make€the€petitionerÏavailable€immediately€for€mental€status€testing€by€Dr.ÏGillian€Blair.€€The€results€of€Dr.€Blair's€tests€will€be€madeÏavailable€to€the€District€Attorney€General,€and€the€reportsÏof€any€tests€hereafter€done€by€the€State€relative€to€theÏpetitioner's€present€mental€state€shall€be€shared€withÏpetitioner's€counsel.€€€€€œÌ›ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àThe€petitioner€again€filed€a€request€for€funds,€contending€that€Dr.€BlairÏcould€not€perform€additional€services€without€compensation€and€that€she€had€neverÏbeen€compensated€for€any€of€the€services€rendered.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€noÏcompensation€beyond€a€witness€fee€was€warranted€and€observed€that€the€stateÏmedical€records€could€be€obtained€by€subpoena€foœr€the€›post„conviction€hearing.€ÌÌà àà àNow,€the€petitioner€argues€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€due€processÏby€the€trial€court's€failure€to€authorize€the€funds€for€a€psychologist€or€psychiatristÏand€an€investigator.€€He€contends€the€original€order€denying€services€wasÍrendered€void€when€Judge€Ewell€recused€himself.€€The€petitioner€insists€that€theÏservices€were€necessary€to€establish€the€ineffectiveness€of€trial€counsel€by€failing€toÏpursue€and€present€significant€mitigating€evidence.ÌÌà àà àThis€court€œmay€not›€review€this€issue.€€The€transcript€of€the€hearing€onÏthe€motion€for€expert€services€conducted€in€œfront›€of€Judge€Ewell€is€not€included€inÏthe€record€on€appeal.€€òòOwensóó€clearly€contemplates€a€presentation€of€proof:€€"TheÏtrial€court€should€grant€the€motion€if,€at€the€hearing,€the€petitioner€demonstrates€thatÏinvestigative€or€expert€services€are€necessary€to€ensure€the€protection€of€theÏpetitioner's€constitutional€rights."€€òòOwensóó,€908€S.W.2d€at€928.€€Without€a€record€ofÏthe€hearing,€this€court€cannot€determine€whether€Judge€Ewell€erred€by€denying€theÏmotion.€€òòSeeóó€òòEdward€Jerome€Harbisonóó,€No.€03C01„9204„CR„00125,€slip€op.€at€17Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€May€20,€1996),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,€Nov.€12,€1996).€€Ìà àà àThe€petitioner€also€argues€Judge€Ewell's€order€is€void€because€heÏrecused€himself.€€In€support€of€his€contention,€he€filed€as€supplemental€authorityÏòòBolling€v.€Andersonóó,€63€Tenn.€550,€552€(1902),€where€our€supreme€court€ruled€thatÏa€decree€entered€by€an€incompetent€chancellor€"fails,€and€with€it€all€subsequentÏproceedings€based€upon€it."€€We€disagree.€€The€post„conviction€statuteÏcontemplates€that€the€trial€judge€shall€preside€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€ifÏavailable:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àIf€a€petition€filed€pursuant€to€this€chapter€raisesÏthe€issue€of€the€competency€of€counsel€representing€theÏpetitioner,€at€either€the€original€trial€proceeding€or€anÏappellate€proceeding€reviewing€such€originalÏproceeding,€such€petition€shall€be€heard€andÏdetermined€by€the€trial€judge€who€presided€at€the€trial€inÏwhich€the€conviction€occurred€œ....Ì›ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓœTenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„103(b)(1)€(repealed€1995).€€In€this€case,€however,€theÏpetitioner€filed€a€motion€to€disqualify€Judge€Ewell€on€the€grounds€that€he€could€notÏbe€partial€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€because€he€had€already€expressed€theÏopinion€that€petitioner's€trial€attorneys€gave€petitioner€a€vigorous€and€thoroughÏdefense.€€In€the€Rule€12€report€on€the€trial,€Judge€Ewell€observed€that€the€attorneysÏ"afforded€the€defendant€as€vigorous€and€thorough€defense€as€[he]€œhas›€observed€inÏa€lifetime€of€exposure€to€the€legal€system."€€In€his€request€for€the€designation€of€aÏreplacement€judge,€Judge€Ewell€explained€his€recusal€as€due€to€"compellingÏcircumstances."€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Judge€Ewell€testified€that,€in€hisÏopinion,€the€petitioner's€trial€counsel€performed€excellently.€€€ÌÌà àà àJudge€Ewell€may€have€been€qualified€to€hear€the€motion€for€services.€ÏIn€our€view,€he€recused€himself€out€of€his€desire€to€assure€the€petitioner€theÏperception€of€a€neutral€arbiter,€œabsent›€any€personal€bias€as€to€his€claims;€however,Ïeven€if€Judge€Ewell€believed€trial€counsel€had€performed€within€acceptableÍstandards€of€the€profession,€the€petitioner€waived€any€complaint€about€hisÏcompetency€to€hear€the€motion.€€The€petitioner€knew€about€the€potential€bias€œwellÏin›€advance€of€the€motion€and€chose€to€ask€for€relief€œfrom€Judge€Ewell€anyway.›€InÏòòHolmes€v.€Easonóó,€76€Tenn.€754€(1882),€our€supreme€court€noted€that€the€right€to€anÏimpartial€judge€may€be€waived€where€there€is€no€timely€objection:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓFor€otherwise€the€parties€would€be€allowed€toÏexperiment€with€the€court€by€tacit€acquiescence,€andÏraise€the€objection€when€the€result€of€the€trial€proved€toÏbe€œunfavorable.ÌÌ›Ó  Ó€œ***›€€œÌÓ  ÓÌà àAnd,›€generally,€if€the€facts€are€known€to€the€partyÏrecusing,€he€is€bound€to€make€his€objection€before€issueÏjoined,€and€before€the€trial€is€commenced,€otherwise€heÏwill€be€deemed€to€have€waived€the€objection€....€€If€theÏobjection€be€raised€of€record,€and€the€court€undertake€toÏproceed€notwithstanding,€the€judgment€might€be€heldÏvoid€under€these€principles€....€€But€if€no€objection€beÏmade,€and€the€court€is€permitted€to€go€to€a€trial€of€theÏcase€on€the€merits,€the€judgment€is€clearly€not€void€on€itsÏface,€and€something€more€than€the€mere€existence€ofÏthe€fact€on€which€the€incompetency€rests€should€beÏrequired€to€authorize€a€resort€to€another€tribunal.Ì€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓœòòId.óó›€at€757,€761.€€This€principal€was€œaffirmed›€œmore€recently€by€our€court.€€In€òòGrant€v.ÏStateóó,€542€S.W.2d€626,€627€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975),€the€petitioner€had€argued€hisÏpost„conviction€judge€"should€not€have€heard€this€proceeding€because€he€hadÏheard€the€early€habeas€corpus€petition."€€There,€counsel€at€the€post„convictionÍhearing€had€commented€on€the€conflict€but€stated,€"we€can€continue€as€you€will."€ÏòòId.óó€€On€appeal,€this€court€ruled€that€the€petitioner€"acquiesced€in€Judge€HinsonÏhearing€the€case."€€òòId.óó€€Also,€in€òòWoodson€v.€Stateóó,€608€S.W.2d€591,€593€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1980),€our€court€ruled€"that€the€petitioner's€failure€to€raise€the€issue€priorÏto€trial€amounted€to€a€waiver€of€his€right€to€question€the€trial€judge's€qualifications€toÏhear€the€case€...."€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòJames›€J.€Benson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9401„CC„00026Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.,€at›€Nashville,€Nov.€8,€1996),€òòapp.€grantedóó,€œ(Tenn.,€April›€14,€œ1997)Ï(quoting€with€approval€the€principles€stated€in€òòHolmesóó,€76€Tenn.€at€757,€761).›€€ÌÌà àà àThe€same€logic€applies€here.€€The€recusal€issue€should€have€beenÏraised€before€the€hearing.€€Judge€Ewell's€order€was€not€rendered€void€by€hisÏsubsequent€recusal.€€Moreover,€without€the€transcript€of€the€hearing€before€JudgeÏEwell,€we€cannot€conclude€there€was€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€denying€theÏservices.€€It€is€the€burden€of€the€appellant€to€prepare€a€record€on€appeal€thatÏpresents€a€complete€and€accurate€account€of€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€withÏrespect€to€the€issue€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€œP.€24(b).›€€The€failure€to€do€so€resultsÏin€a€waiver€of€such€issues€and€a€presumption€that€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€wasÏcorrect.€€œòòSeeóó,›€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€559€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);ÏòòState€v.€Draperóó,€800€S.W.2d€489,€493€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€On€the€recordÏbefore€us,€we€cannot€conclude€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€denying€theÍservices.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIIIÌÓ  Óà àà àNext,€the€petitioner€argues€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€set€asideÏthe€designation€order€by€our€supreme€court€and€by€refusing€to€reinstate€JudgeÏBuddy€D.€Perry.€€After€Judge€Perry€entered€an€order€staying€all€proceedings€untilÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€released€its€opinion€in€òòOwensóó,€the€supreme€courtÏentered€an€order€specially€designating€Judge€William€Russell€to€hear€œthe›€matter.€ÏLater,€€the€petitioner€filed€a€motion€requesting€that€the€supreme€court's€order€beÏ"recalled."€€That€order€was€denied.€€A€similar€motion€by€the€petitioner€filed€with€theÏsupreme€court€was€denied.ÌÌà àà àIn€its€order€designating€Judge€Russell€to€hear€the€matter,€the€supremeÏcourt€cited€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„3„212,€which€œprovides,€in€part,›€as€follows:€€ÌÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  Òò òÓÓSpecial€personnel€for€expedition€of€post„conviction€proceedings€in€capital€cases.ó ó„„TheÏsupreme€court€is€authorized€to€employ,€reassign,€orÏcontract€with€individuals€utilizing€special€fundsÏappropriated€solely€for€the€purpose€of€providing€promptÏand€fair€adjudication€of€post„conviction€proceedings€inÏcapital€sentence€cases,€including€authority€to€assign€theÏadditional€personnel€the€duties€of€personnel€reassignedÏto€the€post„conviction€cases.€€œÌ›ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓœThe›€petitioner€argues€that€the€section€cannot€be€construed€to€allow€the€supremeÏcourt€to€remove€judges€without€cause.€€First,€he€argues€that€such€an€interpretationÏviolates€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€11€(III)(d),€which€places€responsibility€for€reducing€docketÏdelays€on€the€presiding€judge€of€each€judicial€district.€€Next,€he€insists€that€such€anÏinterpretation€violates€œArticle›€VI,€œSection›€œ11›€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,Ïproviding€for€the€appointment€of€special€judges€in€limited€situations.€€Finally,€heÏcontends€that€such€an€interpretation€violates€œArticle›€I,€œSection›€œ8›€and€œArticle›€XI,ÏœSection›€œ8›€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€ÌÌà àà àThis€court€is€bound€by€the€decisions€of€our€supreme€court.€€œOur›€courtÏmay€only€review€the€"final€judgments€of€trial€courts."€€œTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„5„108(a).€€Our›€court€does€not€have€the€jurisdiction€to€review€the€propriety€of€an€orderÏby€our€supreme€court.€€"'[I]t€is€a€controlling€principle€that€inferior€courts€must€abideÏthe€orders,€decrees€and€precedents€of€higher€courts.€€The€€slightest€deviation€fromÏthis€rigid€rule€would€disrupt€and€destroy€the€sanctity€of€the€judicial€process.'"€€òòStateÏv.€Irickóó,€906€S.W.2d€440,€443€(Tenn.€1995)€(quoting€òòBarger€v.€Brockóó,€535€S.W.2dÏ337,€341€(Tenn.€1976)).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBloodworth€v.€Stuartóó,€428€S.W.2d€786€(Tenn.Ï1968).€€Accordingly,€we€may€neither€modify€nor€rescind€the€order€of€the€supremeÏcourt€designating€Judge€Russell€to€hear€the€case.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIVÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner€next€argues€that€the€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836ÏS.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992),€should€be€retroactively€applied€to€his€case,€therebyÏrendering€œthe€›jury€instructions€at€trial€erroneous.€€In€òòBrownóó,€our€supreme€court€ruledÏthat,€because€of€potential€juror€confusion,€trial€courts€should€no€longer€instruct€theÏjury€that€the€premeditation€required€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€first€degree€murderÏcan€be€"formed€in€an€instant."€€The€trial€in€this€case€was€conducted€before€the€rulingÏin€òòBrownóó;€thus,€the€petitioner€would€not€be€entitled€to€relief€unless€the€holding€hadÏretroactive€application.€€ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€repeatedly€held€that€òòBrownóó€did€not€announce€a€newÏconstitutional€principle.€€Retroactive€application€is€not€permissible.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,ÏòòLofton€v.€Stateóó,€898€S.W.2d€246,€250€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(citing€threeÏunpublished€cases€holding€òòBrownóó€does€not€apply€œretroactively).›€€Accordingly,Ïerroneous€jury€instructions€under€òòBrownóó€could€not€qualify€as€a€basis€for€post„conviction€relief.€€€€€ÌÌÓ  ÓV,€VI,€VII,€&€VIII€ÌÓ  Óà àà àIssues€five,€six,€seven,€and€eight€œmay€be€considered€together.€€TheyÏare›€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(V)€œ€whether›€the€jury€instructions€on€the€"heinous,Ïatrocious€or€cruel"€aggravating€circumstance€œwere›Ïunconstitutionally€vague;ÌÌ(VI)€œ€whether›€the€petitioner's€confession€was€unlawfullyÏobtained€and€illegally€admitted€at€his€trial;€ÌÌœ(VII)€›€whether€the€failure€of€the€trial€court€to€instruct€theÏjury€on€the€effect€of€non„unanimity€and€the€option€toÏrecommend€life€imprisonment€violated€the€petitioner'sÏrights€under€the€œEighth›€and€œFourteenth›€œAmendments;›ÏandÌÌœ(VIII)€›€whether€the€trial€court's€allowing€Dr.€Watson€toÏtestify€and€œintroduce›€œpsychiatric/psychological›€reportsÏthrough€his€testimony€was€an€unconstitutional€denial€œofÏthe›€petitioner's€rights.ÌÌÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓIn€each€instance,€our€supreme€court€previously€determined€the€issue€on€directÏappeal.€€òòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€248,€251,€252.€€"A€ground€for€relief€is€'previouslyÏdetermined'€if€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€fullÏand€fair€hearing."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(repealed€1995).€€A€"full€andÏfair€hearing"€occurs€if€the€"petitioner€is€given€the€opportunity€to€present€proof€andÏargument€on€the€petition€for€post„conviction€œrelief."€›€œòòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2dÏ705,€714€(Tenn.€1996)€(footnote€omitted),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€116€S.Ct.€1685€(1996).€€›Ì€€€Ìà àà àThe€petitioner's€fifth€issue,€that€the€jury€œinstructions›€on€the€"heinous,Ïatrocious€or€cruel"€aggravating€circumstance€were€unconstitutionally€vague€hasÍbeen€considered€and€rejected€by€our€supreme€court.€€On€direct€appeal,€Ìthe€petitioner€contended€that€œthe›€aggravator€was€"unconstitutionally€vague€underÏthe€holding€in€òòMaynard€v.€Cartwrightóó."€€òòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€252.€€OurÏsupreme€court€ruled€that€"the€additional€[òòWilliamsóó]€instructions€give€the€juryÏsufficient€guidance€to€prevent€arbitrary€sentencing."€€œòòId.ó󛀀Thus,€the€issue€has€beenÏpreviously€determined.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(repealed€1995).€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€690€S.W.2d€517,€529€(Tenn.€1985),€our€supremeÏcourt€defined€the€"heinous,€atrocious€and€cruel"€aggravator€in€such€a€way€as€toÏnarrow€its€application€and€meet€constitutional€standards.€€The€petitioner€concedesÏthat€these€definitions€comply€with€the€requirements€of€òòWilliamsóó;€he€argues,Ïhowever,€that€subsequent€cases,€primarily€federal€cases,€have€found€theÏinstructions€given€to€be€unconstitutionally€vague.€€In€òòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€854€F.ÏSupp.€1305€(M.D.€Tenn.€1994),€a€federal€district€court€did€indeed€rule€that€the€juryÏinstructions€on€this€particular€aggravating€circumstance€were€erroneous.€€TheÏruling€in€òòRickmanóó,€however,€does€not€bind€this€court.€€The€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€is€the€only€federal€court€Tennessee€courts€are€bound€to€follow.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏMcKayóó,€680€S.W.2d€447,€450€(Tenn.€1984);€òòState€v.€Bowersóó,€673€S.W.2d€887,€889Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€Thus,€the€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€sixth€issue€is€that€his€confession€was€unlawfullyÏobtained€and€illegally€admitted€at€his€trial.€€The€petitioner€admits€that€heÏunsuccessfully€contested€the€admission€of€his€confession€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóóÏòòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€247„48.€€On€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€cited€aÏ"violation€of€his€fifth€amendment€right€to€counsel€during€custodial€interrogation."€€œòòId.óó›Ïat€247.€€He€insisted€that€an€invocation€of€his€right€to€remain€silent€was€not€honored.€ÏOur€supreme€court€agreed€that€when€an€accused€invokes€the€right€to€remain€silent,Ïall€questioning€must€cease.€€œòòId.ó󛀀Yet€œthe€supreme€court€ruled€the›€right€may€beÏsubsequently€waived€if€the€accused€initiates€further€contact€with€police.€€œòòId.ó󛀀ThisÏrecord€demonstrates€that€the€petitioner€reinitiated€contact€with€the€police€andÏ"voluntarily€relinquished"€his€rights€to€counsel€and€to€remain€œsilent.€€òòId.ó󛀀OurÏsupreme€court€so€held.€€œòòId.ó󛀀€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€claims,€however,€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€review€of€theÏadmissibility€of€his€statement€under€the€standards€enunciated€in€òòState€v.€Crumpóó,Ï834€S.W.2d€265,€269€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€òòCrumpóó,€œour›€supreme€court€held€that€theÏadmissibility€of€statements€obtained€after€a€person€in€custody€has€decided€toÏremain€silent€depends€on€whether€his€right€to€cut€off€questioning€was€"scrupulouslyÏhonored."€€œòòId.óó›ÌÌà àà àPost„conviction€relief€may€be€granted€when€a€conviction€is€"void€orÏvoidable€because€of€the€abridgement€...€of€any€[constitutional]€right€...€including€aÏright€that€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial€if€either€constitutionÏrequires€retrospective€application€of€that€right."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105Ï(repealed€1995).€€By€this€argument,€the€petitioner€implies€that€òòCrumpóó€œcreated›€aÏ"right€that€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial."€€œThere›€must€beÏretroactive€application€"when€the€new€state€rule€enhances€the€integrity€andÏreliability€of€the€fact€finding€process€of€the€trial."€€òòMeadows€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2dÏ748,€754€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àAfter€Crump€was€arrested€and€provided€òòMirandaóó€warnings,€heÏinvoked€his€right€to€remain€silent.€€òòCrumpóó,€834€S.W.2d€at€266.€€Notwithstanding€hisÏassertion€that€he€did€not€wish€to€talk€to€police,€the€officers€arranged€to€take€CrumpÏon€a€ride€through€the€crime€scene€area€in€the€hope€of€learning€more€about€theÏcrime.€€œòòId.óó›€at€267.€€Crump€did,€in€fact,€make€some€incriminating€statements€and€laterÏgave€a€full€confession.€€œòòId.óó€€Our›€supreme€court€concluded€that€the€police€conduct€inÏtaking€Crump€on€the€ride€"amounted€to€a€violation€of€the€defendant's€state€andÏfederal€constitutional€rights."€€œòòId.óó›€at€270.€€Our€supreme€court€also€determined€thatÏthe€subsequent€confession€given€was€inadmissible,€even€though€it€was€made€afterÏCrump€had€been€given€òòMirandaóó€warnings.€€œòòId.óó›€at€œ271.€€In›€œòòCrumpóó€our€supreme€courtÍrelied€on›€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€834€S.W.2d€915€(Tenn.€1992),€a€companion€caseÏreleased€the€same€œday,€to€determine€that€the€confession€was€inadmissible.€€InÏòòSmithóó,€it›€was€held€that€œunder€the€Tennessee€Constitution€the›€"extraction€of€anÏillegal,€unwarned€confession€from€a€defendant€raises€a€òòrebuttableóó€presumption€thatÏa€subsequent€confession,€even€if€preceded€by€proper€òòMirandaóó€warnings,€is€taintedÏby€the€initial€illegality,"€but€that€presumption€may€be€overcome€by€the€state€if€theÏstate€can€show€the€"'taint€is€so€attenuated€as€to€justify€admission€of€the€subsequentÏconfession.'"€€œòòId.óó›€at€919€(quoting€in€part€òòOregon€v.€Elstadóó,€470€U.S.€298,€335€(1985)Ï(Brennan,€J.,€dissenting)).ÌÌà àà àThe€òòCrumpóó€decision€encompasses€two€separate€holdings:€€first,€thatÏonce€an€accused€asserts€his€right€to€remain€silent,€the€state€must€scrupulouslyÏhonor€that€right€or€run€the€risk€that€any€statement€acquired€be€excluded€in€someÏcircumstances;€and€second,€œrelying€on€òòSmithóó,€where›€an€initial€illegal€confession€isÏœtainted,›€the€subsequent€confession€will€be€presumed€illegal.€€That€portion€ofÏœòòCrumpóó,›€which€holds€that€when€an€accused€invokes€his€fifth€amendment€œright›€it€mustÏbe€œhonored,›€does€apply€to€the€petitioner€in€this€case.€€Yet€that€portion€of€òòCrumpóó€isÏnot€new€law.€€In€fact,€the€same€law€œwas€applied›€in€the€direct€œappeal€of€this€case.›€ÏòòSeeóó€òòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€747.€€Thus,€a€òòMeadowsóó€analysis€is€unnecessary.€ÏœThis›€issue€has€been€previously€determined€œadversely›€to€the€petitioner€and€cannotÍbe€the€basis€for€post„conviction€relief.œ× ƒ2 ××  ×›à àÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€seventh€issue€involving€challenges€to€certain€juryÏinstructions€at€the€penalty€phase€œhas›€been€previously€determined.€€First,€he€arguesÏthat€the€instructions€required€the€jury€to€find€mitigating€circumstances€only€if€thereÏwas€unanimous€agreement€on€their€œexistence;€he›€contends€that€the€charge€violatedÏthe€ruling€in€òòMills€v.€Marylandóó,€486€U.S.€367€(1988).€€The€petitioner€also€complainsÏthat€the€jury€was€not€instructed€that€if€they€failed€to€agree€on€a€sentence,€a€lifeÏsentence€would€automatically€be€imposed.€€Finally,€the€petitioner€complains€asÏerroneous€instructions€œthat›€if€aggravating€circumstances€had€been€proved,€suchÏcircumstances€must€be€outweighed€by€"sufficiently€substantial"€mitigatingÏcircumstances€before€a€life€sentence€may€be€œimposed;›€œthe›€petitioner€admits€thisÏissue€was€reviewed€on€direct€appeal,€but€submits€the€supreme€court€"misse[d]€theÏpoint."ÌÌà àà àOn€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€argued€"that€the€jury€in€this€case€wasÍrequired€to€agree€unanimously€on€the€existence€of€mitigating€circumstances,€andÏthereby€one€or€more€jurors€might€have€been€precluded€from€considering€evidenceÏhe€or€she€deemed€mitigating€in€the€ultimate€determination."€€òòThompsonóó,€768ÏS.W.2d€at€250.€€The€supreme€court€reviewed€the€instructions€and€ruled€that€they€Ïincluded€"none€of€the€objectionable€features€of€the€instructions€in€œòòMillsóó....€€There›€isÏno€merit€to€this€issue."€€œòòId.óó›€at€251.€€Thus,€the€issue€has€been€previously€determined.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(repealed€1995).€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€contention€that€the€instructions€were€erroneous€for€using€theÏphrase€œ"sufficiently›€œsubstantial"›€has€œalso€been›€previously€determined.€€On€directÏappeal,€the€petitioner€œargued›€that€"this€phrasing€places€a€burden€on€the€defendantÏto€demonstrate€that€death€is€not€the€appropriate€penalty,€and€that€this€burden€is€aÏdenial€of€due€process."€€òòThompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€at€251.€€In€rejecting€this€claim,€ourÏsupreme€court€observed,€œ"[w]e›€are€convinced€that€in€this€context,€the€phrasing€doesÏnot€operate€to€preclude€consideration€of€any€relevant€mitigating€factors€and€that€itÏœsatisfies›€the€constraints€of€the€eighth€amendment."€€œòòId.óó€at›€252.€€Accordingly,€thisÏissue€has€been€previously€determined.€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€œpetitioner's€eighth€issue€is›€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€Dr.ÏWatson€to€testify.€€He€argues€that€the€testimony€was€not€proper€rebuttal€œevidence.›€ÍOn€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€had€contended€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admittingÏDr.€Watson's€deposition€testimony€to€rebut€the€defendant's€own€expert.€€œòòId.óó›€at€248.€ÏHe€insisted€that€the€use€of€this€evidence€violated€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt's€holding€in€òòEstelle€v.€Smithóó,€451€U.S.€454€(1981),€where€limitations€hadÏbeen€placed€on€the€use€of€court€ordered€mental€evaluations.€€Our€supreme€courtÏœruled›€that€"[a]ll€of€these€limitations€were€observed€in€this€œcase....›€œ€We›€find€noÏconstitutional€error€in€the€admission€of€Dr.€Watson's€deposition."€€òòThompsonóó,€768ÏS.W.2d€at€248.€€Thus,€the€issue€has€been€previously€determined.Ì€€ÌÓ  ÓIX€&€XÌÓ  Óà àà àIssues€nine€and€œten€may€also€be€considered€together.€€They›€are€œasÏfollows:›€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓœ(IX)›€œ€whether›€the€petitioner€was€denied€his€constitutionalÏright€to€a€trial€by€jury€by€the€exclusion€of€two€prospectiveÏjurors;€andÌÌœ(X)›€€whether€the€petitioner's€constitutional€rights€wereÏviolated€by€implicit€references€to€his€failure€to€testify.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓEach€claim€has€been€waived.€€We€will€attempt€to€œexplain.›€€The€post„convictionÏstatute€in€effect€when€the€petition€was€filed€defines€waiver:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ X ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à(b)(1)€€A€ground€for€relief€is€waived€if€the€petitionerÏknowingly€and€understandingly€failed€to€present€it€forÏdetermination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€ofÍcompetent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€haveÏbeen€presented.ÌÌà à(2)€€There€is€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€aÏground€for€relief€not€raised€in€any€such€proceedingÏwhich€was€held€was€waived.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓœTenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„30„112(b)€(repealed›€1995).€€Our€supreme€court€has€heldÏthat€"the€rebuttable€presumption€of€waiver€is€not€overcome€by€an€allegation€that€theÏpetitioner€did€not€personally,€œknowingly,›€and€understandingly€fail€to€raise€a€groundÏfor€relief."€œ€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€714.€€The›€court€continued,€"[w]aiver€in€the€post„conviction€context€is€to€be€determined€by€an€objective€standard€under€which€aÏpetitioner€is€bound€by€the€action€or€inaction€of€his€attorney."€€œòòId.ó󛀀Clearly,€each€claimÏwas€available€œon›€direct€appeal.€€€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€œsubmits€as€his€ninth€issue›€that€his€constitutional€right€toÏa€trial€by€jury€was€violated€by€the€unconstitutional€exclusion€of€two€prospectiveÏjurors€by€the€trial€court.€€œThe›€trial€court€excluded€œthese›€prospective€jurors€becauseÏof€their€moral€or€religious€based€reluctance€to€impose€the€death€penalty.€€TheÏpetitioner€now€argues€that€such€an€exclusion€violates€Article€I,€œSection›€œ4›€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution,€which€provides€that€no€political€or€religious€test€shall€beÏrequired€as€a€qualification€œfor€any›€office€œof›€public€trust€in€Tennessee.€€He€œalsoÏinsists›€that€such€an€exclusion€violates€Article€I,€œSection›€œ6›€which€provides€that€noÍreligious€or€political€test€shall€ever€be€required€as€a€qualification€for€a€juror.€€ÌÌà àà àThis€issue€was€not€pursued€at€trial€or€on€direct€appeal.€€Accordingly,Ïthe€claim€is€waived.€€òòSeeóó€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€œ714.›€€Notwithstanding€waiver,€ourÏcourts€have€rejected€the€merits€of€this€argument.€€œOur›€supreme€court€œhas€held›€thatÏthere€is€no€constitutional€violation€by€excusing€jurors€whose€"views€on€capitalÏpunishment€rendered€them€unable€to€follow€the€law€as€given€to€them€by€the€courtÏand€to€perform€their€duties€as€jurors€in€accord€with€their€oaths."€€œòòState€v.€Jonesóó,€789ÏS.W.2d€545,€547€(Tenn.€1990)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945,€949€(Tenn.Ï1987)).›ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner's€œtenth›€argument,€that€his€constitutional€rights€wereÏviolated€by€the€repetitive€implicit€references€to€his€failure€to€testify,€œis€alsoÏprocedurally€barred.›€€In€closing,€the€state€commented€on€the€failure€to€present€aÏdefense:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThere€has€been€no€defense€presented€to€first„degreeÏmurder€....€€[T]hey€[the€defense€attorneys]€have€beenÏable€to€see€the€"handwriting€on€the€wall."€€They€are€goodÏattorneys,€they€saw€the€proof,€they€knew€there€was€noÏdefense,€so€they€have€offered€no€defense€to€murder€inÏthe€first€œdegree.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThere›€was€no€objection€at€the€trial€and€the€issue€was€not€raised€on€direct€appeal.€ÍBy€failing€to€raise€the€issue€on€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€has€waived€it.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(repealed€1995);€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€714.€€If€we€wereÏto€address€the€merits€of€the€issue,€we€would€have€ruled€for€the€state.€€As€statedÏpreviously,€the€argument€was€not€improper€and€was€merely€an€assessment€of€theÏevidence€presented€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackmonóó,€701€S.W.2d€228,€œ233€(Tenn.›ÏCrim.€App.€1985).€€œÌÌ›à àà àHaving€found€no€merit€to€any€of€the€petitioner's€claims€for€post„conviction€relief,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€à àà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌÓÓWilliam€M.€œBarker,€Judge€›ÌÌÌ