ÿWPC 0 «B Ó,M)Ãö›Ï2Þ_®aR\^⹬Û‚Íü p™›må]1õÒF¶qíh°Wh‰»¢N}ã(éérñº¾+Íþ´UUúd¸» ôø=“JÕåkqr;o{–]öÝwÎMýŸö™²$¸«xæò~ OŸ~“·q˜ç‘¾„¢‘Â,Æ¥­ÌçO¸ôj°„ŸŸÚɳ°<’\ó-ßx‰v™ÿØ~õ‹H˜µ¹ð¥ýØ6î)FþxÝ0;¥&`Kõ™‰¥„ë'6ýú{ö=ËR€Ì%NRR1˜N˜šðÝlÚ  "×µgºÙ ZÛWJSå”Àk¿ü';Mµz˃B–6r¡=_ÒÙÞ¬ûDÕÏ^Îu.¿€ÚzÛ=}:ÃÍ %šžÓÑžÙKêZ”øý†óÀNÁcrÄrǼ°D·éY/a•ŽÅ; ÏÏ÷fEtXf³g j@ÇG´žþ0û{ðÂ× oï"@w´z÷Žå¾ ÒàWxþQŸ·ì?pŠ1‰ó­:ÔŽµ0 éŠ)|wÁ9Òó°<žjÐBkõã†+8…„_†§žÌ“3# Ê %ÕUNÛ 0Æ)ï4÷ _U:y w@³ U:ó 0 - 0D7U:{yµU:.U:h¢U:¤òÞU:Ðï U:ù_3ò’U:„U:¾aøU:Y"“"U:•$ AQÏ$a %Æ' 0DG( 0D‹( 0DÏ( B) D/0) B_)*|) D3¦*U:Ù*Ù*y+U:Œ.U:Æ.U:/ 1m:/ 0c§/˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏX(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ:M+%3|xR. UÝ ƒ 0Ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€X¥aXXXÔÔ€ô¯ÚôXX¥aÔÓÓAfter€reviewing€the€trial€court's€Rule€12€Report€to€the€Supreme€Court,€Assistant€DistrictÐ `  ÐAttorney€General€Jan€Hicks€wrote€the€trial€judge€a€letter€which€states€in€part:€ÌÌÒä 4ÒÒ¸ XÒ[T]here€is€one€glaring€omission€under€Part€D10Ï"significant€data€about€defense€representation."€...€ÏTom€DePersio€left€after€the€question€of€penalty€wasÏsubmitted€to€the€jury€and€did€not€return€and€was€notÏpresent€when€the€death€penalty€verdict€was€returned.€ÏThis€is,€of€course,€a€fact€known€to€the€Court€....€ÏWhile€it€may€be€a€question€as€to€whether€this€wasÏ"significant,"€it€was€certainly€unusual,€notable€andÏwell„publicized€and€since€this€is€a€death€penaltyÏcase,€we€believe€it€should€be€noted€in€the€report€in€allÏfairness€to€the€defendant€and€the€judicial€process.€ÌÌÒ¸ ÒÒ4ä ÒThis€letter€is€included€in€the€record€as€an€apparent€effort€to€correct€the€Rule€12ÏReport.€€, øð AZ"Arial Regular >.U?.D@.A.EB.DC.D. +E.DF.G.Ó€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(º(3©$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular oÝ ƒ ©$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€X£¯XXXÔÔ€ôé­ôX.X£¯ÔÔ‡ôé­ôô.ôé­ÔTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€13€governs€appointment€of€counsel€in€capital€cases.€€PriorÐ `  Ðto€July€1,€1997,€the€rule€provided,€"[i]n€a€capital€case€two€attorneys€òòmayóó€be€appointed€for€oneÐ  ¾ Ðdefendant."€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€13,€ðð€1€(prior€to€amendment€in€1997)€(emphasis€added).€€Effective€JulyÏ1,€1997,€the€rule€provides€that€"at€least€two€attorneys€òòmustóó€be€appointed€to€represent€a€defendant€atÐ š : Ðtrial€in€a€capital€case."€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€13Ô#†ôé­ôô/ôé­Á#ÔÔ‡ôé­ôô.ôé­Ô,€ðð€3€(b).Ô#†ôé­ôô/ôé­#ÔÔ€ôé­ôô.ôé­Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular øÝ ƒ 0Ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ X¥aXXXÔÓÓÔ‡ ô¯ÚôX X¥aÔGarrison€also€challenged€the€performance€of€DePersio.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€foundÐ `  Ðthat€use€of€excessive€alcohol€was€not€a€basis€for€relief€but€did€grant€relief€because€of€counsel's€failureÏto€communicate€a€plea€offer€to€the€defendant€prior€to€trial.€€òòGarrisonóó,€slip€op.€at€25.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular èÝ ƒ ©$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€X£¯XXXÔÔ€ôé­ôXX£¯ÔÓÓòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Zimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€220,€221„22€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(counsel€foundÐ `  Ðineffective€for€promising€the€jury€during€opening€statement€that€a€psychiatrist€would€attest€to€theÏdefendant's€"battered€wife€syndrome"€and€then€failing€to€call€the€witness).€€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular åÝ ƒ ©$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€X£¯XXXÔÔ€ôé­ôXX£¯ÔThese€issues€are€listed€in€an€addendum€to€the€brief.€€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular UÝ ƒ ©$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€X£¯XXXÔÔ€ôé­ôXX£¯ÔÓÓAfter€reviewing€the€trial€court's€Rule€12€Report€to€the€Supreme€Court,€Assistant€DistrictÐ `  ÐAttorney€General€Jan€Hicks€wrote€the€trial€judge€a€letter€which€states€in€part:€ÌÌÒä 4ÒÒ¸ XÒ[T]here€is€one€glaring€omission€under€Part€D10Ï"significant€data€about€defense€representation."€...€ÏTom€DePersio€left€after€the€question€of€penalty€wasÏsubmitted€to€the€jury€and€did€not€return€and€was€notÏpresent€when€the€death€penalty€verdict€was€returned.€ÏThis€is,€of€course,€a€fact€known€to€the€Court€....€ÏWhile€it€may€be€a€question€as€to€whether€this€wasÏ"significant,"€it€was€certainly€unusual,€notable€andÏwell„publicized€and€since€this€is€a€death€penaltyÏcase,€we€believe€it€should€be€noted€in€the€report€in€allÏfairness€to€the€defendant€and€the€judicial€process.€ÌÌÒ¸ ÒÒ4ä ÒThis€letter€is€included€in€the€record€as€an€apparent€effort€to€correct€the€Rule€12ÏReport.€€ èÝ ƒ 0Ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€X¥aXXXÔÔ€ô¯ÚôXX¥aÔÓÓòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Zimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€220,€221„22€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(counsel€foundÐ `  Ðineffective€for€promising€the€jury€during€opening€statement€that€a€psychiatrist€would€attest€to€theÏdefendant's€"battered€wife€syndrome"€and€then€failing€to€call€the€witness).€€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular WÝ ƒ ©$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ‡X£¯XXXÔÔ‡ôé­ôX X£¯ÔExcept€in€Kentucky,€when€a€prisoner€voluntarily€terminated€his€appeals,€no€death€penalty€hasÐ `  Ðbeen€carried€out€in€the€Sixth€Circuit€of€the€United€States€since€the€release€of€the€Supreme€Court'sÏopinion€in€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153€(1976).€€Michigan€has€no€death€penalty.€€As€of€April€1,Ð Ü | Ð1998,€Ohio,€Kentucky,€and€Tennessee€have€305€prisoners€on€death€row.€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular øÝ ƒ ©$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡X£¯XXXÔÓÓÔ‡ôé­ôX X£¯ÔGarrison€also€challenged€the€performance€of€DePersio.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€foundÐ `  Ðthat€use€of€excessive€alcohol€was€not€a€basis€for€relief€but€did€grant€relief€because€of€counsel's€failureÏto€communicate€a€plea€offer€to€the€defendant€prior€to€trial.€€òòGarrisonóó,€slip€op.€at€25., øð AZ"Arial Regular"#$%'Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ WÝ ƒ 0Ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ‡ X¥aXXXÔÔ‡ ô¯ÚôX X¥aÔExcept€in€Kentucky,€when€a€prisoner€voluntarily€terminated€his€appeals,€no€death€penalty€hasÐ `  Ðbeen€carried€out€in€the€Sixth€Circuit€of€the€United€States€since€the€release€of€the€Supreme€Court'sÏopinion€in€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153€(1976).€€Michigan€has€no€death€penalty.€€As€of€April€1,Ð ¸ X Ð1998,€Ohio,€Kentucky,€and€Tennessee€have€305€prisoners€on€death€row.€ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd Ý ƒ#¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+XÓ—XXXÔÔ€+ƒBX+XÓ—ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€+XÓ—X+ƒBÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€15,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€+ôÌ·ôX+XÓ—ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó&&&&'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular oÝ ƒ 0Ã$ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÓÓà Œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€.X¥aXXXÔÔ€.ô¯ÚôX.X¥aÔÔ‡/ô¯Úôô.ô¯ÚÔTennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€13€governs€appointment€of€counsel€in€capital€cases.€€PriorÐ `  Ðto€July€1,€1997,€the€rule€provided,€"[i]n€a€capital€case€two€attorneys€òòmayóó€be€appointed€for€oneÐ ð  Ðdefendant."€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€13,€ðð€1€(prior€to€amendment€in€1997)€(emphasis€added).€€Effective€JulyÏ1,€1997,€the€rule€provides€that€"at€least€two€attorneys€òòmustóó€be€appointed€to€represent€a€defendant€atÐ €  Ðtrial€in€a€capital€case."€€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€13Ô#†.ô¯Úôô/ô¯ÚÁ#ÔÔ‡/ô¯Úôô.ô¯ÚÔ,€ðð€3€(b).Ô#†.ô¯Úôô/ô¯Ú#ÔÔ€0ô¯Úôô.ô¯ÚÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular2#Re37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;³Í$´´Ô2ReÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÔ€ XÓ—XXXÔÑ7€ °K XXdðXXdð7Ñà@g g ÚàòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóˆÐ `  Ðà@*ÚàòòAT€KNOXVILLEóóˆÐ , Ì ÐñG.ñœßr€ )*<,(j 8` `€€@E ù ` ttx$Xø ð Õrß›ñG.ñà@bb'ÚàAUGUST€1997€SESSIONˆÌÌDAVID€ALLEN€BRIMMER,à ì à*à D àC.C.A.€#€€03C01„9703„CC„00083Ð 0 Ðà Œ àà ä àAppellant,à ” àà ì à*à D àANDERSON€COUNTYÐ \ü  ÐVS.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àHon.€James€B.€Scott,€JudgeÐ (È  ÐÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì à*à D à(Post„Conviction„„Death€Penalty)Ð ô”  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAppellee.à ” àà ì à*Ð À` ÐÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à < àà ” àà ì àà D àòòFor€Appelleeóó:Ð $Ä ÐÌW.€Thomas€Dillardà < àà ” àà ì àà D àJohn€Knox€WalkupÐ ð ÐRitchie,€Fels€&€Dillard,€P.C.à ì àà D àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ Öv Ð606€West€Main€Street€à ” àà ì àà D àÐ ¼ \ ÐSuite€300,€P.O.€Box€1126à ” àà ì àà D àMichael€E.€Moore€Ð ¢!B ÐKnoxville,€TN€€37901„1126à ì àà D àSolicitor€GeneralÐ ˆ"( ÐÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àDarian€B.€Taylor€Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€General€Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àCordell€Hull€Building,€Second€FloorÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D à4025€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àJan€HicksÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àRoom€126,€Anderson€County€CourthouseÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àClinton,€TN€€37716€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€AND€REMANDED€IN€PARTÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÐ  Ê:j17S ÐÓÓà@33-ÚàòòOPINIONóóˆÐ `  Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner,€David€Allen€Brimmer,€was€convicted€of€first€degreeÏmurder€on€March€1,€1991.€€A€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty€based€upon€a€singleÏaggravating€circumstance:€€that€the€petitioner€was€engaged€in€the€commission€of€aÏrobbery€at€the€time€of€the€crime.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(7).€€On€directÏappeal,€the€conviction€and€sentence€were€affirmed€by€our€supreme€court.€€òòState€v.Ð \ü  ÐBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€April€18,€1995,€the€petitioner€filed€aÐ (È  Ðpost„conviction€petition€alleging,€among€other€things,€that€he€was€denied€theÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€evidentiary€hearing,€theÏtrial€court€denied€relief.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€petitioner€presents€the€following€issues€forÏour€review:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(I)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€petitioner€was€denied€theÐ ¼ \ Ðeffective€assistance€of€counsel;€Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(II)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€petitioner's€confession€shouldÐ n# Ðhave€been€excluded€from€the€evidence;Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(III)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€there€was€prosecutorialÐ  &À  Ðmisconduct€during€the€course€of€the€trial;Ïand€€Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(IV)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€various€constitutional€violationsÐ ¸)X $ Ðand€trial€errors€entitle€the€petitioner€to€reliefÏfrom€his€death€sentence.€Ð <x<x ÐÌÓÓÌà Œ àà ä àWe€affirm€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief€on€the€conviction€of€firstÏdegree€murder.€€Due€to€the€ineffective€assistance€of€defense€counsel€in€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€we€reverse€the€penalty€of€death€and€remand€to€the€trialÏcourt€for€a€new€hearing.€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä à€On€the€evening€of€October€22,€1989,€the€victim,€Rodney€Compton,Ð 8¸.4 Ðwas€to€have€returned€to€the€Knoxville€airport€from€a€cruise€to€the€Bahamas.€€SixteenÏdays€later,€his€body€was€discovered€in€a€hayfield€in€rural€Loudon€County.€€AnÏautopsy€established€that€his€neck€had€been€cut.€€Suffocation€and€strangulation€wereÏthe€probable€causes€of€death.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€February€3,€1990,€the€petitioner€was€arrested€on€unrelated€chargesÏin€Refugio,€Texas.€€It€was€determined€that€he€was€driving€the€victim's€pickup€truck.€ÏThe€victim's€jacket€and€a€pair€of€handcuffs€were€inside€the€vehicle.€€Three€weeksÏlater,€the€petitioner€confessed€that€he€had€killed€the€victim.€€He€told€officers€that€onÏthe€evening€of€October€22,€the€victim€had€offered€him€a€ride€in€his€truck.€€WhileÏconceding€that€he€had€intended€to€rob€the€victim,€the€petitioner€claimed€that€whenÏthe€victim€made€sexual€advances,€he€represented€to€the€victim€that€he€was€a€policeÏofficer€and€then€"arrested"€and€handcuffed€the€victim.€€The€petitioner€revealed€thatÏhe€then€drove€the€victim€to€a€location€in€Anderson€County,€choked€him€to€death,€andÏreturned€to€Loudon€County€where€he€disposed€of€the€body.€€While€being€returned€toÏthis€state€from€Texas,€the€petitioner€informed€officers€that€he€had€killed€the€victim€inÏa€park€in€Anderson€County.€€Another€source€indicated€that€the€petitioner€had€been€inÏAnderson€County€at€the€time€of€the€victim's€disappearance.€€Other€evidenceÏestablished€that€only€a€few€days€after€the€disappearance€of€the€victim,€the€petitionerÏwas€seen€in€possession€of€the€victim's€truck,€his€jacket,€and€several€of€the€souvenirsÏthat€had€been€purchased€in€the€Bahamas.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€78.Ð À0`'* ÐÌà Œ àà ä àDuring€the€course€of€trial,€the€petitioner€was€initially€represented€onlyÏby€Attorney€Thomas€DePersio.€€When€the€petitioner€complained€to€the€trial€courtÏabout€his€lack€of€communication€from€DePersio,€Michael€Clement€was€appointed.€Ð @8à.2 ÐClement,€who€had€three€years'€experience€in€the€law€practice,€had€not€beenÏpreviously€involved€in€a€capital€case.€€He€recalled€that€he€had€not€utilized€an€expertÏin€any€prior€criminal€case,€although€he€"may€have€[used€one]€in€a€personal€injuryÏmatter."€€Clement,€who€had€completed€only€three€jury€trials€before€this€case,€wasÏappointed€as€additional€counsel€approximately€two€months€prior€to€trial.ñD.ñ׃-×ñD.ññD.ñ׃×ñD.ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€AnÐ à€ Ðinvestigator,€Mike€Cohan,€was€employed€to€assist€the€petitioner€and€his€attorneysÏsome€five€weeks€prior€to€trial.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDuring€the€course€of€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€this€post„convictionÏclaim,€Clement€testified€that€soon€after€his€appointment,€he€became€the€first€ofÏpetitioner's€attorneys€to€review€the€state's€evidence.€€DePersio€had€not€previouslyÏdone€so.€€Clement€recalled€meeting€with€DePersio€on€several€occasions€prior€to€trial.€ÏHe€also€remembered€that€DePersio€often€drank€beer€during€their€meetings,€some€ofÏwhich€started€as€early€as€9:00€A.M.€€Clement,€a€solo€practitioner,€describedÏDePersio€as€having€a€heavy€caseload€as€a€public€defender.€€Clement€perceivedÏDePersio€as€having€a€substance€abuse€problem€and€remembered€that€DePersioÏwent€to€a€bar€at€the€conclusion€of€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial€while€the€juryÏengaged€in€its€deliberations.€€DePersio€was€not€present€when€the€jury€sentencedÏBrimmer€to€death.€€Clement€conceded€that€he€made€no€complaints€to€either€theÏpublic€defender€or€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility€about€DePersio'sÏconduct.€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àPrior€to€the€trial,€Clement€had€expressed€concern€to€DePersio€aboutÐ  2@), Ðthe€petitioner's€mental€condition€and€suggested€an€evaluation.€€DePersio€expressedÏhis€belief€that€psychological€proof€was€"voodoo"€and€"did€not€work."€€He€also€thoughtÏit€was€not€particularly€relevant€in€this€case€because€the€petitioner€had€deniedÏcommitting€the€crime.€€DePersio€did,€however,€consent€to€a€psychological€evaluationÏof€the€petitioner,€which€was€later€performed€by€Dr.€Eric€Engum.€€DePersio€had€noÏobjections€to€the€psychological€proof€as€long€as€Clement€"had€to€find€the€person,€[]Ïdo€the€research,€[and]€prepare....€€It€was€[Clement's]€issue."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àClement€recalled€that€the€hearing€on€the€defense€motion€to€suppressÏthe€confession€filed€by€DePersio€was€held€long€before€his€appointment€to€the€case.€ÏAt€the€suppression€hearing,€DePersio€did€not€raise€any€psychological€issuesÏconcerning€the€voluntariness€or€accuracy€of€the€confession.€€Clement€recalledÏasking€DePersio€"why€...€didn't€he€raise€any€psychological€issues€at€the€suppressionÏlevel."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àClement€also€recalled€that€he€and€Dr.€Engum€had€done€research€onÏthe€possibility€of€Prisoner€of€War€Syndrome,€based€upon€the€twenty„one€days€theÏpetitioner€served€in€solitary€confinement€prior€to€his€confession€in€Texas.€€HeÏquestioned€DePersio's€decision€not€to€use€Dr.€Engum€during€the€suppressionÏhearing.€€It€was€Clement's€opinion€that€Dr.€Engum€would€have€been€helpful€inÏestablishing€how€Brimmer€"could€have€been€broken€and€given€a€confession."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àClement€testified€that€when€two€attorneys€represented€a€partyÏdefendant,€it€was€customary€in€the€Anderson€County€trial€court€for€the€specificÏattorney€who€conducted€the€cross„examination€of€a€state€witness€to€also€take€fullÏresponsibility€for€making€objections€to€any€inappropriate€questions€by€the€state.€€HeÐ @8à.2 Ðremembered€that€DePersio,€who€cross„examined€the€Refugio€County€Sheriff,€failedÏto€object€to€a€statement€during€trial€that€the€petitioner€had€"killed€before."€€ClementÏcould€not€recall€why€he€himself€had€not€done€so,€but€insisted€his€failure€to€objectÏwas€"unforgivable."€€He€also€could€not€think€of€any€reason€why€there€was€no€motionÏfor€a€mistrial€or€why€the€issue€was€not€raised€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€HeÏremembered,€however,€that€DePersio€had€been€effective€in€cross„examining€someÏof€the€state€witnesses,€creating€inconsistencies€among€those€present€on€the€"killedÏbefore"€allegation.€€Clement€claimed€DePersio€did€not€get€involved€with€theÏpsychological€components€of€the€case€because€DePersio€had€insisted€that€"Dr.ÏEngum€was€[in€his]€bailiwick."€€Clement€conceded€that€the€trial€court€refused€to€grantÏa€request€by€the€defense€for€instructions€on€the€subject€of€mitigating€circumstancesÏat€the€conclusion€of€the€penalty€phase€of€the€proceeding.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àClement€testified€that€he€had€given€his€best€effort€on€behalf€of€theÏpetitioner,€although€much€of€his€time€investment€had€been€after€his€regular€businessÏhours.€€He€utilized€the€discovery€procedure€soon€after€his€appointment,€had€noÏdifficulty€in€communicating€with€the€petitioner,€and€had€access€to€a€forensic€team'sÏevaluation€of€the€petitioner€which€showed€the€petitioner€was€competent€to€stand€trialÏand€sane€when€he€committed€the€offense.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€defense€theory€was€that€the€petitioner€did€not€commit€the€crime.€ÏClement€testified€that€there€had€been€no€attempt€to€establish€an€insanity€defense.€ÏHe€explained€that€such€a€defense€would€have€essentially€required€anÏacknowledgment€that€the€petitioner€committed€the€murder,€but€that€it€was€due€to€aÏmental€disease€or€defect.€€Clement€recalled€that€the€defense€had€been€successful€inÏits€effort€to€bar€any€reference€to€the€specific€details€of€the€prior€killing€inÐ @8à.2 ÐMassachusetts.€€The€state€had€been€ordered€not€to€make€any€reference€to€theÏoccurrence.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àClement€recalled€that€he€felt€the€defense€had€been€"gutted"€during€theÏguilt€phase€when€the€trial€court€refused€to€allow€Dr.€Engum€to€testify.€€The€defenseÏstrategy€included€a€representation€to€the€jury€that€Dr.€Engum€would€appear€onÏbehalf€of€the€petitioner.ñD.ñ׃×ñD.ññD.ñ׃×ñD.ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Dr.€Engum€would€testify€that€the€confession€was€the€resultÐ  @  Ðof€the€Prisoner€of€War€Syndrome.€€Clement€"had€no€idea€that€Dr.€Engum's€testimonyÏwas€going€to€be€disallowed€during€the€guilt€phase."€€The€theory€at€trial€was€to€"showÏthe€jury€that€these€people€in€Texas€treated€[Brimmer]€like€a€prisoner€of€war€and€he€...Ïbecame€a€babbling€idiot€and€said€anything€they€wanted€[him]€to€say.€€But€thatÏ[evidence]€was€disallowed€by€Judge€Scott."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€trial,€there€were€general€instructions€to€the€jury€on€mitigatingÏcircumstances.€€The€defense€was€allowed€to€argue€that€the€petitioner€was€afflictedÏwith€Borderline€Personality€Syndrome€and€Abandoned€Child€Syndrome.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€Dr.€Eric€Engum€testified€that€at€the€time€ofÏhis€examination,€he€had€records€and€letters€from€the€Devereux€Foundation,€the€JohnÏByrne€Center,€the€Ridgeview€Psychiatric€Hospital,€and€the€Middle€Tennessee€MentalÏHealth€Institute€concerning€the€petitioner.€€He€concluded€that€the€petitioner€wasÏcompetent€to€stand€trial€and€that€an€insanity€defense€could€not€be€supported.€€HeÏrecalled€that€he€had€informed€defense€counsel€in€early€January,€at€least€six€weeksÏbefore€the€trial,€that€there€was€some€evidence€of€mitigation.€€Dr.€Engum€had€noÐ €4 +. Ðfurther€contact€with€trial€counsel€until€the€date€the€trial€began.€€He€acknowledged,Ïhowever,€that€he€conferred€with€defense€counsel€on€a€daily€basis€thereafter€as€toÏthe€voluntariness€of€the€confession.€€He€recalled€that€defense€counsel€first€talked€toÏhim€about€mitigation€evidence€"an€hour€or€so"€before€the€penalty€phase€began.€€Dr.ÏEngum€acknowledged€that€defense€counsel€never€specifically€asked€about€theÏstatutory€mitigating€circumstances,€something€which€was€typically€done€in€his€priorÏexperience€with€capital€cases.€€There€was€some€mitigation€evidence.€€Dr.€Engum€didÏtestify€about€his€diagnosis€of€borderline€personality€disorder€and€specifically€recalledÏcommenting€about€the€possibilities€associated€with€Abandoned€Child€Syndrome€andÏBurned€Child€Syndrome.€€ÌÌÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔà Œ àà ä àDr.€Ann€Marie€Charvat,€a€clinical€sociologist,€also€testified€at€theÐ   Ðevidentiary€hearing.€€Having€been€employed€in€approximately€fifty€capital€cases,€sheÏdid€not€participate€in€the€trial€but,€sometime€afterward,€had€prepared€a€social€historyÏassessment€of€the€petitioner€at€the€request€of€post„conviction€counsel.€€WhileÏacknowledging€that€she€had€not€advertised€the€availability€of€her€services€prior€toÏthe€trial,€Ms.€Charvat€assessed€what,€in€her€view,€should€have€been€done€for€theÏpetitioner€on€the€subject€of€mitigation.€€Dr.€Charvat€prepared€a€report,€called€aÏ"mitigation€time€line,"€which€was€entered€into€evidence€without€objection€from€theÏstate.€€Dr.€Charvat€described€the€time€line€as€"the€outline€that€I€would€have€followedÏif€I€had€done€the€investigation."ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDr.€Charvat€testified€that€she€usually€goes€through€various€steps€inÏpreparing€mitigation€for€trial:€(1)€interviewing€the€defendant€and€attorneys;€(2)Ïobtaining€documentation€of€the€individual's€life€beginning€with€birth€records;€(3)Ïinterviewing€witnesses€she€discovers€from€the€documents;€(4)€interviewingÐ @8à.2 Ðsignificant€family€members;€and€(5)€clarifying€mitigation€factors€for€presentation€toÏthe€jury.€€€In€the€petitioner's€case,€however,€she€only€interviewed€the€attorneys€fromÏthe€petitioner's€trial,€reviewed€the€materials€provided€by€the€attorneys€and€collectedÏa€"substantial€amount€of€documentation€that€included€some€school€records€[and]Ïsome€of€his€early€intervention€records."€€She€also€interviewed€the€petitionerÏextensively.€€Other€than€petitioner's€attorneys€and€the€petitioner€himself,€Dr.€CharvatÏdid€not€interview€any€other€witnesses.€€On€cross„examination,€Dr.€Charvat€concededÏthat€she€had€no€way€of€knowing€if€any€of€the€witnesses€uncovered€in€herÏinvestigation€would€actually€testify€in€court.€€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€mitigation€time€line€report€shows€the€petitioner's€mother€had€aÏ"serious€drinking€problem"€and€neglected,€malnourished,€and€abused€the€petitionerÏand€his€siblings.€€When€the€petitioner€was€three€years€old,€he€was€placed€in€fosterÏcare€and€separated€from€his€siblings.€€When€he€was€seven,€he€was€placed€in€theÏHansen€foster€home€and€subjected€to€severely€"ritualized"€physical€abuse€while€inÏtheir€custody.€€He€was€also€forced€to€live€in€the€basement€while€the€Hansen'sÏbiological€children€lived€in€the€main€area€of€the€house.€€The€Hansen's€naturalÏchildren€were€not€abused.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€age€thirteen,€the€petitioner€was€placed€in€Devereux€Foundation,€aÏhome€for€mentally€disturbed€children.€€At€the€initial€evaluation,€the€petitioner€reportedÏhaving€numerous€nightmares€while€living€with€his€foster€parents.€€The€psychiatricÏevaluation€conducted€by€Devereux€Foundation€showed€the€petitioner€sufferedÏAbandoned€Child€Syndrome€and€depression.€€The€report€indicated€he€also€tended€toÏreject€interpersonal€relationships€in€order€to€avoid€rejection.€€Devereux€FoundationÏreported€the€petitioner€AWOL€on€occasion.€€He€also€ran€away€from€his€fosterÐ @8à.2 Ðplacements€on€various€occasions.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€left€Devereux€Foundation€after€graduating€from€highÏschool€and€lived€as€a€drifter€for€several€years.€€In€1982,€at€twenty€years€of€age,€heÏmet€Mary€Barber,€who€would€become€the€mother€of€his€two€sons.€€He€lived€with€herÏsporadically.€€He€was€in€and€out€of€various€hospitals€for€mental€problems€but€neverÏremained€in€one€hospital€long€enough€to€get€any€type€of€qualitative€treatment.€ÏNorthwest€Texas€Hospital,€where€he€stayed€for€less€than€one€month,€€diagnosed€himÏwith€"atypical€psychosis."€€A€second€stay€at€Northwest€Texas€Hospital€resulted€in€aÏdetermination€that€the€petitioner€suffered€"no€real€signs€of€deficit€or€psychosis."€€AÏthird€diagnosis€by€Northwest€Texas€Hospital€was€that€the€petitioner€had€factitiousÏdisorder€and€anti„social€personality€disorder.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€mitigation€time€line€also€showed€the€petitioner€had€severalÏbrushes€with€the€law€for€theft€offenses,€burglary,€disorderly€conduct€and€maliciousÏmischief.€€€€€Ô#† X¥aXX X¥a7;#ÔÐ €%  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAttorney€Tom€DePersio,€who€had€practiced€law€for€eighteen€years€andÏalso€had€engaged€exclusively€in€the€criminal€law€as€an€assistant€with€the€PublicÏDefenderððs€Office,€had€been€involved€in€capital€cases€before€that€of€the€petitioner;€inÏthe€prior€instances,€however,€the€cases€had€been€resolved€without€an€actual€trial.€ÏHe€admitted€that€he€had€little€contact€with€the€petitioner€during€his€representationÏand€conceded€that€he€had€done€"some,€not€much"€of€the€investigation.€€AnÏinvestigator€from€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office€was€available€to€gather€files€and€otherÏinformation.€€DePersio€acknowledged€that€there€had€been€no€effort€to€obtain€TexasÏrecords€or€to€contact€officers€from€that€state€prior€to€the€pretrial€suppression€hearingÐ @8à.2 Ðon€the€admissibility€of€the€confession.€€He€recalled€filing€a€motion€for€services€butÏthen€not€following€through€on€the€request.€€He€also€admitted€that€he€had€not€soughtÏa€psychological€evaluation€of€the€petitioner€to€assist€in€the€suppression€hearing.€€Ì€€Ìà Œ àà ä àDePersio,€who€admitted€that€he€was€abusing€alcohol€and€cocaine€atÏthe€time€of€the€trial,€conceded€that€his€abuse€adversely€affected€his€ability€to€give€fullÏattention€to€matters€relating€to€the€petitioner€at€that€time.€€He€recalled€that€he€hadÏfiled€an€affidavit€to€that€effect€in€the€direct€appeal.€€The€Rule€12€report€form€of€theÏtrial€judge€made€no€mention€of€any€inadequacies€in€his€representation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð ` ÐSup.€Ct.€Rule€12(D).ñD.ñ׃×ñD.ññD.ñ׃×ñD.ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð @à ÐÌà Œ àà ä àDePersio€recalled€that€the€petitioner€had€filed€a€pro€se€"Motion€to€ElectÏCounsel"€on€December€12,€1990.€€The€petitioner€alleged€that€he€had€not€seen€hisÏattorney€since€May,€1990.€€At€the€motion€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€he€wasÏnot€otherwise€dissatisfied€with€his€attorney€and€said,€"[i]f€I€can€just€get€to,€you€know,Ïtalk€to€them€once€in€a€while€and€know€what's€going€on."€€After€the€hearing,€ClementÏwas€appointed€to€assist€in€the€representation€of€the€petitioner.€€ÌÐ @)à" Ðà Œ àà ä àDePersio€claimed€that€the€confession€had€been€coerced.€€HeÏspecifically€recalled€a€vigorous€attack€on€the€credibility€of€the€sheriff€during€cross„¼examination.€€He€acknowledged€that€he€had€not€objected€to€the€sheriff's€reference€toÏthe€petitioner's€comment€that€he€had€"killed€before"€because€the€reference,€inÏcontext,€was€not€particularly€damaging€and€to€object€would€have€emphasized€theÏpoint€to€the€detriment€of€the€petitioner.€€DePersio's€cross„examination€alsoÏestablished€that€none€of€the€other€officers€present€during€the€interrogation€had€heardÏthe€petitioner€say€"he€had€killed€before."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€May€of€1991,€about€two€months€after€Brimmer's€trial,€DePersio€wasÏplaced€on€probation€by€the€Board€of€Professional€Responsibility.€€At€that€time,€heÏalso€went€through€a€four„month€period€of€treatment€for€the€substance€abuseÏproblem.€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àRalph€Harwell,€who€had€practiced€criminal€law€in€the€Knoxville€area€forÏtwenty„seven€years,€examined€certain€of€the€trial€records.€€He€had€been€asked€to€Ïdetermine€whether€defense€counsel's€performance€"had€measured€up€to€anÏobjective€norm€in€the€profession€at€that€time"€and€"whether€or€not€any€errors€thatÏhappened€were€so€serious€as€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial."€€He€was€alsoÏasked€to€determine€whether€there€was€a€reasonable€probability€that€effectiveÏrepresentation€might€have€produced€a€different€result.€€It€was€his€opinion€that€theÏperformance€of€defense€counsel€fell€below€the€standards€existing€in€1991.€€HarwellÏpointed€out€that€counsel€should€have€had€the€petitioner€examined€by€a€psychiatristÏor€psychologist€before€the€suppression€hearing.€€He€believed€that€counselððs€failureÏto€raise€the€unreasonableness€of€the€petitioner's€detention€without€a€probable€causeÏhearing€in€Texas€fell€below€the€minimum€standards€required€in€Tennessee€and€he€Ð @8à.2 Ðfaulted€counsel€for€failing€to€object€or€seek€a€new€trial€based€on€the€sheriffððsÏtestimony€that€the€petitioner€admitted€"killing€before."€€He€testified€that€the€failure€toÏinvestigate€until€two€months€prior€to€trial,€the€failure€to€object€to€the€trial€court'sÏrefusal€to€instruct€on€applicable€statutory€mitigating€circumstances,€and€the€failure€toÏinclude€this€issue€in€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€did€not€meet€the€minimum€standardsÏrequired€of€attorneys€in€this€state.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€cross„examination,€Harwell€acknowledged€that€DePersioððs€affidavitÏconcerning€his€substance€abuse€problem,€while€filed€as€an€exhibit€with€the€appellateÏbrief,€did€not€address€his€competence€as€counsel.€€He€was€aware€that€the€supremeÏcourt€did€indirectly€address€the€issue,€ruling€that€the€defendant's€brief€containedÏ"innuendo€and€incomplete€citations"€and€misleading€argument.€€òòBrimmeróó,€876Ð   ÐS.W.2d€at€78.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDr.€Sam€Craddock,€a€licensed€psychologist€employed€by€the€MiddleÏTennessee€Mental€Health€Institute,€had€testified€in€the€sentencing€phase€of€this€trial.€ÏAfter€conducting€a€seventy„one€day€evaluation€of€the€petitioner,€his€forensic€teamÏhad€concluded€that€the€petitioner€was€not€mentally€ill€at€the€time€of€the€offense€andÏthat€there€was€no€basis€for€an€insanity€defense.€€At€the€evidentiary€hearing,€Dr.ÏCraddock€recalled€that€the€petitioner€had€not€been€"forthcoming"€in€supplyingÏinformational€sources€which€might€have€assisted€the€team€in€its€evaluation.€€AÏwoman€from€Birmingham,€Alabama,€with€whom€the€petitioner€had€resided€for€a€time,Ïwas€contacted€and€interviewed€by€the€forensic€team.€€While€she€was€deemedÏcredible,€her€comments€about€the€petitioner€were€inconsistent€with€an€insanityÏdefense.€€Dr.€Craddock€conceded€on€cross„examination€that€his€diagnosis€mightÏhave€been€different€had€more€information€consistent€with€insanity€been€discovered.€Ð @8à.2 ÐDr.€Craddock€recalled€that€the€petitioner€made€no€claim€about€being€diagnosed€at€aÏVirginia€hospital€in€1986€as€suffering€from€atypical€psychosis€or€other€mentalÏdisease.€€When€asked€if€he€would€have€been€able€to€determine€a€psychosis,€ifÏpresent,€Dr.€Craddock€responded€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àWe€suspected€a€psychosis,€and€anticipated€seeing€one,Ïbecause€he€had€been€at€Lakeshore€[Mental€HealthÏInstitute€in€Knoxville]€before€he€was€sent€to€forensicÏservices.€€So€we€were€watching€carefully,€and€we€sawÏsome€mild€symptoms€[that]€gave€us€a€suspicion€of€himÏbeing€psychotic€or€schizophrenic.€€However,€his€behaviorÏduring€our€interviews€wasn't€particularly€consistent€withÏwhat€he€was€like€on€the€residential€unit.€€And€with€theÏopportunity€to€have€the€seventy„one€days,€we€ruled€outÏthat€he€was€psychotic,€while€with€us.€€€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà@--.Úà*€*€*ˆÌÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à[O]ne€of€the€tests€that€I€gave€was€suggestive€of€symptomÏexaggeration,€and€it€was€primarily€his€ability€to€functionÏwell€on€the€residential€unit€versus€while€he€was€duringÏclinical€interviews.€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àTom€Marshall,€the€Public€Defender€for€Anderson€County,€who€hadÏassigned€DePersio€to€the€case,€testified€that€he€had€been€involved€in€consultationsÏfrom€time€to€time€during€the€preparations€for€trial€and€had€no€concerns€about€theÏquality€of€DePersio's€performance.€€Marshall€was€aware€of€the€petitioner's€pretrialÏcomplaints€about€his€lack€of€contact€with€DePersio€and€was€aware€of€the€formalÏhearing€on€the€subject€before€the€trial€judge.€€He€acknowledged€receiving€a€fewÏcomplaints€that€DePersio€occasionally€had€alcohol€on€his€breath€but€contended€thatÏhe€had€investigated€each€complaint€without€finding€corroborating€evidence€ofÏimpairment€or€"any€qualitative€problem€with€his€representation."€€Marshall€testifiedÏthat€he€had€represented€the€petitioner€on€direct€appeal€when€DePersio€resignedÏfrom€his€employment€as€assistant€public€defender.€€Marshall€believed€that€DePersioÏand€Clement€were€effective€in€their€representation€of€the€petitioner.€€Ð @8à.2 Ðà Œ àÌà@¾¾0ÚàIˆÌà Œ àà ä àIn€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€first€argues€that€he€received€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€Ô‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔHe€complains€about€the€following€specific€deficiencies:€€Ð   ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(a)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àabuse€of€alcohol€and€illegal€drugs€duringÐ à€ Ðthe€period€of€representation;€Ð <x<x ÐÌà Œ àà ä à(b)à < àfailure€to€provide€regular€consultation;Ð °P  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(c)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àfailure€to€present€psychological€testimony€atÐ 0  Ðthe€suppression€hearing;Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(d)à < àfailure€to€perform€an€adequate€investigation;Ð`ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(e)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àfailure€to€address€comments€that€theÐ @à Ðpetitioner€had€"killed€before";Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(f)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àfailure€to€object€to€testimony€aboutÐ ° Ðpetitioner's€comments€made€duringÏtransport€from€Texas€to€Tennessee;Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(g)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àfailure€to€prepare€or€present€psychological€à8@<x<xàÐ Ð p Ðtestimony€in€the€sentencing€phase;Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(h)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àfailure€to€include€all€possible€grounds€forÐ  #@ Ðrelief€in€the€motion€for€new€trial;€andÔ#† X¥aXX X¥a`l#ÔÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔÐ$0<x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(i)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àfailure€to€present€as€an€issue€the€illegalÐ p& Ðdetention€of€the€petitioner.Ô#† X¥aXX X¥ar#ÔÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔÐ`' <x<x ÐÔ#† X¥aXX X¥as#ÔÌÌÌÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔÓÓà Œ àà ä àIn€order€to€establish€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective,€the€defendantÐ  +À!$ Ðmust€show€that€the€advice€given€or€services€rendered€were€not€within€the€range€ofÏcompetence€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.Ð à.€%( Ð1975).€€He€must€also€establish€that€but€for€his€counsel's€deficient€performance,€theÏresults€of€the€trial€would€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð  2@), Ð668€(1984).€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWhen€defense€counsel€"entirely€fails€to€subject€the€prosecution's€caseÐ @8à.2 Ðto€meaningful€adversarial€testing,€there€has€been€a€denial€of€Sixth€AmendmentÏrights€that€makes€the€adversary€process€itself€presumptively€unreliable."€€òòUnitedÐ @ à ÐStates€v.€Cronicóó,€466€U.S.€648,€659€(1984).€€If€there€has€been€"an€actual€breakdownÐ  À Ðof€the€adversarial€process,"€no€prejudice€need€be€shown.€€òòId.óó€at€658;€òòRickman€v.Ð   ÐBellóó,€131€F.3d€1150€(6th€Cir.€1997),ñD.ñ׃!×ñD.ññD.ñ׃×ñD.ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòcert.€deniedóó,€118€S.€Ct.€1827€(1998).Ô#† X¥aXX X¥afs#ÔÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔÐ à€ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€show€that€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge€who,€in€this€instance,€found€inÏfavor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Zimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€220,€224€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ` Ð1991);€òòClenny€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€€The€findings€inÐ @à Ðthe€trial€court€on€questions€of€fact€may€not€be€reversed€on€appeal€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòZimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€224;€òòGraves€v.Ð   ÐStateóó,€512€S.W.2d€603€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€€Ð à€ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòStricklandóó,€the€Court€described€the€burden€of€proof€as€follows:Ð  #@ ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àFirst,€the€defendant€must€show€that€counsel'sÏperformance€was€deficient.€€This€requires€showing€thatÏcounsel€made€errors€so€serious€that€counsel€was€notÏfunctioning€as€the€"counsel"€guaranteed€the€defendant€byÏthe€Sixth€Amendment.€€Second,€the€defendant€mustÏshow€that€the€deficient€performance€prejudiced€theÏdefense.€€This€requires€showing€that€counsel's€errorsÏwere€so€serious€as€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,Ïa€trial€whose€result€is€reliable.€€Unless€a€defendantÏmakes€both€showings,€it€cannot€be€said€that€theÏconviction€or€...€sentence€resulted€from€a€breakdown€inÏthe€adversary€process€that€renders€the€result€unreliable.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌ466€U.S.€at€687.€œÌ›ÌÌÐ €4 +. ÐÓÓà Œ àà ä àTo€establish€prejudice,€the€evidence€stemming€from€failure€to€prepareÏa€sound€defense€or€present€witnesses€must€be€significant,€but€it€does€notÏnecessarily€follow€that€the€trial€should€have€otherwise€resulted€in€an€acquittal.€€òòSeeóóÐ  À Ðòògenerallyóó€òòNealy€v.€Cabanaóó,€764€F.2d€1173,€1178„79€(5th€Cir.€1985);€òòCode€v.Ð   ÐMontgomeryóó,€799€F.2d€1481,€1483€(11th€Cir.€1986).€€There€must€be€a€reasonableÐ à€ Ðprobability€that€but€for€counsel's€unprofessional€error,€"the€result€of€the€proceedingÏwould€have€been€different,"€not€that€it€necessarily€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€693.€€The€probable€result€need€not€be€an€acquittal.€€AÐ €  Ðreasonable€probability€of€being€found€guilty€of€a€lesser€charge,€or€a€shorterÏsentence,€satisfies€the€second€prong€in€òòStricklandóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòZimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€atÐ @à Ð225€(citing€òòChambers€v.€Armontroutóó,€907€F.2d€825,€832€(8th€Cir.€1990)).Ô#† X¥aXX X¥a‹x#ÔÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔÐ  À ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4€(Tenn.€1982),€our€supreme€courtÐ à€ Ðmade€the€following€pronouncements:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àAlthough€...€we€adopted€a€higher€standard€ofÏcompetence€for€the€legal€representation€required€inÏcriminal€cases,€we€did€not€require€perfect€representation.€ÏMoreover,€the€defense€attorney's€representation,€whenÏquestioned,€is€not€to€be€measured€by€"20„20€hindsight."Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌà@ee/Úàà@@ee/Úà***ˆÌÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àà < àIt€cannot€be€said€that€incompetent€representationÏhas€occurred€merely€because€other€lawyers,€judging€fromÏhindsight,€could€have€made€a€better€choice€of€tactics....Ï[W]e€know€that€a€criminal€trial€is€a€very€dramatic,€vibrantÏand€tense€contest€involving€many€variables€and€thatÏcounsel€must€make€quick€and€difficult€decisionsÏrespecting€strategy€and€tactics€which€appear€proper€atÏthe€time€but€which,€later,€may€appear€to€others,€or€evenÏto€the€trial€lawyer€himself,€to€have€been€ill„considered.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌòòÓÓId.óó€at€9„10.€€€In€òòHellardóó,€our€supreme€court€adopted€the€rationale€of€òòUnited€States€v.Ð €4 +. ÐDeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1201€(D.C.Cir.€1973):Ð `6-0 ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àThis€court€does€not€sit€to€second€guess€strategic€andÐ @8à.2 Ðtactical€choices€made€by€trial€counsel.€€However,€whenÏcounsel's€choices€are€uninformed€because€of€inadequateÏpreparation,€a€defendant€is€denied€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9.€€Our€supreme€court€has€observed€that€"[c]ourts€areÐ ° Ðparticularly€cautious€in€preserving€the€defendant's€right€to€counsel€at€a€capitalÏsentencing€hearing."€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)€(internalÐ Ðp  Ðquotation€marks€omitted).€€When,€as€here,€there€has€been€no€complete€breakdownÏof€the€adversarial€process,€the€question€becomes€whether€the€defendant€wasÏprejudiced€by€these€deficiencies:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àA€convicted€defendant€making€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€must€identify€the€acts€or€omissions€of€counselÏthat€are€alleged€not€to€have€been€the€result€of€reasonableÏprofessional€judgment.€€The€court€must€then€determineÏwhether,€in€light€of€all€the€circumstances,€the€identifiedÏacts€or€omissions€were€outside€the€wide€range€ofÏprofessionally€competent€assistance.€€In€making€thatÏdetermination,€the€court€should€keep€in€mind€thatÏcounsel's€function,€as€elaborated€in€prevailingÏprofessional€norms,€is€to€make€the€adversarial€testingÏprocess€work€in€the€particular€case.€Ð ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌòòÓÓStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€690.€Ð $0 ÐÐ  p& ÐÓ  Ó(a)ÌÓbŽÓà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€first€argues€that€DePersio's€"severe€alcohol€and€cocaineÏabuse€problems"€prior€to€and€during€the€trial€prevented€DePersio€from€providing€theÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€He€argues€that€"Mr.€DePersio's€condition€was,€onÏits€own,€enough€to€severely€prejudice€[the€petitioner's]€defense."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€proof€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€showed€that€DePersio€regularlyÏabused€alcohol€during€the€time€he€represented€the€petitioner.€€Attorney€ClementÏtestified€that€DePersio€would€arrive€at€early€morning€meetings€with€a€six„pack€ofÏbeer€and€that€one€or€more€of€them€would€have€already€been€consumed.€€ClementÏrecalled€that€DePersio€was€at€a€bar€during€jury€deliberations€on€the€penalty.€€HeÏbelieved€DePersio€to€be€"inebriated."€€DePersio€acknowledged€consuming€"a€lot€ofÏalcohol€and€cocaine"€during€this€time.€€Ô#† X¥aXX X¥aè‚#ÔÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔ€Ô#† X¥aXX X¥a’#ÔÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔÐ à€ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòState€v.€Hamrickóó,€688€S.W.2d€477,€481€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985),Ð  #@ Ðour€court€reviewed€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€where€counsel€suffered€anÏ"acute€illness€during€the€trial."€€At€one€point€during€trial,€counsel€had€to€be€taken€toÏthe€Loudon€County€Memorial€Hospital.€€òòId.óó€€The€trial€judge€consulted€with€trialÐ @)à" Ðcounsel€and€indicated€that€he€would€declare€a€mistrial€if€necessary.€€CounselÏinformed€the€trial€judge€he€felt€"good€enough€to€continue."€€òòId.óó€€On€appeal,€theÐ - #& Ðdefendant€argued€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Relying€onÏòòStricklandóó's€requirement€of€both€deficiency€in€performance€as€well€as€a€showing€ofÐ À0`'* Ðprejudice,€this€court€denied€relief.€€òòId.óó€at€482.€€Both€deficiency€and€prejudice€must€beÐ  2@), Ðshown.€€Ô#† X¥aXX X¥aK’#ÔÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔIn€this€instance,€the€general€condition€of€DePersio€before€or€during€theÐ €4 +. Ðcourse€of€trial€would€not,€standing€alone,€entitle€the€petitioner€to€relief.€€€ÌÐ  @8à.2 Ðà Œ àà ä àThere€are€few€cases€in€this€state€in€which€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€has€been€made€due€to€counsel's€intoxication.€€In€òòState€v.€John€C.Ð @ à ÐGarrisonóó,€however,€one€of€the€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€was€thatÐ  À Ðcounsel€was€absent€from€work€and€did€not€adequately€prepare€for€trial€"due€toÏdepression€or€excessive€alcohol€use."€€C.C.A€No.€03C01„9702„CC„00047,€slip€op.€atÏ25€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Feb.€27,€1998),€òòapp.€filedóó,€April€29,€1998.€€InÐ À`  ÐòòGarrisonóó,€this€court€ruled€that€there€must€be€a€showing€of€prejudice€before€reliefÐ  @  Ðcould€be€granted€on€the€basis€of€alcohol€abuse.€€òòId.óóñD.ñ׃×ñD.ññD.ñ׃×ñD.ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð €  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThese€rulings€are€consistent€with€the€majority€of€jurisdictions.€€òòSeeóóÐ @à ÐJeffrey€L.€Kirchmeier,€òòDrink,€Drugs,€and€Drowsiness:€The€Constitutional€Right€toÐ  À ÐEffective€Assistance€of€Counsel€and€the€Strickland€Prejudice€Requirementóó,€75€Neb.Ð   ÐL.€Rev.€425,€453€(1996).€€The€federal€courts€have€ruled€that€the€abuse€of€drugs€orÏalcohol€is€not€"in€and€of€itself,€relevant€to€an€ineffective€assistance€claim."€€òòBerry€v.Ð À!` ÐKingóó,€765€F.2d€451,€454€(5th€Cir.€1985).€€The€Fifth€Circuit€has€followed€thisÐ  #@ Ðreasoning€even€where€the€allegations€supporting€the€ineffective€assistance€claimÏwere€that€the€defendant€could€smell€alcohol€on€the€attorney's€breath€during€the€trialÏand€that,€immediately€afterward,€the€attorney€entered€a€facility€for€treatment€ofÏalcohol€abuse.€€òòBurnett€v.€Collinsóó,€982€F.2d€922,€930€(5th€Cir.€1993).Ð  +À!$ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIt€is€of€particular€concern€that€in€a€case€of€this€magnitude,€one€of€theÏtwo€defense€attorneys€suffered€from€alcoholism€or€drug€addiction.€€ProfessionalÏstandards€demand€much€of€the€bench€and€the€bar.€€Litigants€expect€and€deserveÏsobriety€among€the€officers€of€the€courts.€€These€circumstances€reflect€poorly€on€theÐ €4 +. Ðcriminal€justice€system.€€Yet€alcohol€or€drug€abuse€by€the€defense€attorney,€withoutÏspecific€proof€of€its€effect€on€performance,€does€not€merit€relief.€€€€ÌÔ#† X¥aXX X¥a–#ÔÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔÌÔ#† X¥aXX X¥a_ #ÔÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔÓ  Ó(b)à @Œ àÐ   ÐÓÁ Óà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner's€next€complaint€is€that€counsel€failed€to€engage€inÏregular€consultation.€€Ô#† X¥aXX X¥a¢ #ÔÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔPrior€to€trial,€the€petitioner€filed€a€motion€seeking€new€counsel.€Ð À`  ÐThe€petitioner€complained€that€he€had€not€seen€his€attorney€in€seven€months,Ïexcept€for€a€few€moments€before€the€suppression€hearing,€which€had€been€heldÏsome€five€months€earlier.€€At€the€hearing,€the€petitioner€described€their€meeting€asÏfollows:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓWe€didn't€have€any€kind€of€conference.€€It€was€just,€IÏcame€into€the€court€room€and€came€up€here,€did€it,€andÏthen€went€back.€€No€follow€up€and€nothing€beforehand„„¼before€or€after.ÌÌÒ4ä £ÒÒX£ÒÓ"£ÓDePersio€admitted€that€he€did€not€consult€with€the€petitioner.€€Clement's€testimonyÏcorroborates€the€claim€that€DePersio€did€not€engage€in€any€meaningfulÏconversations€with€the€petitioner.€€Yet€Clement€testified€that€he€himself€had€met€withÏthe€petitioner€on€several€occasions.€€€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€court€found€as€follows:€€ÌÔ#† X¥aXX X¥a—¡#ÔÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ(D)€Failure€to€consult€with€the€petitioner€at€all€crucialÐ ,°"% Ðstages€of€the€proceedings.€€At€the€[post„conviction]Ïhearing,€the€petitioner€chose€not€to€testify....€€There€isÏsome€evidence€petitioner€sought€new€counsel€pretrial€...Ïbut€the€record€reflects€that€the€petitioner€abandoned€hisÏmotion....€€No€[other]€evidence€was€presented€that€theÏpetitioner's€other€attorney€failed€to€adequatelyÏcommunicate€with€him.€€The€court€concludes€that€theÏpetitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proofÏregarding€this€allegation.€€ÌÌÒ4ä ¯¥ÒÒX¡¥ÒÓ½¥ÓÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€our€supreme€court€emphasized€the€importance€of€consultationÐ `6-0 Ðbetween€the€attorney€and€client.€€523€S.W.2d€at€934.€€The€purposes€are€to€"elicitÐ @8à.2 Ðmatters€of€defense"€and€apprise€the€accused€of€"potential€strategies€and€tacticalÏchoices."€€òòId.óó€at€933.€Ð @ à ÐÌà Œ àà ä àClearly,€DePersio€failed€to€achieve€the€minimum€standards€in€the€areaÏof€client€consultation.€€On€the€other€hand,€Attorney€Clement,€who€was€appointedÏabout€two€months€before€the€trial,€did€regularly€confer€with€the€petitioner€on€mattersÏpertinent€to€his€defense.€€His€effort€is€worthy€of€mention.€€The€question€is€whetherÏthe€petitioner€has€shown€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€DePersio's€failureÏto€meaningfully€communicate€with€him€from€May€of€1990€through€November€of€1990Ïaffected€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€short€answer€is€no.€€There€are€few€indications€in€the€record€thatÏDePersio€would€have€changed€the€trial€strategy€had€he€conferred€more€regularlyÏwith€Brimmer€during€this€period€of€time.€€Because€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏsatisfactorily€prove€how€this€lack€of€communication€might€have€affected€the€resultsÏof€the€trial,€no€relief€can€be€granted€on€this€basis.€€In€this€regard,€the€evidence€doesÏnot€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌÓ  Ó(c)ÌÓ¢­Óà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€his€attorneys€were€ineffective€for€failingÏto€present€psychological€testimony€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€He€contends€thatÏpsychological€testimony€should€have€been€used€to€"show€that€[he]€was€especiallyÏsusceptible€due€to€mental€and€emotional€disorders€and€may€have€told€the€authoritiesÏwhatever€they€wished€to€hear."€€He€submits€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€considerÏthe€use€of€psychological€evidence€until€several€months€after€the€suppressionÏhearing€and€points€out€that€Dr.€Engum€had€not€been€asked€to€render€an€opinion€onÐ @8à.2 Ðthe€confession€until€the€trial€began.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€trial,€defense€counsel€sought€to€introduce€Dr.€Engum's€testimony€toÏshow€that€the€petitioner€may€have€given€a€false€confession€due€to€"Prisoner€of€WarÏSyndrome."€€The€state€objected€and€the€trial€court€conducted€an€extensive€jury€outÏhearing€during€which€Dr.€Engum€testified€that€sensory€deprivation€occurring€inÏsolitary€confinement€might€result€in€a€false€statement€by€the€prisoner€in€order€toÏplease€his€captors.€€Dr.€Engum€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€susceptible€to€givingÏa€false€confession.€€The€trial€court€excluded€the€evidence€as€unreliable€but€alsoÏobserved€that€this€psychological€testimony€"would€have€been€vitally€important€for€theÏrecord€at€the€time€I€made€my€decision€[at€the€suppression€hearing]."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€the€original€appeal,€the€petitioner€argued€that€the€trial€judge's€rulingÏamounted€to€a€violation€of€his€right€to€present€a€defense.€€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€atÐ À!` Ð79.€€Our€supreme€court,€however,€ruled€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€hisÏdiscretion€by€disallowing€the€testimony.€€òòId.óó€€In€consequence,€that€issue€may€not€beÐ €%  Ðrevisited€by€this€court.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€trial€judge€made€the€followingÏfindings€as€to€this€claim:€€ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ(A)€Failure€to€adequately€investigate€all€pretrial€motions,Ïincluding€motions€for€investigative€services€and€motionsÏrelating€to€the€suppression€of€his€confessions€while€inÏcustody€in€Texas.€€Trial€counsel€investigated€and€fullyÏlitigated€all€Fifth€and€Sixth€Amendment€claims€relating€toÏthe€petitioner's€confessions€in€Texas.€€The€issue€wasÏdetermined€to€be€without€merit€in€the€trial€court€and€onÏdirect€appeal.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€hisÏburden€of€proof€with€respect€to€any€other€possible€claimsÏrelating€to€the€suppression€of€his€confessions.ÌÐ @8à.2 ÐÒ4ä dµÒÒXVµÒÓrµÓÌà Œ àà ä àIn€our€view,€the€petitioner€has€shown€no€prejudice€by€the€failure€toÏpresent€psychological€evidence€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€Whenever€the€claim€ofÏineffective€assistance€is€based€on€the€failure€to€submit€proof,€there€must€be€aÏshowing€of€what€the€evidence€would€have€been.€€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€912€S.W.2d€689,Ð à€ Ð698€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€the€absence€of€that,€there€can€be€no€speculation€as€to€whatÏthe€psychological€evidence€"would€have€shown€and€...€how€it€would€have€benefitted"Ïthe€petitioner.€€òòId.óó€€No€such€evidence€appears€in€this€record.€€Ð €  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àMoreover,€even€if€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Engum€had€been€presented€atÏthe€suppression€hearing,€the€confession€would€not€have€been€excluded.€€InÏòòColorado€v.€Connellyóó,€479€U.S.€157,€164€(1986),€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÐ   Ðruled€that€"a€defendant's€mental€condition,€by€itself€and€apart€from€its€relation€toÏofficial€coercion"€does€not€render€a€statement€involuntary.€€Ô#† X¥aXX X¥a&¨#ÔÔ‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔBecause€the€rule€ofÐ À!` Ðexclusion€has€been€established€as€a€deterrent€to€police€misconduct,€coercive€activityÏon€the€part€of€law€enforcement€is€a€necessary€predicate€to€finding€that€a€confessionÏis€not€voluntary€under€the€Due€Process€Clause.€€òòId.óó€at€165.€€€€Ð `'  ÐÌÓ  Ó(d)à @Œ àÌÓ}½Óà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€makes€the€general€claim€that€his€trial€counsel€failedÏto€perform€an€adequate€investigation.€€Assistant€District€Attorney€Jan€Hicks€filed€aÏsworn€statement€that€she€advised€DePersio€of€her€office's€open€file€policy€in€May€ofÏ1990.€€She€stated€that€DePersio€never€"avail[ed]€himself€of€this€offer."€€No€discoveryÏwas€conducted€until€Clement€was€appointed€co„counsel€seven€months€later.€ÏClement€testified€that€Ron€Johnson,€an€attorney€with€the€public€defender's€office,Ïhad€conducted€some€investigation.€€Also,€the€trial€court€appointed€an€investigator,Ð @8à.2 ÐMike€Cohan,€to€assist€in€the€preparation€of€the€defense.€€€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€at€932,€our€supreme€court€set€forth€theÐ  À Ðfollowing€standards€on€investigation:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓCounsel€must€conduct€appropriate€investigations,€bothÏfactual€and€legal,€to€determine€what€matters€of€defenseÏcan€be€developed.€€The€Supreme€Court€has€noted€thatÏthe€adversary€system€requires€that€all€available€defensesÏare€raised€so€that€the€government€is€put€to€its€proof.€€ThisÏmeans€that€in€most€cases€a€defense€attorney,€or€hisÏagent,€should€interview€not€only€his€own€witnesses€butÏalso€those€that€the€government€intends€to€call,€when€theyÏare€accessible.€€The€investigation€should€always€includeÏefforts€to€secure€information€in€the€possession€of€theÏprosecution€and€law€enforcement€authorities.€€And,€ofÏcourse,€the€duty€to€investigate€also€requires€adequateÏlegal€research.ÌÌÒ4ä ýÀÒÒXïÀÒÓ ÁÓÌà Œ àà ä àThe€preparation€of€the€defense€was€delayed€by€the€inaction€ofÏDePersio.€€Professional€standards€require€a€more€timely€effort.€€Yet€there€has€beenÏno€proof€offered€as€to€what€more€trial€counsel€would€have€discovered€had€he€begunÏthe€investigation€earlier.€Thus,€we€agree€with€the€assessment€of€the€trial€judge€thatÏthe€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€prejudice.€€ÌÌÓ  Ó(e)ÌÓ‹ÅÓà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€object€to€testimony€at€trial€that€he€had€"killed€before."€€The€state€argues€thatÏcounsel€properly€wanted€to€avoid€any€emphasis€on€the€statement€in€the€presence€ofÏthe€jury.€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àSheriff€Jim€Hodges,€of€Refugio€County,€Texas,€testified€during€directÏexamination€as€to€the€circumstances€surrounding€petitioner's€written€confession:Ð @8à.2 ÐÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àWe€talked€to€him,€and€he€said€that€he€did€kill€thisÏMr.€Compton€and€that€the€reason€„„€I€had€told€him€that€IÏfelt€like€he€had€killed€before€and€that€was€the€reason€heÏwas€holding€back,€because€he€didn't€want€to€tell€aboutÏeverything.€€And€so€he€said,€yeah,€you're€right.€€I€haveÏkilled€before,€and€I€did€kill€Mr.€Compton.ÌÌÒ4ä šÇÒÒXŒÇÒÓ¨ÇÓThe€reference€does€not€appear€to€have€been€solicited€by€the€state€and€no€objectionÏwas€made€to€this€testimony.€€€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€re„direct€examination€at€trial,€the€following€exchange€occurred:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓProsecutor:€How€far€did€you€actually€get€into€theÏinterview,€when€you€all€first€set€down€for€the€interview,Ïbefore€he€started€crying?ÌÌSheriff€Hodges:€Probably€right€after€he€came€back€withÏthe€jailer€and€sat€down€and€we€started€talking€to€him€andÏhe€started€answering€questions;€and€the€more€we€gotÏinto€it,€you€know,€it€was€catching€up€with€him€and,€like€IÏsay,€he€was€just€unloading€and€he€had€this€burden€thatÏwas€bothering€him€a€lot€about€this€murder€and€someÏothers.ÌÒ4ä #ÊÒÒXÊÒÓ1ÊÓÌà Œ àà ä àOn€re„cross,€the€following€exchange€occurred:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓDePersio:€Now€then,€from€the€time€that€he€began€to€talkÏafter€the€jailer€brought€him€back,€was€Moldenhauer€andÏHernandez€present?ÌÌSheriff€Hodges:€Yes,€sir.ÌÌDePersio:€So€if€he€had€said,€I've€killed€before,€they€wouldÏhave€heard€that;€is€that€correct?ÌÌSheriff€Hodges:€I€would€think€so.€€I'm€not€sure.€€ÌÌÒ4ä «ÌÒÒXÌÒÓ¹ÌÓÌà Œ àà ä àIn€the€very€last€paragraph€of€closing€argument€at€the€guilt€phase,€theÏstate€made€the€following€argument:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àThere€is€...€what€one€òòwouldóó€call€the€Soddi€defense,Ð p5,/ ÐS„O„D„D„I.€€Some€other€dude€did€it.€€Who?€€It's€not€there.€ÏIt's€easy€though€to€fantasize.€€One€could€fantasizeÏanything.€€One€could€fantasize€Martians€coming€downÐ @8à.2 Ðand€doing€it.€€But€that's€not€what€the€proof€in€this€case€is.€ÏI€trust€you€to€use€your€common€sense.€...Ìà < àMr.€DePersio€said€something€to€you€and€I€haveÏthe€right€to€respond,€to€make€a€fair€response€toÏsomething€that€he€said.€€And€what€he€said€to€you€and€IÏquote,€"Nothing€in€his€background€to€suggest€he€is€aÏkiller."€€Recall€what€the€sheriff€said€to€him€when€he€wasÏalone€with€him.€€òòHe€said,€son,€you've€killed€before.óó€€AndÐ ð Ðthat's€truth,€members€of€the€jury,€not€speculation.ÌÌÒ4ä ÇÎÒÒX¹ÎÒÓÕÎÓ(Emphasis€added).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€DePersio€testified€that€he€had€filed€aÏmotion€in€limine€to€limit€reference€to€any€prior€crimes.€€He€recalled€that€his€usualÏpractice€in€this€type€of€situation,€where€a€state€witness€has€not€complied€with€aÏpretrial€order€limiting€testimony,€is€to€address€the€matter€outside€the€jury's€presenceÏduring€a€recess.€€DePersio€acknowledged€he€did€not€do€that€in€this€case.€€HeÏtestified,€however,€that€he€did€not€make€a€contemporaneous€objection€because€heÏdid€not€want€to€draw€further€attention€to€it.€€Clement€characterized€his€own€failure€toÏobject€as€unforgivable.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€argued€that€the€admission€of€thisÏtestimony€denied€him€his€right€to€due€process.€€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€80.€€OurÐ @)à" Ðsupreme€court€ruled€as€follows:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àOur€investigation€of€these€complaints€indicatesÏinitially€that€the€issue€was€waived.€€There€was€noÏcontemporaneous€objection€when€any€of€these€allegedlyÏobjectionable€remarks€were€made.€€Defendant€did€notÏrequest€the€Court€to€instruct€the€jury€to€disregardÏcomments€about€other€killings.€...€€Moreover,€this€issueÏwas€not€raised€on€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€òòCertainly€itÐ  2@), Ðwould€have€been€better€if€none€of€the€remarks€had€beenÏmade€....€€Under€the€circumstances€and€evidence€in€thisÏcase€we€do€not€think€these€incidents€constitute€reversibleÏerror.óóÐ `6-0 ÐÌÒ4ä ¨ÕÒÒXšÕÒÓ¶ÕÓòòId.óó€€(emphasis€added).Ð @8à.2 Їà Œ àà ä àIn€the€order€denying€post„conviction€relief,€the€trial€judge€made€theÏfollowing€findings€and€conclusions:ÌÔ#† X¥aXX X¥a0¼#ÔÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ(I)€Failure€to€enforce€pretrial€rulings€regarding€theÐ  À Ðadmission€of€evidence€that€the€petitioner€had€killedÏbefore.€€This€issue€has€been€previously€determined€onÏdirect€appeal€[and€it€has€been€determined€that€the]Ïpetitioner€suffered€no€prejudice€from€this€evidence.€Ï[Counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€this€regard.]Ô‡ X¥aXX X¥aÔÐ Ðp  ÐÌÒ4ä GÙÒÒX9ÙÒÓUÙÓÌà Œ àà ä àClearly,€the€supreme€court€considered€the€merits€of€the€petitioner'sÏclaim€that€the€"killed€before"€reference€qualified€as€error.€€The€ruling€was€that€theÏevidence€should€not€have€been€permitted€but€was€nonetheless€not€reversible€in€theÏcontext€of€the€entire€trial.€€While€the€issue€has€been€raised€here€in€a€context€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€supreme€court€held€that€if€there€was€error€byÏthe€failure€to€exclude€the€reference,€no€prejudice€resulted.€€That€conclusion€by€theÏsupreme€court€controls.€€Even€if€counsel€was€deficient€for€having€failed€to€furtherÏobject€to€the€reference€made€by€the€witness,€our€supreme€court€has€alreadyÏdetermined€that€the€deficiency€had€no€effect€on€the€results€of€the€trial.€€ÌÌÓ  Ó(f)ÌÓÞÓà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€his€attorney€was€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€object€to€the€introduction€of€statements€he€made€while€being€transportedÏfrom€Texas€to€Tennessee.€€Detective€Richard€Foschino€testified€at€trial€that€he€andÏCaptain€Bob€Higgs€of€the€Anderson€County€Sheriff's€Department€returned€theÏpetitioner€to€this€state.€€Detective€Foschino€testified€that€the€petitioner€discussed€theÏhomicide€"freely":ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àThe€way€the€conversation€started€out€about€theÏhomicide€itself€was,€we€were€talking€about„„David€hadÏbeen€talking€about€his€past€and€about€how€he€had€beenÏa€victim€of€abuse€when€he€was€a€child.€€He€started€talkingÐ @8à.2 Ðabout€victims€that€Mr.€Compton€may€have€had€in€theÏpast.€€And€when€I€started€talking€to€him€about€that,€heÏstarted€clarifying€it,€saying€that€when€he€met€with€Mr.ÏCompton€on€the€road€and€they€went€into€the€park€area,Ïthat€Mr.€Compton€had€said€something€about€he€could€getÏsome€children€for€David.€€And€David€became€very€upsetÏwith€him€at€the€time.€€And€he€was€referring€to€sexualÏactivity€with€these€children.€€And€David€talked€quite€a€bitÏabout€that.€€That€brought€his€recollection€to€another€caseÏalso€that€involved€children.€ÌÌÒ4ä ûßÒÒXíßÒÓ àÓÌà Œ àà ä àAt€that€point,€defense€counsel€objected€and€the€following€exchangeÏoccurred:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓProsecutor:€Let€me€point€out€that€no€suppression€motionÏhad€been€filed€about€this.ÌÌDePersio:€We€know€that.€€Nobody's€talking€about€....ÌÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ{äÓDePersio:€Well,€we€object€to€any€conversationsÏconcerning€the€homicide€investigation,€that's€the€subjectÏmatter€of€this€investigation€here€today.ÌÌCourt:€You€have€not€received€statements€about€that?ÌÌProsecutor:€They€have€received€them.ÌÌDePersio:€òòI€have€no€idea.óóÐ p& ÐÌProsecutor:€òòBecause€he€hasn't€looked€at€the€file.óó€€OnlyÐ P(ð! ÐMr.€Clement€has€copied€the€file,€and€he€had€it€inÏFoschino's€blue€file€that€had€all€the€statements€....ÌÌÒ4ä ÑãÒÒXÃãÒÓßãÓ(Emphasis€added).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€now€argues€the€admissibility€of€the€statements€shouldÏhave€been€litigated€pretrial.€€He€points€out€that€DePersio€had€not€reviewed€theÏstatements€before€the€trial€began.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIt€is€true€that€motions€to€suppress€evidence€must€be€heard€before€trial.€Ð P7ð-1 ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(a)(3).€€Clearly,€defense€counsel€should€have€reviewed€theÏstatements€before€trial.€€A€failure€to€review€the€statements€pretrial€or€to€file€theÏmotion€to€suppress€pretrial,€while€qualifying€as€deficient€performance,€does€notÏestablish€any€prejudice.€€Nothing€in€this€record€indicates€that€the€statement€wouldÏhave€been€suppressed€had€a€motion€been€timely€filed.€€This€is€a€prerequisite€for€theÏgrant€of€relief.€€Because€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€that€a€motion€to€suppressÏwould€have€been€successful,€no€prejudice€could€have€resulted€from€the€inaction€ofÏhis€counsel.ÌÌœà@``/Úà(g)›ˆÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€his€trial€counsel€was€deficient€forÏfailing€to€effectively€prepare€or€present€psychological€testimony€in€the€sentencingÏphase€of€the€trial.€€He€argues€that€attorney€Clement€failed€to€elicit€sufficientÏtestimony€from€Dr.€Engum€to€support€an€instruction€to€the€jury€on€two€statutoryÏmitigating€circumstances:€€first,€that€the€defendant€suffers€from€a€mental€diseaseÏwhich€affected€his€judgment€and,€second,€that€the€murder€was€committed€while€theÏdefendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2),€(8).€€He€further€submits€that€he€is€entitled€toÐ @)à" Ðrelief€under€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€365,€where€our€supreme€court€found€counsel€wasÐ  +À!$ Ðineffective€for€failing€to€present€"the€available€expert€mitigating€evidence€of€mentalÏillness."ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDuring€the€sentencing€phase,€the€state€argued€three€aggravatingÏcircumstances:€€that€the€murder€was€heinous,€atrocious,€and€cruel;€that€the€murderÏwas€committed€to€avoid€arrest;€and€that€the€murder€was€committed€in€furtherance€ofÏa€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(5),€(6),€(7).€€The€jury€found€only€one,Ð @8à.2 Ðthat€the€murder€was€committed€in€furtherance€of€the€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ39„13„204(i)(7).€€The€defense€theory€during€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial€was€thatÏthe€defendant€had€been€severely€abused€as€a€child,€had€been€abandonedÏrepeatedly€by€his€parents€and€foster€parents,€and€had€suffered€a€series€of€personalÏrejections,€all€of€which€should€mitigate€against€a€death€sentence.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDr.€Eric€Engum€testified€during€the€penalty€phase€that€the€petitionerÏsuffered€from€borderline€personality€disorder,€which€is€a€"long„term€personalityÏdisorder€dysfunction€that€manifests€itself€in€impulsive[ness]€and€unpredictability€inÏbehavior,€emotional€withdrawal€from€people€...€times€of€intense€anger...€[and]€aÏsense€of€loss€of€personal€identity."€€The€most€important€consequence€of€thisÏdisorder€is€the€"inability€to€maintain€any€kind€of€enduring€relationship€with€otherÏpeople."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDr.€Engum€explained€that€several€factors€contributed€to€the€formationÏof€this€disorder.€€The€petitioner's€mother€was€an€alcoholic€who€abandoned€him€at€aÏvery€early€age;€in€consequence,€the€initial€maternal€attachment€never€occurred.€€ItÏalso€developed€that€the€petitioner€never€had€any€contact€with€his€father.€€Dr.€EngumÏlearned€from€recorded€data€that€the€petitioner€had€been€transferred€from€one€fosterÏhome€to€another.€€Records€indicated€that€the€petitioner€was€forced€to€sleep€in€theÏbasement€of€one€home€while€the€foster€parents€focused€all€of€their€attention€on€theirÏbiological€children.€€He€was€also€abused€while€living€in€the€home.€€Eventually,€theÏpetitioner€was€discovered€"playing€doctor"€with€one€of€the€foster€parents'€biologicalÏchildren€and€was€placed€in€Devereau€Foundation,€which€is€a€home€for€severelyÏemotionally€disturbed€children.€€The€petitioner€ran€away€from€the€DevereauÏFoundation€several€times.€€Ð @8à.2 Їà Œ àà ä àBased€upon€many€of€the€same€circumstances,€Dr.€Engum€testified€thatÏthe€petitioner€also€suffered€from€"Burned"€or€Abandoned€Child€Syndrome.€€Dr.ÏEngum€testified€that€individuals€diagnosed€with€this€syndrome€have€repeatedlyÏsuffered€emotional€injuries€and€eventually€withdraw€"into€[a]€shell."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àDr.€Engum€testified€that€the€petitioner€became€a€drifter€and,€after€beingÏreleased€from€Devereau,€never€established€any€lasting€relationships,€although€heÏhad€an€"on„again,€off„again"€relationship€with€a€woman€named€Mary,€who€is€theÏmother€of€his€two€children.€€The€petitioner€had€been€institutionalized€from€time€toÏtime€and€functioned€well€in€that€type€of€environment.€€At€one€point,€after€his€releaseÏfrom€Devereau,€the€petitioner€was€institutionalized€at€West€Texas€Hospital.€TheÏhospital€diagnosed€the€petitioner€as€having€a€factitious€disorder,€which€occurs€whenÏan€individual€feels€so€helpless€and€isolated€that€he€seeks€to€play€the€role€of€patient.€ÏOn€cross„examination€by€the€state,€Dr.€Engum€conceded€that€between€500,000€andÏœtwo›€million€people€suffer€from€a€borderline€personality€disorder.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€a€bench€conference€during€the€trial,€the€trial€judge€and€counselÏdiscussed€which€of€the€statutory€mitigating€circumstances€should€be€instructed€toÏthe€jury.€€One€of€the€mitigating€circumstances€discussed€was€that€the€"murder€wasÏcommitted€while€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€orÏemotional€disturbance."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2).€€The€trial€judgeÏsuggested€that€there€might€be€no€proof€of€that€circumstance€and€DePersio,€who€hadÏyielded€psychological€preparations€to€Attorney€Clement,€inexplicably€agreed,€simplyÏsaying€that€one€was€"out."€€Another€claimed€mitigating€circumstance€was€that€theÏ"capacity€of€the€defendant€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€[his]€conduct€or€toÏconform€[his]€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€was€substantially€impaired€as€aÐ @8à.2 Ðresult€of€mental€disease€or€defect€or€intoxication€which€was€insufficient€to€establish€aÏdefense€to€the€crime€but€which€substantially€affected€the€defendant's€judgment."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(8).€€The€trial€judge,€apparently€referring€to€theÏinsanity€defense€as€defined€in€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€œ547€S.W.2d›€œ531€(Tenn.›€œ1977),›Ð   Ðrefused€to€instruct€on€that€mitigating€circumstance€because€"the€magical€words€...Ïweren't€developed€during€proof."€€Defense€counsel€did€lodge€an€objection€to€theÏrefusal€to€charge€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(8).€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€trial€judge€provided€the€following€instruction€to€the€jury€onÏmitigating€circumstances:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àIn€arriving€at€this€determination,€you€areÏauthorized€to€weigh€and€consider€any€mitigatingÏcircumstances€and€any€of€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstances€which€may€have€been€raised€by€theÏevidence€throughout€the€entire€course€of€this€trial,Ïincluding€the€guilt„finding€phase€or€the€sentencing€phaseÏor€both.€€ÌÌà@ee/Úà***ˆÌÌ€à < àTennessee€Code€Annotated€39„2„203(j),€providesÐ €%  Ðthat€in€arriving€at€the€punishment,€the€jury€shall€considerÏas€heretofore€indicated€any€mitigating€circumstancesÏwhich€shall€include,€but€not€be€limited€to,€the€following:ÏNumber€one,€the€murder€was€committed€underÏcircumstances€which€the€defendant€reasonably€believedÏto€provide€a€moral€justification€for€his€conduct;€two,€anyÏaspect€of€the€defendant's€character€or€record,€or€anyÏaspect€of€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€favorable€toÏthe€defendant€which€is€supported€by€the€evidence.ÌÌà < àIf€you€unanimously€determine€that€at€least€oneÏstatutory€aggravating€circumstance€or€several€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances€have€been€proved€by€theÏState€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€and€said€circumstanceÏor€circumstances€outweigh€any€mitigating€circumstanceÏor€circumstances,€the€sentence€shall€be€death.€€The€juryÏshall€state€in€writing€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance€or€statutory€aggravating€circumstances€soÏfound,€and€signify€in€writing€that€the€statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance€or€circumstances€outweigh€the€mitigatingÐ @8à.2 Ðcircumstance€or€circumstances€so€found.€ÓbÓ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÒ4ä TÒÒXFÒÌà Œ àà ä àOn€direct€appeal€of€the€conviction€and€sentence,€the€defendant€arguedÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€instruct€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2)Ïand€(8).€€By€a€3„2€vote,€our€supreme€court€rejected€the€claim:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àDefendant€says€he€was€prejudiced€by€failure€toÏinstruct€mitigating€circumstances€[Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„¼13„204(j)(2)€and€(8)]€raised€by€the€evidence.€...€€The€trialÏcourt€declined€to€instruct€the€jury€on€these€factorsÏbecause€he€found€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€òòas€aÐ €  Ðresultóó€of€mental€disease€the€defendant€could€not€conformÐ p Ðhis€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.€...€€The€trialÏcourt€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€disorder€was€òòprevalentÐ Pð Ðeven€among€law€abiding€persons,€and€in€the€absence€ofÏspecific€proof€or€a€statement€of€causation€about€theÏrelationship€between€the€disorder€and€the€offense,€theÏinstruction€was€not€warranted.óó€€We€do€not€find€anythingÐ ° Ðin€the€record€to€dispute€this€finding.€€The€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÓÇÓÌÒ4ä ¹ÒÒX«ÒòòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€82„83€(second€emphasis€added).Ð Ð p ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€majority€of€our€supreme€court€decided€that€the€failure€of€theÏdefense€to€prove€the€connection€between€the€anti„social€personalty€disorder€and€theÏoffense€precluded€instructions€on€the€statutory€mitigating€circumstance.€€òòId.óó€€(NoÐ P(ð! Ðmention€was€made€œof›€Dr.€Engum's€diagnosis€of€Abandoned€Child€Syndrome).€€TwoÏof€the€five€justices€dissented€from€this€ruling,€concluding€that€the€petitioner€hadÏestablished€that€he€suffered€from€a€mental€disease€or€diseases€which€could€impairÏhis€ability€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€conform€his€conduct€toÏthe€law.€€The€dissent€argued€that€there€should€be€no€requirement€to€establish€anyÏconnections€between€the€disorder€or€disorders€and€the€criminal€acts€of€theÏdefendant,€suggesting€that€the€majority€had€confused€the€concepts€of€the€insanityÏdefense€and€mitigating€circumstances.€€One€of€the€dissenters€proclaimed€that€theÐ P7ð-1 Ðuse€of€the€"magical€words"€in€this€context€was€absolutely€unnecessary.€€òòSeeóóÐ `  ÐòòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€88€(Reid,€Ch.€J.,€€and€Daughtrey,€J.,€dissenting);€Tenn.Ð @ à ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(8).€€Neither€the€majority€nor€the€dissenting€opinionsÏcommented€upon€the€applicability€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2),€that€is,€thatÏthe€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€under€the€influence€of€extremeÏmental€or€emotional€disturbance.€€òòId.óó€€That€is€understandable;€DePersio,€of€course,Ð À`  Ðhad€conceded€at€trial€that€this€possible€mitigating€circumstance€had€no€application.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Dr.€Engum€testified€that€in€January€ofÏ1991,€well€before€trial,€he€advised€defense€counsel€that€the€petitioner€wasÏcompetent€and€that€an€insanity€defense€could€not€be€supported.€€At€that€time,€heÏalso€mentioned€to€defense€counsel€that€he€believed€there€to€be€mitigating€evidenceÏavailable€to€the€petitioner.€€He€recalled€that€the€next€time€he€was€asked€to€discussÏhis€possible€testimony€was€"about€an€hour€or€so€before€the€sentencing€phase€of€theÏtrial€began."€€"After€he€told€them€[he]€couldn't€support€the€òòGrahamóó€standard,€andÐ  #@ Ðfound€him€competent€[he]€told€them€that€[he]€could€say€something€in€sentencing,Ï[but€he]€didn't€hear€from€them€again€until€the€day€the€trial€started."€€Dr.€EngumÏasserted€that€he€could€have€testified€that€both€of€the€statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€at€issue,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(2)€and€(8),€were€present;Ïhe€testified€that€defense€counsel€"absolutely"€never€mentioned€either€of€theseÏmitigating€circumstances€before€or€during€his€testimony.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€this€post„conviction€claim,€Dr.€EngumÏuncategorically€stated€that€in€his€opinion€"David€Brimmer€committed€this€offenseÏwhile€under€the€influence€of€extreme€mental€or€emotional€disturbance."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð `6-0 ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(2).€€He€also€testified€that€"David€Brimmer's€capacity€toÐ @8à.2 Ðappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law,€was€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€orÏdefense„„insufficient€to€establish€a€defense€to€the€crime,€but€which€substantiallyÏaffected€his€judgment."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(j)(8).€€Other€than€theseÐ   Ðspecific€references€to€the€enumerated€mitigating€circumstances,€the€testimony€of€Dr.ÏEngum€at€trial€and€on€post„conviction€was€essentially€the€same.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAttorney€Clement€testified€that€he€conducted€the€entire€examination€ofÏDr.€Engum€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€He€recalled€being€generally€satisfied€with€theÏcontent€of€Dr.€Engum's€testimony€œdespite›€the€trial€court's€refusal€to€give€juryÏinstructions€on€the€two€statutory€mitigating€circumstances€in€question.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€post„conviction€court€made€the€following€findings:€€€ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ(B)€Failure€to€investigate€and€present€evidence€ofÏmitigating€factors€relating€to€his€background€and€mentalÏstate€at€the€sentencing.€€Trial€counsel€presented€expertÏtestimony€at€sentencing€hearing€phase€...€relating€toÏabandoned€child€syndrome.€€[A]n€investigator€testified€atÏthe€original€trial€concerning€petitioner's€troubledÏchildhood....€€The€jury€had€ample€evidence€of€petitioner'sÏbackground€and€mental€history.€€[W]hile€...€someÏevidence€[was]€presented€at€post„conviction€evidentiaryÏhearing€that€the€expert€may€not€have€been€prepared€untilÏlater€stages€of€[]€investigation,€[no€prejudice€has€beenÏœshown.]Ì›ÌÓ]ÓÌÒ4ä OÒÒXAÒà Œ àà ä àThis€finding€suggests€an€"investigator€testified€concerning€petitioner'sÏtroubled€childhood."€€The€transcript€of€the€sentencing€hearing€does€not€support€thatÏconclusion.€€The€reference€to€an€"investigator"€may€have€been€inadvertent€becauseÏthe€only€witness€who€testified€for€the€petitioner€in€the€sentencing€phase€was€Dr.ÏEngum.€€The€finding€does€not€address€the€more€important€question€of€whether€theÐ P7ð-1 Ðpetitioner€was€prejudiced€by€defense€counsel's€failure€to€elicit€testimony€which€wouldÏhave€supported€jury€instructions€on€the€relevant€statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àBoth€the€petitioner€and€the€state€have€addressed€this€issue€underÏòòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363€(Tenn.€1996),€a€case€in€which€the€supreme€court€setÐ à€ Ðforth€the€standards€for€reviewing€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€forÏfailure€to€present€available€mitigating€evidence€in€the€sentencing€phase€of€a€capitalÏtrial.€€While€acknowledging€that€defense€counsel€does€have€a€duty€to€prepare€andÏrepresent€the€client,€our€supreme€court€in€òòGoadóó€held€that€there€is€no€absoluteÐ ` Ðrequirement€that€counsel€present€mitigating€evidence€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€ÏòòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€369,€370.€€Where€mitigating€evidence€does€exist,€however,€itÐ  À Ðshould€be€presented.€€òòId.óó€€Our€supreme€court€has€emphasized€the€duty€of€trial€courtsÐ   Ðto€"preserv[e]€a€defendant's€right€to€counsel€at€a€capital€sentencing€hearing."€€òòId.óóÐ à€ Ð(internal€quotation€marks€omitted).€€In€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€this€court€held€that€"'[i]t€is€theÐ À!` Ðduty€of€the€lawyer€to€conduct€a€prompt€investigation€of€the€circumstances€of€theÏcase€and€to€explore€all€avenues€leading€to€the€facts€relevant€to€the€merits€of€theÏcase€and€the€penalty€in€the€event€of€conviction.'"€€847€S.W.2d€521,€531€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1992)€(quoting€A.B.A.€Standards€for€Criminal€Justice€(2d€ed.),€The€DefenseÏFunction€ðð€4„4.1),€òòaff'dóó,€849€S.W.2d€744€(Tenn.€1993).€€Ð  +À!$ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€comments€to€this€section€have€been€quoted€with€approval€by€thisÏcourt€in€òòAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€356€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994):Ð À0`'* ÐÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àThe€lawyer€also€has€a€substantial€and€importantÏrole€to€perform€in€raising€mitigating€factors€both€to€theÏprosecutor€initially€and€to€the€court€at€sentencing.€€ThisÏcannot€effectively€be€done€on€the€basis€of€broad€generalÏemotional€appeals€or€on€the€strength€of€statements€madeÏto€the€lawyer€by€the€defendant.€€Information€concerningÏthe€defendant's€background,€education,€employmentÐ @8à.2 Ðrecord,€...€relationships,€and€the€like,€will€be€relevant,€asÏwill€mitigating€circumstances€surrounding€the€commissionÏof€the€offense€itself.€€Investigation€is€essential€toÏfulfilment€of€these€functions.ÌÌÒ4ä #(ÒÒX(ÒÓ1(ÓThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€mitigating€evidence€is€relevant€toÏsentencing€hearings€and€should€be€presented.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,Ð ð Ð479€U.S.€538€(1987);€òòMills€v.€Marylandóó,€486€U.S.€367€(1988)€(a€reversal€because€itÐ Ðp  Ðwas€probable€that€the€jury€imposed€a€death€sentence€under€the€impression€that€theÏstate€statutory€scheme€prevented€jurors€from€considering€any€mitigation€they€did€notÏfind€unanimously€to€exist);€òòHitchcock€v.€Duggeróó,€481€U.S.€393€(1987)€(the€deathÐ p Ðsentence€was€set€aside€because€the€trial€court€barred€evidence€of€non„statutoryÏmitigation€at€the€sentencing€hearing);€òòLockett€v.€Ohioóó,€438€U.S.€586€(1978)€(an€OhioÐ 0Ð Ðstatute€limiting€mitigation€to€three€statutory€factors€was€unconstitutional;€the€juryÏmust€not€be€precluded€from€considering€any€aspect€of€the€defendant's€character€orÏthe€circumstances€of€the€offense).€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThis€situation,€however,€is€different€from€that€in€òòGoadóó.€€Here,€defenseÐ $0 Ðcounsel€did€present€all€of€the€then€available€mitigating€evidence€during€theÏsentencing€phase.€€The€concern€is€not€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€present€theÏavailable€mitigating€evidence.€€It€is€that€he€presented€expert€testimony€in€such€aÏdeficient€manner€that€it€justified€the€trial€court's€refusal€to€instruct€on€the€twoÏavailable€mitigating€circumstances.€€Defense€counsel€did€not€establish€an€adequateÏfoundation€for€either€mitigating€circumstance€to€be€charged€to€the€jury.€€In€the€wordsÏof€our€supreme€court€on€direct€appeal,€defense€counsel€failed€to€elicit€a€"statementÏof€causation€about€the€relationship€between€the€disorder€[or€disorders]€and€theÏoffense."€€òòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€83.€€The€significant€question€now€is€whether€theÐ p5,/ Ðfailure€to€present€the€testimony€in€a€way€which€would€have€warranted€an€instructionÐ P7ð-1 Ðon€the€statutory€mitigating€circumstances€affected€the€reliability€of€the€deathÏsentence.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAs€indicated,€Dr.€Engum€testified€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€thisÏpost„conviction€claim€that€there€was€a€connection€between€the€petitioner's€twoÏmental€disorders€and€his€crimes.€€This€testimony€would€have€been€presented€inÏrelation€to€the€statutory€mitigators€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial€had€theÏproper€questions€been€presented€by€defense€counsel.€€Of€equal€importance€is€thatÏeach€of€the€two€mitigating€circumstances€prescribed€by€statute€would€have€beenÏread€to€the€jury.€€It€is€our€view€that€counsel€was€deficient€for€failing€to€offer€theÏ"specific€proof€or€a€statement"€of€the€relationship€between€the€petitioner's€mentalÏproblems€and€the€offenses€committed.€€òòId.óó€€€€Ð   ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAttorney€DePersio,€the€more€experienced€of€the€attorneys€assigned€toÏrepresent€the€petitioner,€expressed€little€interest€in€the€penalty€phase€of€the€trial.€€AtÏleast€partly€due€to€his€general€cynicism€about€psychological€testing€and€perhaps€forÏother€reasons,€he€left€the€preparations€of€the€expert€witness€entirely€to€his€co„¼counsel.€€Attorney€Clement,€who€was€involved€in€his€first€capital€case,€workedÏdiligently€during€the€short€period€between€his€appointment€and€the€trial€but€wasÏburdened€with€the€responsibility€of€preparing€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Engum€when€heÏhad€never€before€utilized€an€expert€in€a€criminal€case.€€Under€these€circumstances,Ïhis€failure€to€submit€the€"magical€words"€sought€by€the€trial€judge€or€otherwiseÏarticulate€a€legitimate€basis€for€a€jury€instruction€on€the€statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€at€issue€is€entirely€understandable.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThis€deficiency€is€of€sufficient€magnitude,€in€our€view,€as€to€establishÐ @8à.2 Ðthe€required€prejudice€component.€€In€òòStricklandóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÐ `  Ðheld€that€a€"defendant€need€not€show€that€counsel's€deficient€conduct€more€likelyÏthan€not€altered€the€outcome€in€the€case."€€466€U.S.€at€693.€€Rather,€he€must€showÏa€"reasonable€probability€...€[that]€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€beenÏdifferent."€€òòId.óó€at€694.€€"A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€toÐ à€ Ðundermine€confidence€in€the€outcome."€€òòId.óó€at€695.€€The€Supreme€Court€offered€theÐ À`  Ðfollowing€guidance€on€determining€whether€prejudice€has€been€established:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àIn€making€this€determination,€a€court€...€mustÏconsider€the€totality€of€the€evidence€before€the€judge€orÏjury.€€Some€of€the€factual€findings€will€have€beenÏunaffected€by€the€errors,€and€the€factual€findings€thatÏwere€affected€will€have€been€affected€in€different€ways.€ÏSome€errors€will€have€had€a€pervasive€effect€on€theÏinferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,€altering€theÏentire€evidentiary€picture,€and€some€will€have€had€anÏisolated,€trivial€effect.€€Moreover,€a€verdict€or€conclusionÏonly€weakly€supported€by€the€record€is€more€likely€toÏhave€been€affected€by€errors€than€one€withÏoverwhelming€record€support.ÌÌÒ4ä c<ÒÒXU<ÒÓq<ÓòòId.óó€at€695„96.€Ð °"P ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€jury€was€instructed€that€if€the€"statutory€aggravatingÏcircumstance[s]€...€€outweigh€any€mitigating€circumstance€...,€òòthe€sentence€shall€beÐ P(ð! Ðdeathóó."€€The€instructions€on€the€possible€aggravating€circumstances€were€veryÐ 0*Ð # Ðspecific€and€tracked€the€statute.€€In€contrast,€the€instruction€to€the€jury€on€mitigatingÏcircumstances€was€brief€and€general.€€It€was€almost€inevitable€that€the€jury€wouldÏconclude€that€at€least€one€aggravating€circumstance€was€present,€i.e.,€that€theÏmurder€was€committed€in€furtherance€of€a€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„Ð °1P(+ Ð204(i)(7).€€Because€no€specific€instructions€were€given€on€the€statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances€and€because€the€instructions€contained€mandatory€language€that€ifÏthe€aggravating€circumstances€outweigh€the€mitigating€circumstances,€theÐ P7ð-1 Ð"sentence€shall€be€death,"€the€errors€by€the€defense€made€a€sentence€of€deathÏmore€likely.€€€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThis€situation€is€analogous€to€that€in€œòòAdkinsóó,›€911€S.W.2d€œat€334.›€€InÐ   ÐòòAdkinsóó,€this€court€ordered€a€new€sentencing€hearing€because€no€mitigatingÐ à€ Ðevidence,€even€though€available,€had€been€presented€by€defense€counsel.€€TheÏerror€was€deemed€egregious:€€"[W]hen€the€state€presented€proof€of€two€aggravatingÏcircumstances€and€[defense]€counsel€...€offered€no€mitigating€evidence,€the€òòjury€hadÐ €  Ðlittle€choice€but€to€impose€the€death€sentence.óó"€€òòId.óó€€at€356€(emphasis€added).€€€€Ð ` ÐÌà Œ àà ä àOur€supreme€court€has€previously€recognized€the€significant€effect€ofÏthe€failure€to€provide€jury€instructions€on€mitigating€circumstances.€€In€òòState€v.Ð   ÐOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€32€(Tenn.€1996),€our€supreme€court€granted€a€newÐ à€ Ðsentencing€hearing€when€the€trial€judge€refused€to€provide€instructions€on€variousÏnonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€The€court€determined€that€when€a€trial€courtÏrefuses€to€give€an€instruction€on€a€mitigating€circumstance,€he€"òòin€effect,€give[s]€it€noÐ €%  Ðweight€by€excluding€such€evidence€from€the€jury's€œconsideration.óó"›€€òòId.óó€at€œ31€Ð `'  Ð(emphasis›€added).€€The€supreme€court€warned€of€the€importance€of€this€portion€ofÏthe€charge:€€ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓThe€jury€instructions€[on€mitigating€circumstances]€areÏcritical€in€enabling€the€jury€to€make€a€sentencingÏdetermination€that€is€demonstrably€reliable.€€òòTo€ensureÐ à.€%( Ðthis€reliability,€the€jury€must€be€given€specific€instructionsÏon€those€circumstances€offered€by€the€capital€defendantÏas€a€justification€for€a€sentence€less€than€œdeath.óó›ÓÔHÓÐ °1P(+ ÐÒ4ä ÆHÒÒX¸HÒ928€S.W.2d€at€31€(emphasis€added).Ìà Œ àà ä àÌà Œ àà ä àThat€œrationale›€applies€in€this€case.€€It€is€œnoteworthy€that›€since€theÐ P7ð-1 Ðrelease€of€the€opinion€in€òòOdomóó,€our€supreme€court€has€had€two€additionalÐ `  Ðopportunities€to€consider€whether€error€associated€with€jury€instructions€onÏmitigating€evidence€required€reversal.€€òòState€v.€Hodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€346,€352Ð  À Ð(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€118€S.€Ct.€567€œ(1997);›€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€958€S.W.2d€679€(Tenn.Ð   Ð1997),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€_____S.€Ct.€_____,€1998€WL€145257€(June€22,€1998).€€InÐ à€ ÐòòHodgesóó,€the€defendant€complained€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€hisÐ À`  Ðrequested€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€944€S.W.2d€atÏ351.€€Instead,€the€trial€court€had€instructed€the€jury€on€the€following€nonstatutoryÏmitigating€circumstances:€history€of€childhood;€victim€of€child€sex€abuse;€mentalÏillness€or€mental€or€emotional€disturbance;€dominance€by€another€person€and/orÏimmaturity;€drug€abuse;€and€any€other€aspect€of€the€defendant's€background€orÏcharacter€or€the€circumstances€of€the€offense,€which€would€reduce€the€defendant'sÏblameworthiness.€€òòId.óó€at€355.€Ð à€ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€supreme€court€emphasized€that€a€jury€instruction€on€mitigatingÏcircumstances€can€be€found€"prejudicially€erroneous"€only€if€"it€fails€to€fairly€submitÏthe€legal€issues€or€if€it€misleads€the€jury€as€to€the€applicable€law."€€òòHodgesóó,€944Ð `'  ÐS.W.2d€at€352.€€The€court€observed€that€"'[j]urors€do€not€sit€in€solitary€isolationÏbooths€parsing€instructions€for€subtle€shades€of€meaning€in€the€same€way€thatÏlawyers€might.'"€òòId.óó€at€352€(quoting€òòBoyde€v.€Californiaóó,€494€U.S.€œ370,€380„81›Ð - #& М(1990)).€€›ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOur€high€court€explained€as€follows:€€€ÌÓÓ€à8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#àJurors€interpret€the€instructions€in€a€common€senseÐ €4 +. Ðmanner€and€in€light€of€the€evidence€presented€at€the€trial.€ÏThe€defense€assertion€ignores€the€reality€that€theseÏjurors€had€heard€specific€evidence€during€the€sentencingÏhearing€about€the€defendant's€childhood,€his€immaturity,Ð @8à.2 Ðalleged€sexual€abuse,€drug€abuse,€mental€illness€andÏemotional€disturbance,€as€well€as€the€dominance€byÏTrina€Brown.€€By€their€breadth,€the€instructions€onÏnonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€encompassed€allÏthe€evidence€presented€by€the€defense€at€the€sentencingÏhearing.€...€[T]he€defendant's€claim€of€error€is€withoutÏmerit.ÓHRÓÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐòòHodgesóó,€944€S.W.2d€at€356€(citations€omitted).€€While€the€instructions€specificallyÐ à€ Ðrequested€by€the€defendant€were€not€given,€other€instructions,€as€enumeratedÏabove,€were€provided€to€the€jury€which€"encompassed€all€the€evidence"€theÏdefendant€presented.€€òòId.óóÐ €  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòHallóó,€the€trial€court€refused€to€grant€seven€different€requestedÐ @à Ðinstructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€which€dealt€with€theÏdefendant's€youth,€immaturity,€and€emotional€problems.€€958€S.W.2d€at€697„98.€€OurÏsupreme€court€found€the€trial€court's€refusal€to€give€the€requested€œchargeñE.ñd›€ñE.ññF.ñ€ñF.ñdid›€notÏconstitute€"prejudicial€error."€€òòId.óó€at€698.€€Two€factors€were€critical€to€œthe€court'sÐ À!` Ðconclusion.›€€First,€the€rejected€instructions€on€nonstatutory€mitigating€circumstancesÏhad€already€been€addressed€in€the€instructions€provided€on€statutory€mitigatingÏcircumstances.€€Second,€the€trial€judge€did€provide€an€additional€instruction€onÏmitigating€evidence:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓA€mitigating€circumstance€is€any€aspect€of€Leroy€Hall,ÏœJr.'s,›€character,€background€history,€or€physical€conditionÏor€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€crime€which€inÏfairness€or€mercy,€calls€for€a€sentence€less€than€death.€...€ÏThe€law€does€not€identify€or€limit€what€you€can€considerÏconcerning€[Hall's]€character,€background€history,€anyÏphysical€condition€or€the€nature€and€circumstances€of€theÏcrime€that€are€mitigating.€€€€€ÌÌÒ4ä nYÒÒX`YÒÓ|YÓòòHallóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€697.Ð 30*- ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€both€òòHallóó€and€òòHodgesóó,€the€trial€judge€denied€certain€of€theÐ P7ð-1 Ðdefendant's€requested€instructions;€new€sentencing€hearings€were€denied€by€theÏsupreme€court€only€because€other€instructions€were€given€which€were€substantiallyÏthe€same€as€those€rejected.€€In€each€case,€the€instructions€fairly€submitted€the€legalÏissues€to€the€jury.€€The€jury€was€given€detailed€instructions€on€the€statutory€andÏnonstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€raised€by€the€evidence.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThis€case€is€less€like€either€òòHodgesóó€or€òòHallóó€than€òòOdomóó,€wherein€ourÐ Î1n(- Ðsupreme€court€ruled€that€where€the€appropriate€instruction€on€mitigating€evidence€isÏnot€provided,€that€evidence€is,€for€practical€purposes,€"exclud[ed]€...€from€the€jury'sÏconsideration."€€928€S.W.2d€at€31.€€Due€to€his€counsel's€errors€in€this€case,Ïinstructions€permitting€the€jury€to€consider€that€the€defendant€suffered€from€a€mentalÐ þ8ž/5 Ðdisease€or€that€the€murder€was€committed€while€the€defendant€was€under€extremeÏmental€disturbance€were€rejected.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„204(j)(2),€(8).€€AÐ , Ì Ðbrief,€general€instruction€that€the€jury€could€consider€"any€aspect€of€the€defendant'sÏcharacter€or€record,€or€any€aspect€of€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€favorable€toÏthe€defendant"€was€inadequate€because€it€failed€to€address€the€defendant's€mentalÏillness€or€mental€condition€at€the€time€of€the€offense.€€"To€ensure€...€reliability,€theÏjury€must€be€given€...€instructions€on€those€circumstances€offered€by€the€capitalÏdefendant€as€a€justification€for€a€sentence€less€than€death."€€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€atÐ ô”  Ð31.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àBecause€the€jury€imposed€the€sentence€of€death€without€being€allowedÏto€consider€either€of€these€mitigating€circumstances,€the€death€sentence€isÏunreliable€and€our€confidence€in€the€verdict€has€been€undermined.€€òòStricklandóó,€466Ð ð ÐU.S.€at€695.€€The€proof€by€the€state€was€not€so€overwhelming€that€the€jury€wouldÏhave€inevitably€imposed€the€death€sentence.€€The€jury€rejected€two€of€theÏaggravating€circumstances€submitted€by€the€state.€€The€single€remainingÏaggravating€circumstance€was€that€the€murder€was€committed€in€furtherance€of€aÏfelony.€€Thus,€the€instructions€warranted€by€the€evidence€might€have€made€aÏdifference€in€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€jury.€€Under€these€circumstances,€a€newÏsentencing€hearing€must€be€granted.€ÌÌÔ#† X£¯XX X£¯}Ù#Ôà@``/Úà(h)ˆÐ /¼%* Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€argues€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€includeÏall€possible€grounds€for€relief€in€the€motion€for€new€trial.€€Specifically,€the€petitionerÏcomplains€that€the€following€issues€should€have€been€presented:€the€confusingÏnature€of€the€jury€instructions€on€mitigating€circumstances,€the€prejudicial€statementsÏby€Sheriff€Hodges€about€the€petitioner's€having€"killed€before,"€the€prosecutor'sÐ 8¸.4 Ðargument€about€petitioner's€having€"killed€before,"€and€the€court's€refusal€to€chargeÏthe€requested€mitigating€circumstances.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner's€complaint€about€the€"confusing€nature€of€the€juryÏinstructions€on€mitigating€circumstances"€is€unclear.€€The€petitioner€has€notÏindicated€why€the€general€instructions€provided€on€possible€mitigating€circumstancesÏare€unclear.€€The€real€problem,€as€indicated,€is€trial€counsel's€failure€to€prepare€andÏpresent€the€available€evidence€to€substantiate€a€charge€on€the€possible€statutoryÏmitigating€circumstances.€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àCounsel€attempted€to€raise€the€issues€about€the€testimony€andÏargument€about€the€"killed€before"€issue€on€direct€appeal.€€The€supreme€court€ruledÏas€follows:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àOur€investigation€of€these€complaints€indicatesÏinitially€the€issue€was€waived.€€There€was€noÏcontemporaneous€objection€when€any€of€these€allegedlyÏobjectionable€remarks€were€made.€€Defendant€did€notÏrequest€the€Court€to€instruct€the€jury€to€disregardÏcomments€about€other€killings.€€The€record€indicates€thatÏSheriff€Hodges€was€not€being€responsive€to€the€State'sÏquestions€when€the€reference€to€prior€killings€was€made.€ÏThere€is€no€indication€the€State€intentionally€elicitedÏthese€remarks.€€Moreover,€this€issue€was€not€raised€onÏthe€motion€for€new€trial.€€Certainly€it€would€have€beenÏbetter€if€none€of€the€remarks€had€been€made€....€€UnderÏthe€circumstances€and€evidence€in€this€case€we€do€notÏthink€these€incidents€constitute€reversible€error.ÌÌÒ4ä iÒÒXiÒÓiÓòòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€80.€€Although€counsel€may€have€been€deficient€in€failing€toÐ 6.Ö$) Ðraise€that€particular€issue€in€the€motion€for€new€trial,€we€cannot€find€prejudiceÏbecause€the€supreme€court€reviewed€the€substance€of€the€complaint€and€ruled€noÏreversible€error€occurred.€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€counsel€should€have€included€in€theÏmotion€for€new€trial€that€the€court€refused€to€charge€the€requested€mitigatingÐ þ8ž/5 Ðcircumstances.€€On€direct€appeal,€the€defendant€argued€"he€was€prejudiced€byÏfailure€to€instruct€mitigating€circumstances€raised€by€the€evidence."€€òòId.óó€at€82.€€TheÐ , Ì Ðsupreme€court€reviewed€the€issued€and€found€it€to€be€"without€merit."€€òòId.óó€at€83.€Ð ø ˜ ÐBecause€the€supreme€court€reviewed€the€merits€of€this€issue,€the€petitioner€hasÏshown€no€prejudice.€Ô‡ X£¯XX X£¯Ô€Ð 0 ÐÌÓ  Ó(i)ÌÓpÓà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏpresent€as€an€issue€the€twenty„one„day€detention€of€the€petitioner€prior€to€his€givingÏa€confession.€€An€unreasonable€length€of€detention€without€a€probable€causeÏdetermination€violates€the€Constitution.€€òòGernstein€v.€Pughóó,€420€U.S.€103€(1975).€€AtÐ Xø Ðthe€time€of€petitioner's€trial,€Tennessee€followed€the€"seventy„two€hour€rule"€whichÏrequired€a€probable€cause€determination€within€seventy„two€hours.€€òòWynn€v.€Stateóó,Ð ð Ð181€S.W.2d€332,€334€(Tenn.€1944);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Readusóó,€764€S.W.2d€770Ð ¼ \ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àGiven€the€facts€of€the€case,€we€have€no€hesitation€in€concluding€thatÏtrial€counsel€should€have€pursued€this€as€a€means€of€suppressing€the€confession.€ÏThat€determination€does€not€end€our€inquiry,€however,€as€the€petitioner€must€stillÏshow€prejudice.€€As€we€explain€in€more€detail€below,€we€conclude€the€petitioner€isÏentitled€to€no€relief€because€he€has€not€demonstrated€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€that€he€did€not€receive€a€prompt€determination€of€probable€cause.€€ThatÏdetermination€controls€our€resolution€of€this€issue.€€Because€we€cannot€concludeÏcounsel€would€have€prevailed€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€we€cannot€find€prejudiceÏas€required€under€òòStricklandóó.€€Ð  €4 +0 ÐÔ#† X£¯XX X£¯äo#ÔÔ‡ X£¯XX X£¯Ô€€€€€€€à@¢¢/ÚàIIˆÐ `  ÐÔ#† X£¯XX X£¯íu#ÔÔ‡ X£¯XX X£¯Ôà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€next€argues€that€his€confession€should€be€suppressedÐ , Ì Ðbecause€he€was€held€in€custody€for€forty€days€before€a€probable€causeÏdetermination€occurred.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666€(Tenn.€1996).€€InÐ Äd ÐòòGerstein€v.€Pughóó,€420€U.S.€103,€114,€125€(1975),€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÐ 0 Ðruled€that€the€"Fourth€Amendment€requires€a€judicial€determination€of€probableÏcause€as€a€prerequisite€to€extended€restraint€of€liberty€following€arrest"€and€that€theÏdetermination€"must€be€made€...€either€before€or€promptly€after€arrest."€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€1991,€the€Supreme€Court€defined€what€is€"prompt"€under€òòGersteinóó.€Ð Œ, ÐòòCounty€of€Riverside€v.€McLaughlinóó,€500€U.S.€44€(1991).€€The€Court€ruled€that€aÐ Xø Ð"judicial€determination€of€probable€cause€within€48€hours€of€arrest€will,€as€a€generalÏmatter,€comply€with€the€promptness€requirement€of€òòGersteinóó."€€òòId.óó€at€56.€€ForÐ ð Ðhearings€occurring€before€forty„eight€hours€pass,€the€arrested€individual€must€"proveÏthat€his€or€her€probable€cause€determination€was€delayed€unreasonably."€€òòId.óó€€TheÐ ˆ"( ÐCourt€found,€however,€that€where€a€probable€cause€determination€occurs€after€forty„¼eight€hours,€the€"burden€shifts€to€the€government€to€demonstrate€the€existence€of€aÏbona€fide€emergency€or€other€extraordinary€circumstance."€€òòId.óó€at€57.€€The€SupremeÐ ì'Œ" ÐCourt€has€held€that€the€rule€in€òòMcLaughlinóó,€"'is€to€be€applied€retroactively€to€allÐ ¸)X $ Ðcases,€state€or€federal,€...€not€yet€final'€when€the€rule€[was]€announced."€€òòPowell€v.Ð „+$"& ÐNevadaóó,€511€U.S.€79,€80€(1994)€(quoting€òòGriffith€v.€Kentuckyóó,€479€U.S.€314,€328Ð P-ð#( Ð(1987)€(omission€in€original)).€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOur€supreme€court€has€held€that€where€the€rule€in€òòMcLaughlinóó€isÐ ´2T). Ðviolated,€the€exclusionary€rule€is€the€appropriate€remedy.€€òòHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2dÐ €4 +0 Ðat€673.€€The€court€ruled€that€"applying€the€exclusionary€rule€to€evidence€obtained€asÏa€result€of€the€illegal€detention€will€deter€further€violations."€€òòId.óó€€Any€confessionÐ 8¸.4 Ðobtained€in€violation€of€òòMcLaughlinóó€must€be€excluded€unless€the€state€canÐ `  Ðdemonstrate€the€confession€is€"sufficiently€an€act€of€free€will€to€purge€the€primaryÏtaint."€€òòId.óó€at€674.€€Four€factors€are€relevant€in€reaching€this€determination:Ð ø ˜ ÐÓÓÒXÒÒä 4Ò(1)€à < àthe€presence€or€absence€of€òòMirandaóó€warnings;Ð Äd ÐÌ(2)à8 < àthe€temporal€proximity€of€the€arrest€and€the€à8@j€mitigatàÐ 0 Ðconfession;Ð <x<x ÐÌ(3)€à < àthe€presence€of€intervening€circumstances;€andÐ Bâ  Ðà8 < àfinally,€of€particular€significance,Ð <x<x ÐÌ(4)à8 < àthe€purpose€and€flagrancy€of€the€official€à8@,€mitigatàÐ ô”  Ðmisconduct.Ð <x<x ÐÌÒ4ä ×€ÒÒXÉ€ÒÓ·€ÓòòId.óó€at€674„75.€€The€burden€of€proving€the€admissibility€of€the€confession€rests€on€theÐ ¦F Ðprosecution.€€òòId.óó€€Ð r ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€argues€that€he€is€entitled€to€relief€under€òòHuddlestonóó,Ð  ª Ðinsisting€its€rule€of€exclusion€is€a€new€law€which€should€be€applied€retroactively.€€InÏour€view,€however,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€by€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€that€he€did€not€receive€a€prompt€judicial€determination€of€probableÏcause.€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€February€3,€1990,€the€petitioner€was€arrested€in€Refugio€County,ÏTexas,€on€charges€unrelated€to€this€case.€€The€next€day,€he€appeared€before€aÏJustice€of€the€Peace.€€Bail€was€set€at€$1000.€€The€petitioner€was€unable€to€secure€aÏrelease.€€On€February€24,€1990,€the€petitioner€signed€a€written€confession.€€OnÏMarch€1,€1990,€he€was€returned€to€this€state€to€face€the€first€degree€murder€charge.€ÏA€preliminary€hearing€was€held€on€this€charge€on€March€15,€1990.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€February€4,€1990,€a€Texas€magistrate€signed€the€followingÏdocument:€€ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àBefore€me,€the€undersigned€magistrate€of€theÐ þ8ž/5 ÐState€of€Texas€on€this€day€personally€appeared€[theÏdefendant]€...€and€said€person€was€given€the€followingÏwarning€by€me:Ì(1)€You€are€charged€with€the€offense€of€evading€arrest.€ÏAn€affidavit€charging€you€with€this€offense€...€(has€not)Ïbeen€filed€in€this€Court.€[the€option€on€the€form€stating€anÏaffidavit€òòhasóó€been€filed€was€marked€through,€indicatingÐ Äd Ðan€affidavit€had€not€been€filed].Ì(2)€You€have€a€right€to€hire€a€lawyer€and€have€himÏpresent€prior€to€and€during€any€interview€and€questioningÏby€peace€officers€or€attorneys€representing€the€State.€...Ì(3)€You€have€the€right€to€remain€silent.Ì(4)€You€are€not€required€to€make€a€statement,€and€anyÏstatement€you€make€can€and€may€be€used€against€you€inÏCourt.Ì(5)€You€have€the€right€to€stop€any€interview€orÏquestioning€at€any€time.Ì[an€option€(6)€to€advise€of€the€right€to€an€examining€trialÏwas€marked€through,€indicating€the€petitioner€was€notÏadvised€of€the€right€to€an€examining€trial].ÌÌà@ee/Úà***ˆÌÌCheck€while€reading.€[Rights€(1)€through€(5)€are€checkedÏoff;€but€right€(6)€to€an€examining€trial€was€not€checked].ÌPlace€of€Warning:€Refugio€Co.€JailÌÌÌÌÒ4ä ž‡ÒÒX‡ÒÓ¬‡Óà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€argues€that€two€inferences€may€be€drawn€from€thisÏdocument.€€First,€the€magistrate€could€not€have€made€a€probable€causeÏdetermination€at€the€time€the€document€was€completed€because€an€affidavitÏcharging€the€offense€had€not€yet€been€filed.€€Second,€because€he€was€not€advisedÏof€his€right€to€an€examining€trial,€he€never€received€one.€€The€petitioner€did€not€offerÏtestimony€on€this€issue€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€made€the€followingÏfindings€of€fact:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ[T]he€petitioner€claims€that€he€was€not€properly€takenÏbefore€a€magistrate€for€a€probable€cause€hearing€andÏremained€in€custody€illegally€for€twenty„one€days€beforeÏconfessing€to€the€murder€of€Rodney€Compton.€At€theÏpost€conviction€evidentiary€hearing,€proof€was€presentedÏshowing€that€the€petitioner€was€taken€before€a€magistrateÏwithin€twenty„four€hours€of€his€arrest€in€Texas€on€otherÐ þ8ž/5 Ðcharges.€€A€one€thousand€dollar€bond€was€granted,Ïwhich€the€petitioner€could€not€make,€and€the€petitionerÏconfessed€to€the€Tennessee€offenses€twenty„one€daysÏlater€while€in€custody€for€the€Texas€offenses.€€This€CourtÏconcludes€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€carry€hisÏburden€of€proof€with€respect€to€this€issue.€€There€hasÏbeen€insufficient€proof€presented€that€the€confessionsÏwere€taken€in€violation€of€the€petitioner's€FourthÏAmendment€rights.ÌÌÒ4ä ÒÒXÒÓÓÌà Œ àà ä àThe€response€of€the€state€completely€fails€to€address€the€legal€issue.€ÏIt€insists€that€the€issue€is€moot€because€the€petitioner€failed€to€prove€this€allegation.€€€ÏThe€state€argues€the€petitioner€should€have€presented€more€proof€that€he€did€notÏreceive€a€probable€cause€determination.€€It€insists€that€the€petitioner€should€haveÏoffered€the€testimony€of€the€Texas€magistrate€regarding€the€admonition€of€his€rightsÏand€should€have€presented€testimony€about€the€standard€procedures€and€formsÏemployed€in€Refugio€County€or€the€nature€of€an€examining€trial€in€Texas.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€his€reply€brief,€the€petitioner€submits€that€Texas€law€clarifies€theÏstate's€concerns.€€Relevant€sections€of€the€Texas€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure€wereÏattached€to€the€reply€brief€as€an€addendum.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOur€rules€of€evidence€provide€for€mandatory€judicial€notice€of€statutoryÏlaw€in€Texas:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓRule€202.€€Judicial€notice€of€law.„„Mandatory€JudicialÏNotice€of€Law.„„The€court€shall€take€judicial€notice€of€(1)Ïthe€common€law,€(2)€the€constitutions€and€statutes€of€theÏUnited€States€and€of€every€state,€territory,€and€otherÏjurisdiction€of€the€United€States,€(3)€all€rules€adopted€byÏthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€or€by€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court,€and€(4)€any€rule€or€regulation€of€which€aÏstatute€of€the€United€States€or€Tennessee€mandatesÏjudicial€notice.ÌÌÒ4ä ^–ÒÒXP–ÒÓl–ÓTenn.€R.€Evid.€202(a).€€€€€€ÌÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àIn€Texas,€the€statutory€law€provides€for€at€least€two€types€of€pre„trialÏhearings:€(1)€€an€initial€appearance€before€a€magistrate€where€one€is€advised€ofÏcertain€rights,€and€(2)€€an€examining€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tex.€Code€Crim.€P.€Ann.€art.€15.17,Ð ø ˜ Ð16.01.€€Article€15.17(a)€governs€the€initial€appearance€and€provides€in€part:€€ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < à(a)€€In€each€case€enumerated€in€this€Code,€theÏperson€making€the€arrest€shall€without€unnecessaryÏdelay€take€the€person€arrested€or€have€him€taken€beforeÏsome€magistrate€of€the€county€where€the€accused€wasÏarrested€or,€if€necessary€to€provide€more€expeditiously€toÏthe€person€arrested€the€warnings€described€by€thisÏarticle,€before€a€magistrate€in€a€county€bordering€theÏcounty€in€which€the€arrest€was€made.€€The€arrestedÏperson€may€be€taken€before€the€magistrate€in€person€orÏthe€image€of€the€arrested€person€may€be€broadcast€byÏclosed€circuit€television€to€the€magistrate.€€TheÏmagistrate€shall€inform€in€clear€language€the€personÏarrested,€either€in€person€or€by€closed€circuit€television,Ïof€the€accusation€against€him€and€of€any€affidavit€filedÏtherewith,€of€his€right€to€retain€counsel,€of€his€right€toÏremain€silent,€of€his€right€to€have€an€attorney€presentÏduring€any€interview€with€peace€officers€or€attorneysÏrepresenting€the€state,€of€his€right€to€terminate€theÏinterview€at€any€time,€of€his€right€to€request€theÏappointment€of€counsel€if€he€is€indigent€and€cannotÏafford€counsel,€and€of€his€right€to€have€an€examining€trial.€ÏHe€shall€also€inform€the€person€arrested€that€he€is€notÏrequired€to€make€a€statement€and€that€any€statementÏmade€by€him€may€be€used€against€him.€€The€magistrateÏshall€allow€the€person€arrested€reasonable€time€andÏopportunity€to€consult€counsel€and€shall€admit€the€personÏarrested€to€bail€if€allowed€by€law.ÌÌÒ4ä <šÒÒX.šÒÓJšÓ€€à Œ àÐ ¸)X $ Ðà Œ àà ä àUnder€Texas€law,€an€"examining€trial"€in€felony€cases€is€described€inÏpart€as€follows:€€ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓArticle€16.01.€€Examining€trialÌà < àWhen€the€accused€has€been€brought€before€aÏmagistrate€for€an€examining€trial€that€officer€shallÏproceed€to€examine€into€the€truth€of€the€accusationÏmade,€allowing€the€accused,€however,€sufficient€time€toÏprocure€counsel.€€In€a€proper€case,€the€magistrate€mayÏappoint€counsel€to€represent€an€accused€in€suchÏexamining€trial€only,€to€be€compensated€as€otherwiseÏprovided€in€this€Code.€€The€accused€in€òòany€felony€caseóóÐ L6ì,2 Ðshall€have€the€right€to€an€examining€trial€beforeÏindictment€in€the€county€having€jurisdiction€of€the€offense,Ïwhether€he€be€in€custody€or€on€bail,€at€which€time€theÐ þ8ž/5 Ðmagistrate€at€the€hearing€shall€determine€the€amount€orÏsufficiency€of€bail,€if€a€bailable€case.ÌÌÒ4ä ê ÒÒXÜ ÒÓø Ó(Emphasis€added).€€Other€sections€provide€guidance€on€how€the€examining€trial€isÏconducted€and€prescribe€the€calling€and€cross„examining€of€witnesses.€€òòId.óó,€art.Ð Þ ~ Ð16.06,€.07.€€"The€same€rules€of€evidence€shall€apply€to€and€govern€a€trial€before€anÏexamining€court€that€apply€to€and€govern€a€final€trial."€€òòId.óó,€art.€16.07.€€In€our€view,Ð v  Ðthe€examining€trial€in€Texas€is€similar€to€a€preliminary€hearing€in€this€state.€€òòSeeóóÐ Bâ  ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€5(a).€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€record€suggests€that€the€petitioner€did€have€an€initial€appearanceÏas€required€under€Article€15.17.€€Because€the€Texas€document€indicates€an€affidavitÏcharging€an€offense€had€not€been€filed€with€the€court,€it€is€not€likely€that€a€judicialÏdetermination€of€probable€cause€was€made€at€that€time.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWe€also€agree€it€is€likely€that€the€petitioner€did€not€have€an€examiningÏtrial.€€The€offenses€with€which€the€petitioner€was€charged,€evading€arrest,€drivingÏwithout€a€license,€and€driving€without€insurance,€were€all€misdemeanors.€€òòSeeóó€Tex.Ð :%Ú ÐPenal€Code€Ann.,€art.€521.025€(providing€that€a€violation€of€the€law€requiring€that€aÏlicense€be€carried€is€a€misdemeanor);€art.€601.191€(providing€that€a€violation€of€theÏmotor€vehicle€liability€insurance€requirement€is€a€misdemeanor);€and€art.€38.04Ï(providing€that€evading€arrest€is€a€Class€B€misdemeanor,€unless€a€peace€officerÏsuffers€serious€bodily€injury€due€to€the€escape,€which€is€a€felony).€€Under€Texas€law,Ïthe€petitioner€would€not€be€entitled€to€an€examining€trial€for€the€misdemeanorÏoffenses.€€Tex.€Code€Crim.€P.€Ann.,€art.€16.01.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€record€leaves€open€the€possibility€that€the€petitioner€may€not€haveÏreceived€a€prompt€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause.€€It€does€not,€however,Ïestablish€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€he€did€not.€€In€òòGersteinóó,€theÐ þ8ž/5 ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Court€provided€guidance€on€what€type€of€procedure€wouldÏsatisfy€the€requirement€of€a€prompt€judicial€determination€of€probable€cause.€€TheÏCourt€observed€the€safeguards€built€into€a€preliminary€hearing,€such€as€the€calling€Ïand€cross„examination€of€witnesses€and€the€appointment€of€counsel,€are€notÏconstitutionally€required€for€a€probable€cause€determination.€€420€U.S.€at€119„20.€ÏThe€hearing€does€not€have€to€be€adversarial.€€òòId.óó€at€120.€€The€Court€ruled€thatÐ \ü  Ðhearsay€and€written€testimony€may€be€adequate€for€the€judicial€determination€ofÏwhether€there€is€probable€cause.€€òòId.óó€€The€Court€explained€that€the€use€of€anÐ ô”  Ð"informal€procedure€is€justified€not€only€by€the€lesser€consequences€of€a€probableÏcause€determination€but€also€by€the€nature€of€the€determination€itself."€€òòId.óó€at€122.Ð Œ, ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThat€there€was€not€an€examining€trial€in€Texas€and€that€the€magistrateÏdid€not€determine€probable€cause€at€the€initial€appearance€does€not€make€it€moreÏlikely€than€not€that€an€informal€procedure€was€not€used€at€another€constitutionallyÏpermissible€time.€€The€record€does€not€include€papers€filed€in€court€in€RefugioÏCounty.€€The€proof€in€the€record€is€inadequate€for€any€determination€that€aÏconstitutional€violation€occurred.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòGreen€v.€Stateóó,€872€S.W.2d€717,€718€(Tex.€Crim.€App.€1994),€theÐ ¸)X $ Ðcourt€observed€that€the€probable€cause€determination€was€noted€on€the€"docketÏsheet."€€The€court€presumed€this€probable€cause€determination€was€made€to€satisfyÏthe€rule€in€òòGersteinóó.€€òòId.óó€at€721.€€Such€an€informal€procedure€in€this€case€would€haveÐ /¼%* Ðsatisfied€constitutional€guidelines.€€The€burden€in€a€post„conviction€case€is€on€theÏpetitioner€to€demonstrate€his€claim€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€He€has€notÏdone€so€on€this€issue.€€€€œÐ  €4 +0 Лà Œ àà ä à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ô#† X£¯XX X£¯`v#ÔÔ‡ X£¯XX X£¯Ôò òà@††/Úàó óIIIÔ#† X£¯XX X£¯ë³#ԈР`  Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€complains€that€prosecutorial€misconduct€occurringÏduring€the€course€of€the€trial€requires€reversal.€€Specifically,€he€complains€that€theÏprosecutor's€arguments€repeating€and€emphasizing€Sheriff€Hodges'€testimony€thatÏthe€petitioner€had€"killed€before"€œwñB.ñasñB.ññC.ñereñC.ñ›€highly€prejudicial€and€improper.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àInitially,€we€note€this€claim€has€been€waived.€€The€post„convictionÏstatute€in€effect€when€the€petition€was€filed€defines€waiver:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ(b)(1)€A€ground€for€relief€is€waived€if€the€petitionerÏknowingly€and€understandingly€failed€to€present€it€forÏdetermination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€haveÏbeen€presented.ÌÌ(2)€There€is€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€a€ground€forÏrelief€not€raised€in€any€such€proceeding€which€was€heldÏwas€waived.ÌÌÒ4ä h¶ÒÒXZ¶ÒÓv¶ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(repealed€1995).€€Our€supreme€court€has€held€thatÏ"the€rebuttable€presumption€of€waiver€is€not€overcome€by€an€allegation€that€theÏpetitioner€did€not€personally,€knowingly,€and€understandingly€fail€to€raise€a€groundÏfor€relief."€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€courtÐ  &À  Ðcontinued,€"[w]aiver€in€the€post„conviction€context€is€to€be€determined€by€anÏobjective€standard€under€which€a€petitioner€is€bound€by€the€action€or€inaction€of€hisÏattorney."€€òòId.óó€€Clearly,€this€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€was€available€on€directÐ „+$"& Ðappeal.€€We€will€nonetheless€briefly€address€the€merits.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAs€stated€previously,€Sheriff€Hodges€testified€that€the€petitionerÏacknowledged€to€him€that€he€had€"killed€before."€€The€last€statements€made€duringÏclosing€argument€by€the€state€were€as€follows:€"Recall€what€the€Sheriff€said€to€himÏwhen€he€was€alone€with€him.€€He€said,€'Son,€you've€killed€before.'€€[A]nd€that's€true,Ïmembers€of€the€jury,€not€speculation."€Ð 8¸.4 Їà Œ àà ä àOur€supreme€court€recently€reaffirmed€several€well„establishedÏguidelines€which€control€closing€argument:€€ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àWe€have€recognized€that€closing€argument€is€aÏvaluable€privilege€for€both€the€State€and€the€defense€andÏhave€allowed€wide€latitude€to€counsel€in€arguing€theirÏcases€to€the€jury.€€Nonetheless,€closing€argument€isÏsubject€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge,€and€must€beÏtemperate,€predicated€on€evidence€introduced€during€theÏtrial,€and€relevant€to€the€issues€being€tried.ÌÌÒ4ä ü¼ÒÒXî¼ÒÓ ½ÓòòState€v.€Ronnie€Michael€Cauthernóó,€____€S.W.2d€____,€No.€02C01„9612„CC„00108,Ð (È  Ðslip€op.€at€18€(Tenn.,€at€Jackson,€Mar.€23,€1998)€(citations€omitted).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€our€assessment,€however,€any€misconduct€on€the€œstate's›€part€didÏnot€affect€the€jury's€verdict€in€this€case.€€The€test€to€be€applied€in€reviewing€a€claimÏof€prosecutorial€misconduct€is€"whether€the€improper€conduct€could€have€affectedÏthe€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant."€€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,Ð ð Ð759€(Tenn.€1965).€€The€factors,€set€out€in€òòJudge€v.€Stateóó,€539€S.W.2d€340,€344Ð ¼ \ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976),€and€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.Ð ˆ"( ÐBuckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984),€are€as€follows:€Ð T$ô ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(1)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àthe€conduct€complained€of,€viewed€in€lightÐ  &À  Ðof€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case;€Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(2)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àthe€curative€measures€undertaken€by€theÐ Ò(r# Ðcourt€and€the€prosecution;€Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(3)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àthe€intent€of€the€prosecutor€in€making€theÐ „+$"& Ðimproper€statement;€Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(4)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àthe€cumulative€effect€of€the€improperÐ 6.Ö$) Ðconduct€and€any€other€errors€in€the€record;Ïand€Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(5)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àthe€relative€strength€or€weakness€of€theÐ Î1n(- Ðcase.€€Ð <x<x ÐÌÓÓThe€first€factor,€the€conduct€complained€of,€weighs€for€the€petitioner.€€The€argumentÏwas€patently€improper.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€€The€second€factor,€the€curativeÐ L6ì,2 Ðmeasures€undertaken€by€the€court€and€the€prosecution,€also€weighs€for€theÐ 8¸.4 Ðpetitioner.€€Neither€the€state€nor€the€court€made€any€attempt€to€cure€this€error.€€TheÏthird€factor,€the€intent€of€the€prosecutor,€also€weighs€for€the€petitioner€as€there€is€noÏlegitimate€reason€for€the€conduct.€€The€fourth€factor€weighs€for€the€state,€as€thereÏwere€no€other€instances€of€misconduct.€€The€final€factor,€which€we€find€controlling,€isÏthe€strength€of€the€case.€€Given€the€confession,€the€strength€of€the€case€wasÏoverwhelming.€€In€our€view,€the€improper€conduct€did€not€contribute€to€the€guiltyÏverdict.€€Thus,€the€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌœÌ›à@{{/ÚàIVˆÌà Œ àà ä àCounsel€for€the€petitioner€has€raised€a€myriad€of€issues€in€an€attemptÏto€preserve€the€issues€for€future€litigation.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Specifically,€he€raises€the€followingÐ Xø Ðissues:ÌÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(1)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€limiting€the€à8@ä Ð ä Ð àÐ ð Ðquestioning€of€prospective€jurors€about€theirÏattitudes€about€the€death€penalty;€€Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(2)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€toÐ ˆ"( Ðallow€certain€jurors€to€be€challenged€forÏcause€and€excluding€other€jurors;€€Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(3)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€trial€court€gave€erroneousÐ  &À  Ðdefinitions€of€"reasonable€doubt"€during€voirÏdire€and€in€the€guilt€and€penalty€phases;€€€Ð <x<x ÐÌà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à(4)à8<ä Ð ä Ð àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€à8@jä Ð ä Ð àÐ ¸)X $ Ðintroduction€of€irrelevant€and€prejudicialÏevidence;€Ð <x<x ÐÌÒä 4ÒÒXÒ(5)à8 < àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€givingÐ P-ð#( Ðinstructions€that€relieved€the€prosecution€ofÏthe€burden€of€proving€all€elements€of€theÏoffense;€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(6)à8 < àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€excludingÐ Î1n(- Ðthe€petitioner's€mental€health€records€duringÏthe€guilt€phase;€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(7)à8 < àwhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€toÐ f5,1 Ðallow€the€jury€to€review€the€petitioner'sÐ L6ì,2 Ðwritten€statement€during€jury€deliberation;€€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(8)à8 < àwhether€the€prosecutor€failed€to€disclose€à8@~ent€duriàÐ , Ì Ðevidence;€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(9)à8 < àwhether€the€prosecution€failed€to€perform€à8@ºent€duriàÐ Þ ~ Ðadequate€testing€or€concealed€test€resultsÏobtained€from€the€crime€scene;€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(10)à8 < àwhether€prosecutorial€misconduct€requires€à8@*ent€duriàÐ v  Ðreversal;€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(11)à8 < àwhether€the€district€attorney€for€AndersonÐ (È  ÐCounty€abused€his€discretion€by€seekingÏthe€death€penalty€in€this€case;€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(12)à8 < àwhether€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court's€à8@¼ent€duriàÐ À` Ðproportionality€review€violates€due€processÏin€that€the€court€has€failed€to€promulgateÏthe€standards€by€which€it€conducts€itsÏreview;€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(13)à8 < àwhether€the€absence€of€an€instructionÐ $Ä Ðallowing€the€jury€to€impose€a€life€sentenceÏbased€on€mercy€is€unconstitutional;€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(14)à8 < àwhether€the€mandatory€imposition€of€theÐ ¼ \ Ðdeath€penalty€upon€a€finding€thatÏaggravating€circumstances€outweigh€theÏmitigating€circumstances€isÏunconstitutional;Ð <x<x ÐÌ(15)à8 < àwhether€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€[39„13„Ð  &À  Ð204(i)(7)]€fails€to€narrow€the€class€ofÏpersons€eligible€for€the€death€penalty;Ð <x<x ÐÌ(16)à8 < àwhether€the€death€penalty€unlawfullyÐ ¸)X $ Ðinfringes€upon€the€petitioner's€right€to€life;€€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(17)à8 < àwhether€the€death€penalty€is€per€se€cruelÐ j, #' Ðand€unusual€punishment;€€€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(18)à8 < àwhether€the€trial€court's€exclusion€of€Dr.Ð /¼%* ÐEngum's€testimony€during€the€guilt€phaseÏviolated€constitutional€rights;€and€Ð <x<x ÐÌ(19)à8 < àwhether€the€cumulative€effect€of€all€theseÐ ´2T). Ðerrors€violates€petitioner's€constitutionalÏrights.€€Ð <x<x ÐÌÌÌÓÊÓÒXÒÒ4ä Òà Œ àà ä àWe€must€conclude€that€none€of€these€issues€present€a€basis€for€relief.€Ð 8¸.4 ÐFirst,€all€of€the€issues€are€waived€under€Rule€10,€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.,€whichÏprovides€that€"[i]ssues€which€are€not€supported€by€argument,€citation€to€authorities,Ïor€appropriate€references€to€the€record€will€be€treated€as€waived€in€this€court."€ÏSeveral€of€the€issues€have€been€waived€under€the€post„conviction€statute€becauseÏthey€were€available€at€trial€but€not€pursued€at€that€time.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð 0 Ð35„112(B)€(repealed€1995).€€Others€are€waived€for€failure€to€present€any€proof€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing€to€support€the€claim.€€Finally,€other€issues€have€previouslyÏbeen€decided€against€the€petitioner.€€We€will€briefly€discuss€each€issue.€€€€€ÌÒä 4;ØÒÒX-ØÒÌÒXÒÒ4ä Òà Œ àà ä àThe€post„conviction€statute€in€effect€when€the€petition€was€filed€definesÏwaiver:ÌÒä 4¦ÛÒÒX˜ÛÒÓÓà < 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€ofÏcompetent€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€proceeding€whichÏwas€held€was€waived.ÌÌÓBÜÓÒXÒÒ4ä ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(repealed€1995).€€Our€supreme€court€has€held€thatÏ"the€rebuttable€presumption€of€waiver€is€not€overcome€by€an€allegation€that€theÏpetitioner€did€not€personally,€knowingly,€and€understandingly€fail€to€raise€a€groundÏfor€relief."€€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€714.€€The€court€continued,€"[w]aiver€in€the€post„Ð „+$"& Ðconviction€context€is€to€be€determined€by€an€objective€standard€under€which€aÏpetitioner€is€bound€by€the€action€or€inaction€of€his€attorney."€€òòId.óó€€€€€€€Ð /¼%* ÐÓÓÌà Œ àà ä àÌÓÓà Œ àà ä àIssues€(1)€and€(2)€concerning€the€jury€selection€process€have€beenÏwaived€because€they€were€available€at€trial€and€on€direct€appeal€but€not€pursued.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòHouseóó€911€S.W.2d€at€714;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(repealed€1995).€€Ð L6ì,2 ÐÐ 8¸.4 Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€third€issue€concerns€jury€instructions€on€reasonable€doubt.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.€€At€the€guilt€phase,€the€jury€was€instructed€as€follows:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓà < àReasonable€doubt€is€not€a€mere€possible€doubtÏbecause€everything€relating€to€human€affairs€is€open€toÏsome€possible€or€imaginary€doubt.€€It€is€an€honest€doubtÏengendered€after€an€investigation€of€all€of€the€evidenceÏand€an€inability€after€such€investigation€to€let€the€mindÏrest€easily€as€to€the€moral€certainty€of€guilt.€€And€thisÏcertainty€is€required€as€to€every€essential€element€of€theÏcrime€charged€or€included€in€this€indictment.€€ÌÌÒ4ä PâÒÒXBâÒÓ^âÓA€similar€instruction€was€given€at€the€penalty€phase.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àSeveral€cases€discuss€challenges€to€this€type€of€instruction.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ ¦F Ðv.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€52€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€118€S.€Ct.€376€(1997).€€TheseÐ r Ðchallenges€are€based€on€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€case,€òòVictor€v.€Nebraskaóó,Ð >Þ Ð511€U.S.€1€(1994).€€In€òòVictoróó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€a€juryÐ  ª Ðmight€"understand€[the€instruction€containing€the€phrase€'moral€certainty']€to€allowÏconviction€on€proof€that€does€not€meet€the€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€standard."€Ï511€U.S.€at€13.€€The€Court€ruled,€however,€that€a€reasonable€doubt€instruction€thatÏcontained€the€phrase€"moral€certainty"€might€nonetheless€comport€with€constitutionalÏguidelines€if€used€in€conjunction€with€other€phrases€that€lend€content€to€the€phrase.€ÏòòId.óó€at€15.Ð Ò(r# ÐÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734„35€(Tenn.€1994),€ourÐ j, #' Ðsupreme€court€considered€a€challenge€to€a€jury€instruction€which€included€the€termÏ"moral€certainty"€used€in€conjunction€with€a€charge€that€"[r]easonable€doubt€is€thatÏdoubt€engendered€by€an€investigation€of€all€the€proof€in€the€case€and€an€inability,Ïafter€such€investigation,€to€let€the€mind€rest€easily€upon€the€certainty€of€your€verdict."€ÏòòId.óó€€The€court€concluded€that€the€instruction€properly€reflected€"the€evidentiaryÐ f5,1 Ðcertainty€required€by€the€'due€process'€clause€of€the€federal€constitution€and€the€'lawÏof€the€land'€provision€in€our€state€constitution."€€òòId.óó€€In€our€view,€òòNicholsóó€controls€inÐ þ8ž/5 Ðthis€instance.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€fourth€issue€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€introductionÏof€irrelevant€and€prejudicial€evidence.€€In€our€view,€this€issue€is€waived€because€itÏwas€available€at€trial€and€on€direct€appeal€but€not€pursued.€€òòSeeóó€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2dÐ 0 Ðat€714;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(repealed€1995).̛̜à Œ àà ä àThe€fifth€issue€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€giving€instructions€thatÏrelieved€the€prosecution€of€the€burden€of€proving€all€elements€of€the€offense.€€ThisÏissue€is€waived€because€it€was€available€at€trial.€€In€òòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442€U.S.Ð Œ, Ð510€(1979),€the€United€State€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€jury€instructions€that€relieveÏthe€prosecution€of€the€burden€of€proving€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€areÏunconstitutional.€€At€the€time€of€petitioner's€trial,€the€prohibition€against€burden„¼shifting€jury€instructions€was€well„established;€any€complaint€based€on€burden„¼shifting€instructions€should€have€been€pursued€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€atÐ ˆ"( Ð714;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(repealed).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€sixth€and€seventh€issues,€concerning€the€admission€of€mentalÏhealth€records€at€trial€and€the€trial€court's€refusal€to€allow€the€jury€to€review€theÏpetitioner's€statement€during€deliberation,€are€waived€for€failure€to€pursue€the€issuesÏat€trial€or€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ P-ð#( ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€eighth€and€ninth€issues,€concerning€possible€òòBradyóó€violations€andÐ è0ˆ', Ðthe€state's€failure€to€perform€adequate€testing€on€crime€scene€evidence,€are€waivedÏbecause€of€a€failure€to€present€proof.€€There€is€no€evidence€at€the€post„convictionÏhearing€concerning€these€allegations€and€we€cannot€speculate€as€to€the€substanceÏof€the€claims.€€"We€[must]€decide€cases€...€on€the€basis€of€the€record€as€presentedÐ 8¸.4 Ðto€us€for€our€consideration."€€òòDearborne€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€259,€264€(Tenn.Ð `  Ð1978).€€The€burden€is€always€upon€the€appealing€party€to€develop€a€record€whichÏconveys€a€fair,€accurate,€and€complete€account€of€those€proceedings€which€form€theÏbasis€of€the€appeal.€€òòId.óó€€€€€€€Ð Äd ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€tenth€and€eleventh€issues€concerning€prosecutorial€misconductÏand€abuse€of€discretion€for€seeking€the€death€penalty€are€waived€for€failure€toÏpresent€them€on€direct€appeal.€€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€714.€€Ð ô”  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€twelfth€issue€concerns€a€challenge€to€the€way€our€supreme€courtÏconducts€proportionality€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blandóó,€958€S.W.2d€651€(Tenn.€1997),Ð Xø Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€118€S.€Ct.€1536€(1998).€€This€issue€is€waived€for€failure€to€cite€anyÐ $Ä Ðauthority€as€well€as€failure€to€provide€evidence.€€There€is€no€proof€in€this€record€thatÏthe€supreme€court€conducted€an€inadequate€proportionality€review€in€this€case.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€thirteenth€issue€is€whether€the€denial€of€a€jury€instruction€allowingÏthe€jury€to€consider€mercy€is€unconstitutional.€€First,€this€issue€is€waived€for€failure€toÏcite€any€authority.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€Even€if€we€were€to€review€theÏmerits€of€the€issue,€however,€we€would€find€for€the€state.€The€supreme€court€hasÏconsistently€held€no€error€occurs€when€a€trial€court€refuses€to€give€a€mercyÏinstruction.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797,€813„14€(Tenn.€1994);€òòState€v.Ð P-ð#( ÐMelsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€366€(Tenn.€1982).€Ð /¼%* ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€next€complains€that€the€mandatory€imposition€of€theÏdeath€penalty€upon€a€finding€that€the€aggravating€circumstances€outweigh€theÏmitigating€circumstances€is€unconstitutional.€€This€issue€is€also€waived€for€failure€toÏcite€any€authority.€€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€Nevertheless,€our€supreme€courtÐ 8¸.4 Ðhas€rejected€this€argument.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€582€(Tenn.€1994).€Ð `  ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€contends€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(i)(7),€theÏfelony€murder€aggravating€circumstance,€fails€to€narrow€the€class€of€persons€eligibleÏfor€the€death€penalty.€€In€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317,€346€(Tenn.€1992),Ð 0 Ða€majority€of€our€supreme€court€concluded€that€when€a€defendant€is€"convicted€ofÏfirst-degree€murder€solely€on€the€basis€of€felony€murder,€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39-2-203(i)(7)€(1982)€andÏ39-13-204(i)(7)€(1991),€does€not€narrow€the€class€of€death-eligible€murderersÏsufficiently€under€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€U.€S.€Constitution,€and€Article€I,€ðð€16Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution€because€it€duplicates€the€elements€of€the€offense."€ÏCourts€have€been€reluctant€to€extend€the€holding€in€òòMiddlebrooksóó€and€continue€toÐ $Ä Ðuphold€the€constitutionality€of€the€felony€murder€aggravating€circumstance€whenÏused€in€conjunction€with€the€jury's€finding€of€a€premeditated€murder.€€In€òòHallóó,€ourÐ ¼ \ Ðsupreme€court€emphasized€that€"[i]mplicit€in€[the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€holding]€is€theÐ ˆ"( Ðrecognition€that€the€circumstance€properly€may€be€applied€if€a€defendant€isÏconvicted€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder."€€òòHallóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€692.€€This€issueÐ  &À  Ðis€without€merit.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€next€complains€that€the€death€penalty€unlawfullyÏinfringes€on€his€right€to€life.€€In€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€507€(Tenn.),€òòcert.Ð P-ð#( Ðdeniedóó,€118€S.€Ct.€376€(1997),€the€supreme€court€affirmed€our€court's€determinationÐ /¼%* Ðthat€the€death€penalty€does€not€unlawfully€infringe€upon€one's€right€to€life.€€(Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals'€opinion€affirmed€and€appendixed€to€the€supreme€court's€opinion).€ÏThe€court€quoted€from€òòGregg€v.€Georgiaóó,€428€U.S.€153,€183€(1976):Ð €4 +0 ÐÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓ[C]apital€punishment€is€an€expression€of€society's€moralÏoutrage€at€particularly€offensive€conduct.€€This€functionÏmay€be€unappealing€to€many,€but€it€is€essential€in€anÏordered€society€that€asks€its€citizens€to€rely€on€legalÐ þ8ž/5 Ðprocesses€rather€than€self-help€to€vindicate€their€wrongs.ÌÌÒ4ä ÒÒX ÒÓ'ÓòòBushóó,€942€SW.2d€at€523€(alteration€in€original).€€This€issue€is€therefore€without€merit.Ð , Ì ÐÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner€also€argues€the€death€penalty€is€per€se€cruel€andÏunusual€punishment.€€Our€supreme€court€has€routinely€rejected€the€argument€thatÏthe€death€penalty€in€and€of€itself€is€cruel€and€unusual€punishment.€€òòSee€generallyóó,Ð \ü  ÐòòState€v.€Dicksóó,€615€S.W.2d€126€(Tenn.€1981);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€778Ð (È  ÐS.W.2d€39,€47€(Tenn.€1989).€€This€complaint€is€without€merit.€€ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner's€next€complaint€is€that€the€trial€court's€exclusion€of€Dr.ÏEngum's€testimony€during€the€guilty€phase€violated€his€constitutional€rights.€€ThisÏissue€was€previously€determined€on€direct€appeal.€€"A€ground€for€relief€is€'previouslyÏdetermined'€if€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€fullÏand€fir€hearing."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)€(repealed€1995).€€A€"full€and€fairÏhearing"€occurs€if€the€"petitioner€is€given€the€opportunity€to€present€proof€andÏargument€on€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief."€€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€714Ð T$ô Ð(footnote€omitted).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThis€exact€issue€was€raised€on€direct€appeal€and€the€supreme€courtÏruled€as€follows:ÌÒXÒÒä 4ÒÓÓIt€is€well€within€the€authority€of€States€to€excludeÏevidence€through€the€application€of€evidentiary€rules€thatÏthemselves€serve€the€interest€of€fairness€and€reliability„„¼even€if€the€defendant€would€prefer€to€see€that€evidenceÏadmitted.€€A€trial€court's€decision€to€admit€or€excludeÏexpert€testimony€cannot€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unlessÏthere€is€a€clear€showing€that€the€trial€court€has€abused€itsÏdiscretion.€€We€find€no€such€abuse€in€this€case.ÌÌÒ4ä ê ÒÒXÜ ÒÓø ÓòòBrimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€79€(citations€omitted).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€is€withoutÐ f5,1 Ðmerit.ÌÐ þ8ž/5 Ðà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner's€final€complaint€is€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€all€ofÏthese€errors€requires€reversal.€€Because€we€have€found€no€merit€to€any€of€theseÏgeneral€challenges,€we€need€not€address€this€issue.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€post„conviction€relief€for€theÏoffense€of€first€degree€murder€is€affirmed.€€A€new€sentencing€hearing€is€granted€dueÏto€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€that€phase€of€the€trial.€€ÓӜ̛ÌÌœÌñA.ñ›ñA.ññ8.ñà Œ àñ8.ñ›à ä àœñ:.ñà < àñ:.ññ;.ñ›à ” àñ;.ñ›à ” àà ì àœ__________________________________ñ<.ññ5.ñ_ñ5.ññ<.ññ@.ñ›ñ@.ññ@.ñ____ñ@.ññA.ññ@.ñ___ñ@.ññA.ñ›Ìœñ=.ñà Œ àñ=.ññ@.ñ›ñ@.ññ9.ñà Œ àñ9.ñ›à ä àà < àà ” àà ì àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€œñ>.ñÌñ>.ñ›Ìœñ?.ñÌñ?.ñCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Special€œJudgeÌ›