ÿWPCË …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU:Ýb w@ 4_ s 0¸‚ 0c:  0J¥ 0Tï 0^C 0h¡ 0r 0|{ 0†÷ 0} 1u  0d‚ BæU>U*AB)kDC” AM× $11 D3bv~•vÓ 0@æ AO&Æu 0D; D/ B®˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- bDcdef:egDhiDjkÓ€³†;$ddd"|xt(h(2 $¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°°ÒÔ€XC>XXXÔÔ€ôÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("Š$Ô‡Xƒ¶XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌJune€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€$ÔÔ€$ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Since€this€petition€was€filed€prior€to€May€10,€1995,€it€is€governed€by€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„101€et€seq.Ïà0 à(repealed€1995),€rather€than€the€recent€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€(T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„210€etÏseq.€(1997)).€€Under€the€current€statute,€the€standard€is€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€€T.C.A.Ïðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).Ì 'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€#ŠÔÔ€$ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€Ü×XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌMARCH€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÓ  ÓOSCAR€FRANKLIN€SMITH,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9702„CR„00048Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€J.€RANDALL€WYATT,€JR.ó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Post€Conviction:€Death€Penalty)ò òÌó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌRICHARD€McGEEà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌROBERT€J.€MENDESà àà àà àMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÌCummins€Station,€Suite€507à àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌ209€Tenth€Avenue€Southà àÌNashville,€TN€37203à àà àà àKATHY€MORANTEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àVICTOR€S.€JOHNSON,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€B.€THURMANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCHERYL€A.€BLACKBURNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorneys€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€SouthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201„1649ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€$°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€$ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€petitioner€was€originally€convicted€of€three€counts€of€premeditated€firstÏdegree€murder€and€was€sentenced€to€death€on€each.€€As€to€one€count,€the€juryÏfound€that€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€and€that€theÏpetitioner€committed€mass€murder.€€In€addition€to€these,€the€jury€found€two€moreÏaggravators€on€the€remaining€two€counts:€the€murder€was€committed€for€theÏpurpose€of€avoiding,€interfering€with,€or€preventing€a€lawful€arrest€or€prosecutionÏand€the€murder€was€committed€during€the€perpetration€of€the€murder€in€the€firstÏcount.€€The€Supreme€Court€affirmed€the€convictions€and€sentences€on€directÏappeal.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€1993).€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€subsequently€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€whichÏwas€denied€by€the€trial€court.€€In€this€appeal€from€that€denial,€the€petitionerÏchallenges€the€effectiveness€of€his€trial€and€appellate€counsel€and€raisesÏseveral€other€issues€regarding€the€proceedings€at€trial.€€Having€reviewed€theÏentire€record€on€appeal,€we€find€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€onÏappeal€and,€therefore,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ò òÌÌà@ àFACTSÌà àó óThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€murdering€his€estranged€wife€and€her€twoÏminor€sons.€€The€most€damaging€pieces€of€evidence€introduced€at€trial€againstÏthe€petitioner€were€a€911€call€made€by€one€of€the€younger€victims,€theÏpetitionerððs€bloody€palm€print€found€next€to€his€wifeððs€body,€and€statements€theÏpetitioner€made€to€co„workers€expressing€his€intent€to€kill€the€victims.€€TheÏpetitioner€relied€primarily€upon€an€alibi€defense€at€trial.€€The€facts€surrounding€theÏslayings€were€described€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€the€opinion€on€direct€appealÏas€follows:€€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àIt€appears€that€these€tragic,€brutal€and€bizarre€murdersÏoccurred€at€approximately€11:20€p.m.€on€Sunday,€October€1,€1989,Ïwhen€the€Metropolitan€Nashville€Police€Department€received€a€911Ïemergency€call€from€324€Lutie€Street,€Judy€Smithððs€home€in€theÏWoodbine€section€of€Nashville.€€On€the€tape€of€the€call,€which€wasÏlater€technically€enhanced€and€played€at€trial,€a€young€male€voice,Ïidentified€at€trial€as€that€of€Jason€Burnett,€is€heard€crying,€ð ðHelp€me!ðð€ÏIn€the€background€another€male,€identified€as€Chad€Burnett,€isÏheard€shouting€ð ðFrank,€no.€€God,€help€me!ðð€€The€call€ended€abruptlyÏwith€Jason€stating€ð ð324€Lutie€Street.ðð€€Officers€dispatched€to€theÏscene€arrived€at€the€house€five€minutes€later.€€They€knocked€on€theÏfront€door€and€received€no€answer.€€Everything€appeared€quiet€soÏthe€officers€assessed€the€situation€as€a€ð ðfalse€callðð€and€left.ÌÌà8 àà àIt€was€not€until€3:00€p.m.€the€next€day,€that€the€bodies€ofÏJudy,€Jason€and€Chad€were€discovered.€€The€body€of€Chad€wasÏfound€lying€face€up€on€the€kitchen€floor.€€The€room€was€a€wreck;Ïthe€phone€had€been€ripped€off€the€wall€and€large€quantities€ofÏblood€were€on€the€floor€and€wall.€€An€awl,€a€tool€similar€to€an€iceÏpick€and€often€used€in€leatherworking,€was€found€in€the€room.€ÏChad€had€been€shot€three€times:€in€the€right€shoulder,€the€upperÏchest,€and€on€the€inside€left€eyebrow.€€The€last€two€wounds€wereÏcontact€wounds€and€had€been€fatal.€€Chad€had€also€beenÏstabbed€several€times€in€his€chest,€back€and€abdomen€with€aÍsharp,€needle„like€weapon€(such€as€an€ice€pick€or€awl)€and€with€aÏknife.€€His€neck€had€been€slashed,€and€there€were€defensiveÏwounds€on€his€hands.€€All€of€his€injuries€had€occurred€before€death.ÌÌà8 àà àJudy€Smithððs€body€was€found€lying€on€its€back€on€a€bed€inÏthe€front€bedroom.€€There€was€blood€splattered€on€the€paneledÏwall€next€to€the€bed.€€She€had€been€shot€in€the€left€arm€and€theÏneck.€€The€latter€wound,€caused€by€a€gun€fired€from€a€range€withinÏtwo€feet,€had€severed€her€spinal€cord€and€produced€instantÏparalysis,€rapid€unconsciousness€and€death.€€Shortly€after€death,Ïher€neck€and€been€slashed;€and,€like€Chad,€she€had€beenÏstabbed€with€a€knife€and€a€weapon€resembling€an€awl€or€ice€pick.€ÏThe€medical€examiner€opined€that€both€Judy€and€Chad€had€diedÏfrom€multiple€gunshot€and€stab€wounds.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€body€of€Jason,€Judyððs€youngest€son,€was€discoveredÏlying€on€its€left€side€on€the€floor€at€the€foot€of€the€bed€on€which€hisÏmother€lay.€€He€had€not€been€shot.€€There€were€numerousÏdefensive€wounds€on€his€hands.€€His€neck€and€been€slashed,€andÏhe€had€been€stabbed€in€the€chest€and€abdomen.€€Two€of€theÏwounds€to€the€abdomen€had€been€fatal€because€they€had€cutÏmajor€veins.€€His€small€bowel€protruded€from€his€body€throughÏthese€wounds.€€All€of€Jasonððs€injuries€had€occurred€before€death.€ÏThe€medical€examiner€testified€that€Jason€had€bled€to€death€over€aÏperiod€of€several€minutes€as€a€result€of€the€multiple€stab€wounds.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€three€victims€had€been€dead€at€least€twelve€hoursÏbefore€they€were€found.€€There€were€no€signs€of€forcible€entry€intoÏthe€house.€€The€back€door€had€been€left€open.€€There€were€signsÏof€a€struggle€in€the€house,€particularly€the€kitchen,€where€a€leg€hadÏbeen€broken€off€the€table.€€A€.22€caliber€cartridge€was€found€on€theÏrug€in€the€den.€€An€identical€type€of€bullet€was€removed€from€theÏbodies€of€Judy€and€Chad€who,€ballistics€experts€determined,€hadÏbeen€shot€with€the€same€gun.€€There€were€bullet€holes€in€the€wallsÏof€the€front€bedroom€and€the€den.€€A€path€of€splattered€blood€ledÏfrom€the€den€down€the€hall€to€the€kitchen.€€Drops€of€blood€in€theÏbathroom€indicated€that€someone€had€cleaned€up€in€that€room.ÌÌòòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€565„66€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓò òPost„Conviction€Hearingó óÌÓ  Óà àDr.€Kris€Lee€Sperry,€Deputy€Chief€Medical€Examiner€in€Fulton€County,ÏGeorgia,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€Dr.ÏSperry€testified€that€he€reviewed€the€autopsy€reports,€investigation€reports,Ïphotographs,€and€the€trial€testimony€of€the€medical€experts€prior€to€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€From€reviewing€all€this€information,€Dr.€Sperry€opined€that€theÏstate€sought€to€prove€that€the€mother€was€killed€first,€and€that€her€two€childrenÏwere€killed€subsequently.ÌÌà àDr.€Sperry€testified€that€measuring€the€rigor€mortis€is€the€least€predictableÏmanner€by€which€to€determine€the€time€of€death.€€It€usually€takes€about€eight€toÏtwelve€hours€for€rigor€mortis€to€reach€its€maximum€stiffness.€€The€next€leastÏaccurate€measure,€according€to€Dr.€Sperry,€is€livor€mortis,€or€the€settling€of€bloodÏin€the€body€after€death.€€Again,€the€peak€point€of€livor€mortis€occurs€eight€toÏtwelve€hours€after€death.€€If€a€body€is€examined€before€the€effects€of€rigor€andÏlivor€mortis€are€complete,€it€is€possible€to€determine€that€death€occurred€withinÏeight€hours.€€However,€beyond€eight€to€twelve€hours€after€death,€according€toÏDr.€Sperry,€it€is€almost€impossible€to€pinpoint€a€time€of€death,€because€theÏeffects€of€rigor€and€livor€mortis€do€not€change.€€The€vitreous€fluid€potassiumÏevaluation€is€another€method€used€to€determine€time€of€death€by€measuring€theÏpotassium€level€in€the€eye€fluid.€€In€addition,€the€body€temperature€can€give€anÍindication€of€time€of€death.€€These€two€measurements,€however,€also€decreaseÏin€reliability€outside€the€twelve€hour€time„frame.ÌÌà àThe€bodies€in€this€case€were€found€at€4:00€p.m.€on€October€2,€1989,€theÏmedical€examiner€was€notified€at€4:30€p.m.,€and€the€medical€examiner€viewedÏthe€bodies€at€8:40€p.m.€€At€the€time€of€viewing€in€this€case,€both€rigor€and€livorÏmortis€were€fixed,€or€complete.€€According€to€Dr.€Sperry,€therefore,€the€range€forÏthe€time€of€death€would€be€more€than€eight€to€twelve€hours€prior€to€the€initialÏviewing€of€the€bodies.€€It€would€have€been€impossible€for€the€medical€examinerÏto€pinpoint€a€time€of€death€beyond€that€time€with€only€the€benefit€of€rigor€andÏlivor€mortis.€€Dr.€Sperry€testified€that€the€defense€should€have€asked€moreÏquestions€at€trial€in€an€attempt€to€show€the€inaccuracies€of€the€time€estimate;Ïdeath€could€have€occurred€anytime€prior€to€twelve€hours€before€the€viewing€ofÏthe€body.€€The€trial€testimony€of€the€expert€stated€that€the€time€of€death€wasÏlikely€around€11:30€p.m.€or€midnight€on€October€1,€1989.€€Dr.€SperryÏacknowledges€that€this€would€be€consistent€with€the€evidence€of€the€911€call,Ïwhich€was€made€around€11:20€p.m.,€and€he€has€no€evidence€to€contradict€theÏconclusion€of€the€medical€examiner.€€Dr.€Sperry€testified€that€a€medical€examinerÏwould€also€look€at€other€factors€or€evidence,€such€as€witness€statements€or€911Ïcalls,€to€help€determine€the€time€of€death.ÌÌà àIt€has€been€Dr.€Sperryððs€experience€that€defense€attorneys€sometime€doÏnot€ask€the€medical€examiner€questions€during€trials.€€Dr.€Sperry€testified€that€heÏdid€not€talk€to€the€original€medical€examiners€or€the€defense€attorneys€in€thisÏcase€prior€to€his€testimony€at€the€hearing.€€Thus,€when€he€stated€at€the€hearingÏthat€the€defense€could€have€made€certain€points€on€cross€examination€regardingÏthe€time€of€death,€the€pain€sustained€by€the€victims,€the€movement€of€JasonððsÏbody,€and€the€amount€of€blood€on€the€perpetrator,€Dr.€Sperry€was€not€familiarÏwith€the€defense€trial€strategy.€ÌÌà àThe€evidence€at€trial€also€established€that€two€of€the€victims€had€fullÏstomachs€of€undigested€pizza€and€therefore€their€deaths€probably€occurredÏwithin€an€hour€to€an€hour€and€a€half€after€they€ate.€€Dr.€Sperry€testified€thatÏdeath€could€have€occurred€as€late€as€approximately€6:00€a.m.,€which€wouldÏmean€that€the€victims€would€have€had€to€have€eaten€pizza€at€4:30€to€5:00Ïa.m.,€some€five€hours€after€making€the€911€call.€€Dr.€Sperry€testified€that€defenseÏcounsel€should€have€questioned€the€medical€examiner€about€this€possibility.ÌÌà àThe€medical€examiner€testified€at€trial€that€Jason€(the€youngest€son)Ïturned€himself€over€within€twelve€hours€of€death.€€Dr.€Sperry,€however,€does€notÏthink€this€would€have€been€possible,€and€he€believes€that€instead,€the€bodyÏwas€turned€over€by€someone€else€after€death.€€The€victim€would€have€livedÍonly€a€few€minutes€after€sustaining€his€wounds€to€the€main€veins€in€the€pelvicÏarea.€€However,€some€of€the€blood€stain€patterns€on€his€leg€indicate€that€theÏvictim€was€in€a€different€position€for€at€least€fifteen€to€thirty€minutes€(the€time€itÏwould€have€taken€the€blood€to€dry€in€those€patterns),€and€then€moved€to€theÏposition€in€which€he€was€found.€€Also,€a€large€blood€stain€on€the€carpetÏsuggested€he€was€originally€in€a€different€position.€€Dr.€Sperry€testified€that€theÏchange€in€positions€occurred€within€one€to€two€hours€after€death,€because€rigorÏand€livor€mortis€remained€fixed€in€the€position€in€which€he€was€found.€€However,Ïthere€were€two€different€directions€of€blood€flow€on€the€victimððs€legs.€€AlthoughÏDr.€Sperry€did€not€believe€the€victim€was€alive€when€moved,€given€the€bloodÏflow€patterns,€he€admitted€that€another€medical€examiner€could€concludeÏdifferently.€€ÌÌà àGiven€the€nature€of€these€murders,€Dr.€Sperry€testified€that€the€perpetratorÏwould€have€had€a€great€deal€of€blood€on€his€or€her€person.€€It€did€not€appear€toÏDr.€Sperry€that€the€defense€attempted€to€address€this€fact€during€trial.€€However,Ïa€bloody€palm€print€identified€as€the€petitionerððs€was€found€on€the€bed€sheetÏbeside€the€motherððs€body.€€When€asked€if€defense€counsel€should€haveÏexplored€that€evidence€more€thoroughly,€Dr.€Sperry€did€not€provide€a€definiteÏanswer.€€Dr.€Sperry€did€testify,€however,€that€he€thought€there€would€typicallyÍbe€more€blood€transfer€marks€on€or€near€the€victim€other€than€the€palm€print,€andÏthat€this€possibly€should€have€been€explored.ÌÌà àDr.€Sperry€testified€that€Judy€Smith€(the€mother)€remained€alive€for€aboutÏthree€to€four€minutes€after€she€sustained€the€fatal€gunshot€wound€to€her€neck,Ïbut€that€she€would€have€been€rendered€unconscious€instantaneously.€€TheÏmedical€examiner€at€trial€said€the€victim€could€have€remained€conscious€for€aÏshort€time,€and€while€Dr.€Sperry€does€not€discount€this€expertððs€conclusion,€heÏtestified€that€he€believed€otherwise.€€Dr.€Sperry€testified€that€defense€counselÏwould€have€had€this€information€regarding€the€nature€of€the€injury€if€theyÏconsulted€with€the€medical€examiner.€€ÌÌà àChad€Burnett€(the€older€son)€would€have€been€rendered€immediatelyÏunconscious€upon€sustaining€the€gunshot€wound€to€his€head.€€However,€thisÏwas€the€last€wound,€and€he€also€sustained€a€gunshot€wound€to€the€chest€andÏstab€wounds.€€Dr.€Sperry€testified€that€due€to€the€limited€amount€of€hemorrhagingÏaround€the€stab€wounds,€the€time€interval€between€them€and€the€gunshotÏwound€to€the€head€was€fairly€small.€€The€gunshot€wound€to€the€chest€resultedÏin€a€large€amount€of€bleeding.€€Dr.€Sperry€testified€that€he€agreed€the€medicalÏexaminer€could€have€concluded€the€victim€experienced€pain€while€attempting€toÏbreathe.€€Dr.€Sperry€did€not€indicate€whether€it€was€possible€to€determine€theÍamount€of€time€between€the€chest€wound€and€head€wound.€€However,€Dr.ÏSperry€testified€that€Chad€was€probably€not€conscious€long€enough,€probablyÏthree€to€five€minutes,€to€experience€any€significant€degree€of€pain€from€hisÏinjuries.€€In€support€of€this€opinion,€Dr.€Sperry€noted€that€stab€wounds€are€notÏpainful€unless€they€strike€bones€and€cause€bone€injury€because€internal€organsÏdo€not€have€pain€receptors.ÌÌà àGiven€the€wound€to€a€major€vein€in€the€pelvic€region,€Jason€BurnettÏwould€have€been€conscious€from€three€to€five€minutes€and€would€haveÏremained€alive€for€an€additional€five€minutes€thereafter.€€This€information€wouldÏhave€been€available€to€defense€through€consultation€with€the€medical€examiner.€ÏAgain,€Dr.€Sperry€testified€that,€although€Jasonððs€intestines€were€protruding€fromÏhis€abdomen,€the€intestines€do€not€have€intrinsic€pain€receptors€and€thus€thatÏkind€of€injury€is€not€painful€in€and€of€itself.€€Dr.€Sperry€stated€that€defenseÏcounsel€should€have€pointed€this€out€to€the€jury.€ÌÌà àKarl€Dean,€who€was€then€an€Assistant€Public€Defender,€was€the€leadÏcounsel€at€trial,€and€Paul€Newman,€Mary€Parson,€and€Joan€Zeigler€served€asÏco„counsel.€€Also,€Bill€Shulman,€Ross€Alderman,€and€Jeff€DeVasher€worked€onÏthe€case.€€Lisa€Freeman€was€assigned€as€the€main€investigator.€€Newman,€aÏformer€detective,€also€performed€some€investigation.€€The€Public€DefenderððsÍOffice€was€not€appointed€until€about€five€weeks€after€the€murder€and€defenseÏcounsel€began€their€investigation,€including€visiting€the€crime€scene,€immediately.€ÏDean€testified€that€the€scene€had€not€been€preserved€and€was€being€cleanedÏby€the€owner€of€the€property.€€ÌÌà àPrior€to€this€case,€although€he€had€served€as€lead€on€many€murderÏcases,€Dean€had€not€been€lead€counsel€on€a€capital€case.€€Dean€had€beenÏemployed€with€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office€since€1983.€€He€testified€that€he€hadÏattended€several€seminars€on€capital€case€litigation€as€well€as€numerous€otherÏtrial€technique€seminars€not€dealing€with€the€death€penalty.€€Dean€testified€thatÏhe€and€Newman€recorded€294€out„of„court€hours€and€135.4€in„court€hours€in€thisÏcase.€€He€did€not€have€a€record€of€the€time€spent€by€the€other€attorneysÏinvolved.€€Dean€testified€that€the€defense€team€also€consulted€with€the€CapitalÏCase€Resource€Center€on€certain€issues.€€Dean€stated€that€he€had€not€seenÏany€other€case€in€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office€that€received€more€investigationÏor€attention.€€The€defense€team€made€discovery€requests€and€filed€all€theÏmotions€they€considered€pertinent€to€this€case.ÌÌà àDean€testified€that€there€was€a€question€regarding€the€role€of€LisaÏFreeman€in€this€case.€€She€was€hired€by€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office€as€aÏparalegal€but€eventually€gained€the€title€of€investigator.€€Dean€stated€that€theÍpetitioner€expressed€his€dissatisfaction€with€some€aspect€of€Freemanððs€work,Ïbut€Dean€could€not€recall€exactly€which€aspect.ÌÌà àApparently,€a€possible€conflict€of€interest€arose€at€one€point€when€theÏstate€decided€to€introduce€the€testimony€of€a€witness€concerning€a€jailhouseÏconfession€made€by€the€petitioner;€the€Public€Defender€had€represented€thisÏwitness€in€a€separate€matter.€€Dean€acknowledged€this€was€a€rather€significantÏdevelopment€in€the€case.€€Dean€stated€he€approached€the€petitioner€regardingÏthis€and€the€petitioner€stated€that€he€never€told€this€witness€anything€and€thatÏhe€wanted€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office€to€continue€its€representation.€€TheÏpetitioner€eventually€waived€any€conflict.ÌÌà àThe€defense€team€made€the€assumption€early€in€the€case,€based€uponÏhearing€the€911€tape,€that€the€attack,€although€not€necessarily€the€time€of€death,Ïhappened€at€or€around€the€time€of€the€call.€€Dean€testified€that€they€neverÏconsulted€an€independent€medical€examiner€or€other€expert€to€question€the€timeÏof€death.€€Dean€testified€they€contacted€someone€independently€to€review€andÏenhance€the€911€tape,€and€they€determined€that€the€tape€recording€could€not€beÏany€clearer€and€that€it€had€not€been€edited€or€ð ðdoctored.ðð€€Dean€testified€theyÏmade€all€the€relevant€objections€regarding€the€introduction€of€the€tape.€€However,ÏDean€further€stated€that€they€did€not€present€any€additional€evidence€to€counterÍthe€stateððs€position€that€the€tape€fell€under€the€ð ðexcited€utteranceðð€exception€toÏthe€hearsay€rule.€€Dean€also€testified€they€objected€to€the€introduction€of€theÏtranscript€of€the€tape€because€they€believed€it€was€more€prejudicial€to€their€client.€ÏDean€thought€they€made€a€persuasive€argument€on€the€issue,€however,€theyÏdid€not€call€an€expert€to€contest€the€introduction€of€the€transcript.€€Dean€admittedÏthat€expert€testimony€to€the€fact€that€a€jury€remembers€what€it€reads€more€thanÏwhat€it€hears€would€not€have€hurt€the€defense.ÌÌà àDean€testified€that€defense€counsel€did€not€introduce€any€testimonyÏregarding€how€the€state€enhanced€the€recording€of€the€911€call.€€Nor€did€theyÏintroduce€evidence€concerning€the€transcription€of€the€tape,€even€though€severalÏdrafts€were€made:€draft€one,€ð ðFrank,€Frank,€stopðð;€draft€two,€ð ðFrank,€Frank,€noðð;Ïdraft€three,€ð ðFrank,€no,€stop.€€God,€help€meðð;€draft€four,€ð ðFrank,€no,€God,€noðð;€andÏð ðFrank,€no.€€God,€help€meðð€(the€last€one€apparently€being€shown€to€the€jury).€ÏDean€could€not€say€why€they€did€not€introduce€the€other€drafts€to€the€jury.€ÏDean€further€testified€that€he€does€not€remember€if€they€were€shown€all€of€theÏtranscripts€of€the€911€tape,€but€he€stated€that€his€habit€would€have€been€toÏrequest€all€the€transcripts€during€discovery.ÌÌà àDean€testified€it€would€have€been€possible€to€strengthen€the€alibi€defenseÏif€counsel€could€have€shown€that€the€petitioner€was€not€present€when€theÍofficers€responded€within€approximately€five€minutes€of€the€911€call.€€They€didÏnot,€however,€consult€an€expert€regarding€the€time€frame€between€the€911€call,Ïthe€commission€of€the€murders,€and€the€time€of€death.€€Dean€testified€it€wasÏpossible€that€any€evidence€the€victims€remained€alive€much€longer€after€the€911Ïcall€would€appear€to€make€the€murders€much€more€heinous,€atrocious,€andÏcruel,€and€they€did€not€want€to€take€such€a€chance€in€front€of€the€jury.€€Moreover,ÏDean€stated€that€defense€counsel€did€not€want€to€focus€too€much€on€the€eventsÏafter€the€911€call€since€they€were€asserting€that€the€petitioner€was€never€evenÏat€the€crime€scene.Ìà àÌà àThe€defense€counsel€did€contact€another€attorney€who€had€been€trainedÏin€the€area€of€fingerprints€regarding€the€bloody€palm€print€found€at€the€scene.€ÏBecause€they€relied€on€an€alibi€defense,€Dean€stated€they€did€not€contest€theÏofficersðð€opinions€and€conclusions€of€the€crime€scene€as€much€as€they€possiblyÏcould€have.€€Further,€Dean€testified€that€they€did€not€have€much€evidence€toÏcounter€the€presence€of€the€bloody€palm€print.€€Dean€reiterated€that€they€did€notÏwant€to€highlight€damaging€evidence€in€front€of€the€jury.ÌÌà àDean€testified€that€the€petitioner€has€adamantly€professed€his€innocenceÏfrom€the€outset€of€representation.€€The€defense€counsel€contacted€Dr.€GillianÏBlair,€a€clinical€psychologist,€very€early€in€the€case€because€they€did€not€want€toÍwait€until€the€end€to€begin€work€on€mitigation.€€Because,€however,€they€wereÏrelying€upon€an€alibi€defense€at€the€insistence€of€the€petitioner,€it€was€notÏfeasible€to€suggest€insanity,€especially€when€the€expert€could€not€find€anyÏindication€thereof.€€Dean€believed€before€they€went€to€trial€that€they€wouldÏprobably€be€in€the€sentencing€phase€within€a€week.€€The€defense€thought€theÏjury€would€most€likely€return€a€guilty€verdict€on€the€murder€charge,€and€therefore,ÏDean€made€the€decision€to€forego€serving€as€lead€counsel€during€the€guiltÏphase€and€focus€instead€on€sentencing.€€Dean€testified€that€although€membersÏof€the€defense€team€spoke€with€the€medical€examiner,€Dean€himself€did€not,€butÏrelied€instead€upon€the€notes€of€the€other€members.€€The€defense€did€notÏpresent€any€evidence€during€sentencing€to€contradict€the€testimony€that€the€stateÏelicited€from€the€medical€examiner€concerning€how€long€the€victims€lived.ÌÌà àDean€admitted€that€Dr.€Sperryððs€opinion€that€someone€else€moved€theÏbody€of€one€of€the€victims€fifteen€minutes€after€the€infliction€of€the€wounds€wouldÏhave€been€of€interest€and€significance€to€the€defense.€€This€opinion€would€haveÏbeen€especially€significant€in€light€of€the€stateððs€theory€that€the€petitioner€had€leftÏthe€scene€by€that€time.€€However,€Dean€stated€he€would€not€have€introducedÏtestimony€that€the€intestines€do€not€have€pain€receptors,€as€Dr.€SperryÏrecommended,€€because€the€jury€would€probably€not€have€believed€a€personÍdoes€not€experience€pain€when€trying€to€prevent€intestines€from€protruding€out€ofÏa€wound€to€the€abdomen.ÌÌà àThe€police€originally€identified€two€possible€suspects€in€this€case:€theÏpetitioner€and€Billy€Fields,€the€victimððs€boyfriend.€€Although€Fields€denied€being€atÏthe€victimððs€residence€the€morning€after€the€murder,€there€were€apparently€twoÏwitnesses€who€noticed€his€car€there€in€the€morning€hours.€€Dean€stated€that€heÏdid€not€feel€confident€about€presenting€an€alibi€defense€based€solely€uponÏtestimony€of€family€members.€€Dean€testified,€however,€that€he€did€not€knowÏwhy€the€defense€did€not€call€these€two€witnesses€to€contradict€the€statement€ofÏFields€and€attempt€to€place€him€at€the€scene€earlier€than€he€admitted.€€ThereÏwas€some€testimony,€though,€that€one€of€the€witnesses€recanted€his€earlierÏstatement€regarding€the€presence€of€Fieldsðð€car.ÌÌà àDean€testified€that€he€did€not€attempt€to€present€any€evidence€to€counterÏthe€stateððs€theory€that€the€petitioner€indicated€he€killed€the€victims€by€referring€toÏthem€in€the€past€tense€when€first€questioned€by€the€police€and€before€beingÏinformed€they€were€dead.€€Dean€stated€he€would€not€have€thought€to€call€anÏexpert€on€linguistics€to€explain€away€the€speech€of€the€petitioner€in€this€respect.€ÏDean€did€testify,€though,€that€defense€counsel€filed€what€they€considered€to€beÍthe€relevant€motions€to€suppress€the€statements€made€by€the€petitioner,€but€allÏmotions€were€denied.ÌÌà àDean€does€not€recall€if€he€informed€the€petitioner€that€the€defense€did€notÏintend€to€seek€funds€for€expert€testimony€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€DeanÏadmitted,€however,€that€the€petitioner€would€probably€have€wanted€the€defenseÏto€seek€any€possible€experts€to€contest€the€stateððs€evidence.€€The€petitionerÏindicated€to€the€defense€team€that€he€wanted€ð ðall€the€guns€on€the€first€stageðð€ofÏthe€trial.ÌÌà àDean€stated€that€they€did€not€object€to€jury€instructions€regardingÏreasonable€doubt,€premeditation€and€deliberation,€malice,€the€aggravatingÏcircumstance,€expert€witnesses,€or€credibility€of€witnesses€because€they€did€notÏthink€they€were€erroneous€or€presented€potential€issues.€€Dean€testified,Ïhowever,€that€they€requested€approximately€twelve€special€jury€instructions.€ÏDean€also€testified€that€he€did€not€object€to€any€of€the€prosecutorððs€closingÏargument.€€The€state€made€reference€in€its€close€that€a€life€sentence€suggestedÏthe€petitioner€could€be€in€prison€for€twenty€or€thirty€years.€€Dean€does€notÏremember€why€he€did€not€object€to€this€particular€argument.€€Nor€did€Dean€knowÏwhy€he€did€not€object€to€the€prosecutorððs€argument€that€the€jury€should€ð ðright€theÏterrible€wrong€thatððs€been€done€in€this€community€.€.€.€and€start€healing€theÍwounds€of€this€community.ðð€€Dean€also€did€not€remember€why€he€did€not€objectÏto€the€prosecutorððs€statement€that€this€was€ð ðone€of€the€most€horrible€casesðð€theyÏhave€been€associated€with.€€Dean€testified€that,€although€he€did€not€object€toÏany€of€the€prosecutorððs€argument,€he€did€not€make€the€decision€in€advance€ofÏthe€argument€not€to€object.ÌÌà àPart€of€the€stateððs€theory€in€the€case€was€to€prove€that€the€petitioner€hadÏtaken€out€several€life€insurance€policies€and€would€stand€to€receive€a€sum€ofÏmoney€from€the€deaths.€€Dean€testified€that€he€did€not€remember€the€petitionerÏinforming€him€that€he€was€not€the€beneficiary€on€all€of€the€policies€and€Dean€didÏnot€remember€if€they€investigated€this€any€further.€€The€petitioner€did,€however,Ïtestify€during€trial€that€he€was€not€the€beneficiary€on€all€of€them.€€Dean€alsoÏtestified€that€defense€counsel€filed€a€motion€in€limine€to€prevent€the€state€fromÏusing€the€word€ð ðslaughterhouseðð€when€referring€to€the€petitionerððs€place€ofÏemployment€but€he€stated€they€did€not€object€to€the€prosecutorððs€use€of€theÏword€during€closing,€either€because€they€failed€to€notice€it€or€because€they€didÏnot€want€to€interrupt€the€argument.€€In€general,€Dean€testified€that€he€does€notÏalways€want€to€object€to€everything€during€closing€because€it€would€prolong€theÏprosecutorððs€point€and€possibly€emphasize€the€stateððs€position.ÌÌà àDean€testified€that€he€thought€they€had€a€good€chance,€apparentlyÏbecause€of€the€statements€of€one€of€the€jurors€during€voir€dire,€to€obtain€a€hungÏjury€during€the€sentencing€phase.€€He€stated€the€defense€did€not€exercise€anyÏperemptory€challenges€because€of€this€strategy,€which€they€had€discussed€withÏtheir€client.€€Going€into€trial,€the€defense€believed€the€state€had€a€very€strongÏcase.€€Dean€testified€they€called€approximately€fifteen€witnesses€duringÏmitigation.€€The€petitioner€did€not€want€counsel€to€introduce€too€much€proof€of€theÏmental€evaluations€or€his€family€history.€€Dean€said€that€he€thought€they€did€theÏbest€they€could€given€the€circumstances€of€this€case.ÌÌà àDetective€Terry€McElroy€was€assigned€as€the€lead€police€investigator€inÏthis€case.€€Detective€McElroy€arrived€at€the€crime€scene€approximately€5:00€p.m.Ïon€October€2,€1989,€and€left€around€10:00€p.m.€€Other€officers€were€alreadyÏpresent€when€he€arrived.€€Detective€McElroy€testified€that€they€did€not€check€theÏattic€or€basement€of€the€scene.€€However,€they€did€check€around€the€outside€ofÏthe€residence€for€all€possible€escape€routes€from€the€crime€scene.€€They€alsoÏlooked€for€any€foreign€objects€in€the€area,€including€possible€weapons.ÌÌà àDetective€McElroy€discovered€that€the€residence€was€owned€by€aÏwoman€from€Texas€and€the€victims€had€not€lived€there€very€long.€€DetectiveÏMcElroy€testified€that€the€owner€of€the€residence€gave€him€a€kitchen€knife€with€aÍbroken€blade€on€November€15,€1989.€€The€knife€was€apparently€foundÏunderneath€the€house€by€utility€workers€after€the€crimes.€€There€is€some€kind€ofÏsubstance€on€the€knife,€but€the€substance€has€never€been€identified.€€DetectiveÏMcElroy€testified€that€he€placed€the€knife€in€the€police€property€room€onÏNovember€16,€1989,€and€he€does€not€remember€if€he€told€the€District€AttorneyÏabout€its€existence.€€Detective€McElroy€stated€that€he€must€have€thought€theÏknife€was€insignificant€because€he€did€not€think€the€substance€on€the€knife€wasÏblood€and€remembered€that€the€medical€examiner€said€the€type€of€woundsÏwere€inconsistent€with€that€type€of€knife.€€However,€Detective€McElroy€testifiedÏthat€someone€had€opened€the€property€bag€containing€the€knife€because€heÏhad€sealed€the€bag€upon€taking€it€to€the€property€room€and€the€seal€had€sinceÏbeen€broken€by€another€person.€€As€far€as€he€remembered,€he€was€neverÏquestioned€about€the€knife€during€trial.ÌÌà àDetective€McElroy€testified€that€two€pieces€of€notebook€paper€that€wereÏoriginally€placed€in€the€bag€with€the€knife€were€missing.€€He€further€testified,Ïhowever,€that€he€did€not€remember€anything€about€those€two€sheets€of€paper.€ÏDetective€McElroy€stated€that€he€gave€the€prosecutors€his€entire€file€before€trial.€ÏDetective€McElroy€also€testified€that€he€listened€to€the€911€tape€and€transcribedÏwhat€he€thought€he€heard.€€He€was€also€instructed€by€the€District€AttorneyððsÏOffice€to€locate€the€911€operator€and€have€her€listen€to€the€tape€and€state€whatÍshe€thought€it€said.€€She€disagreed€with€a€portion€of€the€transcript€of€the€tapeÏand€she€corrected€it€to€what€she€thought€it€said.ÌÌà àDetective€McElroy€testified€that€Paul€Newman€formerly€worked€as€aÏdetective€in€the€Homicide€Section€of€the€Nashville€Police€Department€prior€toÏobtaining€his€law€license.€€Detective€McElroy€further€testified€that€he€trainedÏNewman€on€homicide€investigations.€€According€to€Detective€McElroy,€NewmanÏwas€a€good€detective.ÌÌà àDetective€McElroy€testified€that€it€looked€as€if€Jasonððs€body€had€beenÏmoved€because€of€the€presence€of€two€different€blood€patterns.€€He€did€notÏremember,€however,€talking€to€Newman€about€the€photographs€of€JasonððsÏbody.€€He€also€testified€that€Billy€Fields,€the€victimððs€boyfriend,€was€identified€asÏa€suspect€and€was€interviewed,€but€that€upon€further€investigation€Fields€wasÏno€longer€a€suspect.ÌÌà àDr.€Bethany€Kay€Dumas,€a€linguist,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner.€ÏShe€was€asked€to€consider€whether€the€statements€the€petitioner€made€duringÏhis€initial€interview€with€the€police,€such€as€ð ðthings€were€looking€good,ðð€ð ðwe€wereÏgetting€back€together,ðð€and€ð ðwe€were€going€to€a€marriage€counselor,ðð€necessarilyÏmeant€that€the€petitioner€knew€for€some€reason€these€things€could€not€continueÍto€happen€in€the€future.€€Dr.€Dumas€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€petitioner€did€notÏnecessarily€make€these€sort€of€statements€because€he€knew€his€wife€wasÏdead.€€She€stated€that€the€phrases€contain€the€past€progressive€instead€of€theÏsimple€past€tense€(ð ðwere€looking,ðð€ð ðwere€getting,ðð€ð ðwere€goingðð€versus€ð ðlooked,ððÏð ðgot,ðð€ð ðwentðð),€which,€among€southern€speakers,€is€not€always€past€tense€inÏmeaning.€€Based€upon€the€statements€alone,€however,€Dr.€Dumas€testified€thatÏshe€could€not€determine€what€the€petitioner€meant€by€those€statements.€€SheÏtestified€that€she€would€have€to€know€more€about€the€ordinary,€conversationalÏspeaking€habits€of€the€petitioner.€€She€stated€an€interview€with€the€petitionerÏwould€be€helpful€in€this€respect.€€However,€she€also€testified€that€the€petitioner€isÏthe€only€source€of€information€about€the€intended€meaning€of€the€statements€andÏthat€any€interview€conducted€after€the€petitioner€had€been€arrested€could€beÏtainted€because€the€petitioner€would€know€the€purpose€of€the€interview.ÌÌà àDr.€H.€Dale€Nute,€a€forensic€science€consultant,€was€contacted€by€theÏpetitioner€to€give€his€opinion€on€the€time€frame€of€the€crimes.€€Dr.€Nute€testified,Ïbased€upon€the€information€he€reviewed,€that€the€officersðð€response€time€fromÏthe€911€call€could€have€been€three€to€seven€minutes,€but€most€likely€five€or€sixÏminutes.€€There€apparently€was€some€dispute€about€the€amount€of€time€it€tookÏto€dispatch€the€officers€upon€receipt€of€the€911€call,€which,€according€to€Dr.€Nute,Ïcould€have€added€another€minute€to€the€response€time.€€He€testified€that€heÍunderstood€the€prosecutorððs€theory€of€the€crimes€as€follows:€€the€assailant€shotÏthe€mother;€the€assailant€then€started€struggling€with€Chad€and€realized€JasonÏwas€on€the€telephone;€he€pulled€the€phone€out€of€the€wall,€stabbed€Chad€inÏthe€kitchen,€followed€Jason€to€the€bedroom,€killed€him,€and€attacked€the€motherÏagain;€then€he€returned€to€the€kitchen€and€attacked€Chad€again,€washed€up,Ïand€left€the€home.€€Based€upon€his€reconstruction€of€these€events,€Dr.€NuteÏopined€that€it€would€have€taken€the€assailant€a€minimum€of€three€minutes€toÏaccomplish€the€crimes,€but€because€of€variables€like€indecision€and€defensive€orÏevasive€actions€that€six€or€seven€minutes€would€be€a€more€reasonableÏestimate.€€He€also€stated,€however,€that€it€would€have€been€possible€toÏaccomplish€these€acts€before€the€police€arrived€on€the€scene€in€response€to€theÏ911€call.ÌÌà àDr.€Nute€examined€the€broken€knife€found€by€Detective€McElroy€andÏstated€that€one€of€the€stains€on€the€blade€had€characteristics€of€blood.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€would€have€sent€the€knife€to€the€crime€lab€for€testing€unless€heÏhad€a€very€good€reason€otherwise.€€Dr.€Nute€testified€that€he€would€haveÏsuggested€to€the€defense€to€investigate€or€explore€the€possibility€that€JasonððsÏbody€had€been€moved.€€He€would€have€also€questioned€the€delay€ofÏapproximately€six€weeks€in€the€blood€tests,€especially€the€blood€found€in€theÏbathroom,€because€after€a€certain€amount€of€time€it€is€hard€to€distinguish€bloodÍamong€different€sources.€€Dr.€Nute€would€have€also€suggested€exploring€in€moreÏdepth€the€possible€escape€routes€from€the€residence,€the€existence€of€theÏbroken€knife,€the€blood€stains/patterns€found€on€Chadððs€body,€which€lights€wereÏon/off€when€the€officers€responded€to€the€911€call€and€which€lights€were€on/offÏwhen€they€first€arrived€at€the€scene€the€next€day,€and€whether€any€of€the€firstÏofficers€at€the€scene€touched€or€disrupted€anything.€€Dr.€Nute€testified€that€he€isÏnot€an€expert€in€blood€splatter€or€fingerprint€analysis.ÌÌà àDr.€Nute€admitted€on€cross€examination,€however,€that€he€had€notÏreviewed€the€entire€file€or€record€in€this€case€prior€to€drawing€his€conclusions.€€HeÏalso€stated€that€he€realizes€the€jury€can€convict€solely€on€the€evidenceÏpresented€without€giving€any€attention€to€the€stateððs€theory€espoused€duringÏargument.€€In€fact,€Dr.€Nute€testified€that€he€did€not€read€defense€counselððsÏarguments€and€that€there€is€no€way€to€know€for€certain€what€happened€theÏnight€of€the€murders;€all€of€his€conclusions€were€based€on€the€evidenceÏpresented€and€his€professional€estimations.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€also€called€Timothy€Webster€Smith,€Sr.,€to€testify€on€hisÏbehalf.€€Smith€is€the€brother€of€the€petitioner.€€Smith€testified€that€he€was€servingÏtime€for€a€sexual€battery€conviction€during€the€investigation€of€his€brotherððs€case.€ÏSmith€testified€that€he€was€questioned€by€Lisa€Freeman€about€the€victims.€€HeÍtestified€that€she€stated€they€found€a€bloody€palm€print€at€the€scene€of€the€crimeÏand€they€were€attempting€to€get€a€life€sentence€instead€of€the€death€penalty.€ÏSmith€stated€that€he€realized€she€was€asking€questions€for€purposes€ofÏmitigation.€€Smith€also€stated€that€Freemanððs€line€of€questioning€gave€him€theÏimpression€that€the€prosecution€and€defense€were€working€together.€€Smith,Ïhowever,€never€talked€to€any€of€the€defense€lawyers€and€was€not€present€atÏtrial€and,€therefore,€knew€nothing€about€the€evidence.€€Smith€testified€that€he€saidÏif€his€brother€did€commit€the€crimes€he€should€be€held€responsible.€€He€wantedÏhis€brother€to€get€a€fair€trial€and€he€stated€he€was€just€frustrated€at€theÏpossibility€that€he€could€have€murdered€the€victims.ÌÌà àDr.€Ralph€Norton€Ohde,€Associate€Professor€of€Speech€and€HearingÏSciences€at€Vanderbilt€University,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner.€€He€opinedÏthat€the€jurorsðð€perception€of€what€they€heard€on€the€911€tape€was€potentiallyÏinfluenced€by€knowledge€they€had€beforehand€from€the€transcript€they€wereÏshown€of€what€should€have€been€on€the€tape.€€He€also€testified€that€the€courtððsÏinstruction€to€the€jury€that€they€should€base€their€conclusions€from€the€tape,€notÏthe€transcript,€was€inadequate€because€the€juryððs€perception€had€already€beenÏinfluenced.€€Dr.€Ohde€also€testified€that€the€juryððs€perception€could€have€beenÏinfluenced€by€virtue€of€knowing€the€defendantððs€name€and€knowing€the€namesÏof€the€victims.ÌÌà àJeff€DeVasher,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€handled€the€appeal€in€theÏpetitionerððs€case.€€DeVasher€testified€this€was€the€second€appellate€brief€heÏhad€prepared€in€a€death€penalty€case,€but€he€had€handled€numerous€otherÏhomicide€appeals.€€He€estimated€that€he€spent€at€least€a€couple€of€hundredÏhours€on€the€appeal.€€He€stated€that€in€a€capital€case€versus€a€non„capitalÏcase€he€would€not€narrow€the€issues€on€appeal€but,€rather,€would€try€to€raiseÏas€many€issues€as€possible.€€DeVasher€testified€he€would€have€had€someÏinput€on€how€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€drafted€so€that€no€issues€wereÏwaived€on€appeal.€€ÌÌà àDeVasher€stated€that€he€challenged€the€admissibility€of€the€911€tape€asÏwell€as€the€transcript€of€the€recording.€€DeVasher€testified€that€trial€counselÏpresented€no€evidence€during€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€exclude€the€transcriptÏand€he€stated€that€testimony€such€as€Dr.€Ohdeððs€would€have€providedÏadditional€support€to€his€argument€on€appeal€that€the€prejudicial€effect€of€theÏtranscript€substantially€outweighed€its€probative€value.€€However,€DeVasherÏstated€that€he€was€not€aware€of€any€case€where€the€admission€of€a€transcriptÏhad€been€successfully€challenged€by€that€type€of€testimony.€€DeVasher€statedÏhe€did€not€challenge€on€appeal€the€reasonable€doubt,€expert€witness,€orÏcredibility€of€a€witness€jury€instructions€because€he€believed€the€challenge€wouldÍnot€be€successful.€€Nor€did€he€think€the€issue€of€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€giveÏproposed€or€special€jury€instructions€would€be€successful.€€DeVasher€testifiedÏthat€he€raised€on€appeal€what€he€believed€to€be€every€legitimate€issue.€€In€fact,Ïhe€raised€twenty€issues€and€several€of€those€issues€contained€sub„issues.ÌÌà àDeVasher€testified€that€he€met€with€the€petitioner€three€or€four€times€duringÏthe€appellate€process.€€The€petitioner€wanted€DeVasher€to€provide€him€a€copyÏof€the€brief€before€it€was€filed,€which€DeVasher€stated€he€did.€€The€petitionerÏwanted€DeVasher€to€focus€more€on€the€guilt€and€innocence€issues€rather€thanÏthe€sentencing€issues.€€DeVasher€testified€that€the€petitioner€complimented€himÏon€his€appellate€work€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€testified€on€his€own€behalf.€€He€said€that€he€had€served€anÏeleven€month€and€twenty„nine€day€sentence€for€a€misdemeanor€conviction€inÏthe€early€1970s.€€He€stated€that€he€was€drafted€while€he€was€in€the€eleventhÏgrade€and€has€never€completed€his€GED.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€heÏlearned€shortly€before€trial€that€his€counsel€had€the€right€to€seek€the€assistanceÏof€expert€services.€€He€confronted€counsel,€but€they€told€him€they€did€not€seeÏany€particular€need€for€experts€in€this€case.€€The€petitioner€stated€counsel€wasÏjust€planning€on€evading€the€issue€of€the€bloody€palm€print.€€The€petitionerÏtestified€that€he€would€have€wanted€counsel€to€obtain€the€services€of€as€manyÍexperts€as€possible€to€prove€his€innocence.€€The€petitioner€acknowledged,Ïhowever,€that€counsel€did€file€a€motion€for€an€expert€to€review€the€911€tape.€ÏThe€petitioner€testified€that,€although€he€was€aware€of€the€right€to€expertÏservices€in€the€post„conviction€area,€he€did€not€request€the€services€of€aÏfingerprint€expert€to€challenge€the€existence€of€the€palm€print.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€testified€that€upon€learning€about€the€existence€of€theÏbroken€knife€from€a€report€from€Lisa€Freeman€prior€to€trial,€he€told€Freeman€toÏhave€counsel€test€the€weapon€to€determine€its€relevance€in€his€case.€€He€saidÏthat€Dean€had€seen€the€report€and€told€the€petitioner€there€was€ð ðnothing€toðð€theÏknife.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€the€first€time€he€became€aware€that€counselÏwas€conceding€the€time€of€death€was€during€trial.€€The€petitioner€further€testifiedÏthat€he€was€upset€that€Dean€was€not€going€to€present€the€defense€during€theÏguilt€stage€because€the€petitioner€told€him€he€was€innocent€and€wanted€theÏdefense€to€focus€on€the€first€stage€of€the€trial.€€The€petitioner€stated€he€wasÏshocked€to€learn€just€two€days€before€trial€that€defense€counsel€thought€the€juryÏwould€not€believe€his€alibi.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€stated€that€he€was€made€aware€of€the€potential€conflict€ofÏinterest€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office€had€with€a€potential€witness.€€The€petitionerÏagreed€to€wave€the€conflict€at€the€time,€but€testified€during€the€hearing€that€heÍwould€have€made€a€different€choice€had€he€known€the€attitude€of€his€defenseÏcounsel€regarding€his€innocence.€€Moreover,€the€petitioner€testified€that€Dean€liedÏto€him€when€he€said€he€had€received€ð ðfavorableðð€results€in€capital€cases.€€TheÏpetitioner€testified€that€he€would€not€have€waived€the€conflict€had€he€known€thatÏcounsel€failed€to€request€certain€expert€assistance,€failed€to€have€the€brokenÏknife€examined,€and€conceded€the€time€of€death.€€The€petitioner€testified€thatÏevery€time€he€suggested€that€a€question€be€asked€during€trial€his€attorneysÏwould€ignore€it.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€testified€that,€although€the€state€argued€he€would€receive€aÏlarge€sum€of€money€from€insurance€proceeds,€he€told€his€attorneys€he€was€notÏthe€beneficiary€of€all€the€policies€taken€in€his€wife€and€childrenððs€names.€€HeÏalso€asked€his€attorneys€to€check€with€the€insurance€agents€to€verify€hisÏcomplaint.€€The€petitioner€stated€that€the€insurance€agents€testified€during€trialÏand€that€even€he€testified€before€the€jury€at€length€regarding€the€insuranceÏproceeds€and€that€he€was€not€the€beneficiary€on€all€of€the€policies.€€TheÏpetitioner€also€asked€his€attorneys€to€impeach€the€testimony€of€one€of€theÏstateððs€witnesses€who€testified€that€he€and€the€petitioner€fired€a€.22€pistol€at€aÏfiring€range€prior€to€the€murders.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€a€picture€taken€whenÏa€search€warrant€was€executed€revealed€that€there€was€no€.22€pistol€present.€ÍThe€petitioner€stated€that€he€testified€accurately€during€trial€about€the€type€ofÏweapons€he€owned.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€testified€that€counsel€never€emphasized€the€fact€that€a€hairÏsample€found€underneath€the€fingernails€of€Jason€Burnett€tested€negativeÏagainst€the€petitioner.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€this€could€have€bolstered€hisÏdefense.€€Nor,€according€to€the€petitioner,€did€the€attorneys€investigate€the€roadÏconditions€between€Nashville€and€Morehead,€Kentucky,€when€the€state€claimedÏthere€was€bad€visibility€the€night€of€the€murder.€€The€petitioner€also€testified€thatÏhis€attorneys€did€not€inquire,€upon€the€petitionerððs€request,€how€long€a€hair€dryerÏcould€run€before€turning€off€from€overheating€when€a€hair€dryer€was€foundÏrunning€near€Jasonððs€body.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€was€not€pleased€that€counsel€did€not€use€any€peremptoryÏchallenges€during€jury€selection,€especially€when€he€told€counsel€that€he€wantedÏto€challenge€two€jurors€in€particular.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€counsel€did€notÏconfer€with€him€at€all€during€the€jury€selection€process.€€The€petitioner€testifiedÏthat€counsel€did€not€make€specific€objections€which€he€requested€during€theÏprosecutorððs€arguments.€€He€admitted,€though,€that€he€did€not€have€any€legalÏtraining€and€could€not€identify€what€particular€legal€arguments€should€have€beenÏraised€by€the€objections.€€He€testified€that€he€spent€approximately€three€andÍone€half€hours€talking€with€DeVasher€concerning€the€appeal.€€The€petitionerÏstated€that€he€tried€to€tell€DeVasher€to€address€every€issue€that€was€raised€inÏthe€motion€for€new€trial.€€According€to€the€petitioner,€however,€this€was€not€done.€ÏHe€did,€however,€congratulate€counsel€upon€hearing€a€tape€of€his€argumentÏbefore€the€Supreme€Court.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€stated€that€he€is€innocent,€that€he€wanted€to€testify€on€hisÏown€behalf,€and€that€he€did€not€want€to€present€any€type€of€mental€defense.€ÏThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€never€informed€the€judge€that€he€was€not€satisfiedÏwith€counsel.€€The€petitioner€stated,€though,€that€in€retrospect€he€would€haveÏsought€new€counsel€but€was€unfamiliar€with€the€system€at€the€time.€€TheÏpetitioner€testified€that€his€alibi€was€that€he€was€nowhere€near€the€crime€sceneÏat€11:20€p.m.,€the€alleged€time€of€the€911€call.€€And€although€he€claimed€he€wasÏnot€there,€he€still€wanted€defense€counsel€to€challenge€the€time€line€proposed€byÏthe€state.€€The€petitioner€admitted€that€counsel€did€challenge€the€crime€scene€asÏalleged€by€the€state.€€The€petitioner€also€testified€that€he€was€not€reallyÏdissatisfied€with€the€representation€of€counsel€until€he€was€placed€on€deathÏrow.€€He€stated€that€upon€looking€back€he€did€not€think€his€lawyers€wereÏworking€for€him.ÌÌà àThe€state€called€Dr.€Charles€Warren€Harlan,€Medical€Examiner€forÏDavidson€County€at€the€time€of€the€trial€in€this€case.€€Dr.€Gretel€Harlan,€his€wifeÏand€Assistant€Medical€Examiner€of€Davidson€County,€helped€with€theÏautopsies€in€this€case€and€testified€during€trial.€€Dr.€Charles€Harlan€testified€thatÏDr.€Sperry€did€not€contact€him€prior€to€the€hearing€or€request€access€to€the€files€ofÏhis€office.€€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€he€arrived€at€the€crime€scene€at€4:50€p.m.€theÏday€the€bodies€were€discovered,€but€was€not€permitted€into€the€residence€toÏexamine€the€bodies€until€about€8:40€p.m.€€Dr.€Harlan€examined€all€three€bodiesÏat€the€scene€and€took€photographs€thereof.ÌÌà àDr.€Harlan€testified,€based€upon€the€nature€of€the€blood€splatter€aroundÏthe€body,€that€Judy€Smith€received€her€fatal€wounds€while€she€was€on€the€bed.€ÏHe€stated€that€the€nature€of€the€wounds€to€Judy€produced€more€of€an€oozing€ofÏthe€blood€rather€than€spurting,€and€therefore€there€was€not€more€blood€transferÏon€the€sheet.€€Dr.€Harlan€also€testified,€based€upon€the€blood€patterns€on€andÏaround€Jasonððs€body,€that€Jason€was€either€moved€or€moved€himself€sometimeÏafter€five€minutes€from€the€time€of€the€infliction€of€the€wounds.€€He€stated€thatÏJason€could€have€lived€five€to€fifteen€minutes€after€receiving€the€injuries€and€wasÏcapable€of€turning€himself€over.€€He€also€opined,€based€upon€his€observationsÏand€experience,€that€it€is€more€probable€that€Jason€in€fact€moved€himself€beforeÏdeath.ÌÌà àDuring€the€hearing,€Dr.€Harlan€examined€the€broken€knife€found€under€theÏresidence€and€opined€that€it€could€not€have€produced€the€stab€wounds€inflictedÏupon€the€victims.€€The€knife€at€issue€had€a€dull€point€and€had€a€serrated€edge.€ÏThe€victimsðð€wounds€were€not€consistent€with€a€serrated„blade€knife.€€On€crossÏexamination,€however,€Dr.€Harlan€stated€that€some€of€the€incision€defensiveÏwounds€on€the€fingers€of€Chad€and€Jason€and€some€of€the€slash€wounds€toÏthe€victimsðð€necks€could€have€been€produced€by€an€object€similar€to€the€brokenÏknife.ÌÌà àDr.€Harlan€testified€that€the€vitreous€potassium€(examining€the€potassiumÏlevel€of€the€eye€fluid)€method€of€determining€the€time€of€death€was€not€availableÏto€the€Davidson€County€Medical€Examinerððs€office€at€the€time€of€the€crimes€inÏthis€case.€€However,€he€disagreed€with€Dr.€Sperryððs€statement€that€this€testÏshould€be€done€as€close€to€the€time€of€death€as€possible.€€Dr.€Harlan€testifiedÏthat€the€potassium€method€is€but€one€of€many€methods€used€to€estimate€theÏtime€of€death.€€Based€solely€upon€the€anatomic€changes€when€he€viewed€theÏbodies€and€the€existence€of€the€911€call,€Dr.€Harlan€estimated€the€range€of€timeÏof€death€was€between€11:30€p.m.€and€2:30€a.m.€€However,€Dr.€Harlan€furtherÏtestified€that€he€agreed€with€his€wifeððs€opinion,€based€upon€the€status€of€theÏrigor€mortis;€livor€mortis;€the€appearance€of€the€bodies;€the€amount€of€drying€ofÍvarious€portions€of€the€body;€the€œquality,›€quantity,€and€appearance€of€the€bloodÏat€the€scene;€the€stomach€contents€of€the€victims;€as€well€as€the€otherÏcircumstances€of€the€case;€that€death€probably€occurred€between€11:23€p.m.Ïand€midnight.€€According€to€Dr.€Harlan,€it€would€have€taken€between€eighteenÏand€twenty„four€hours€for€the€type€and€quantity€of€blood€found€at€the€scene€toÏdry.€€Dr.€Harlan€testified€that€Dr.€Sperry€was€ð ðabsolutely€wrongðð€when€heÏopined€that€death€could€have€occurred€as€late€as€9:00€a.m.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Harlan€testified,€based€upon€the€nature€of€the€wounds,€that€eachÏvictim€suffered€pain.€€Chad€would€have€lived€about€five€minutes€between€theÏknife€wounds€to€the€lungs€and€gunshot€wound€to€the€head,€would€have€beenÏconscious€and€aware,€and€would€have€experienced€trouble€breathing€prior€toÏdeath.€€He€stated€again€that€Jason€would€have€lived€between€five€and€fifteenÏminutes€after€receiving€his€wounds€and€he€would€have€been€in€ð ðexquisiteðð€pain.€ÏAnd€although€Dr.€Sperry€was€correct€to€state€that€cutting€the€intestines€wouldÏnot€produce€pain,€the€fact€that€the€skin€was€cut€did€produce€pain.€€Judy€wasÏlikely€rendered€unconscious€upon€the€initial€wound,€but€Dr.€Harlan€stated€it€isÏpossible€that€she€could€have€remained€conscious€for€a€short€while.ÌÌà àThe€state€also€called€James€Paul€Newman€to€testify.€€Newman€wasÏemployed€for€about€fourteen€years€with€the€Nashville€Police€Department€beforeÍpracticing€law.€€He€was€assigned€to€the€homicide€division€for€seven€years€andÏhas€taught€seminars€on€crime€scene€investigations.€€Newman€had€beenÏpracticing€law€for€about€six€years€prior€to€this€case€but€had€never€worked€on€aÏcapital€case€before.€€Newman€testified€that€he€has€never€seen€another€caseÏreceive€more€attention€from€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office€than€this€one.€€NewmanÏbegan€working€on€this€case€about€six€weeks€prior€to€trial€and€testified€that€allÏthe€preliminary€motions€were€filed€beforehand.€€Dean€asked€Newman€to€lookÏover€the€investigation€aspect€of€the€case€and€make€sure€everything€that€couldÏbe€done€had€been€done.€€Newman€testified€that€he€spent€a€lot€of€time€with€theÏpetitioner€discussing€the€circumstances€of€the€case.€€He€also€stated€that€heÏreviewed€the€file,€but€he€does€not€remember€seeing€Freemanððs€notebook.€ÏNewman€stated€that€Lisa€Freeman€was€not€an€experienced€investigator.ÌÌà àNewman€testified€that€the€defense€was€primarily€based€upon€the€alibi.€ÏHe€testified€that€they€tried€to€establish€that€the€petitioner€was€nowhere€near€theÏcrime€scene€at€the€time€the€state€alleged€the€murders€occurred.€€NewmanÏretraced€the€steps€the€petitioner€claimed€he€took€the€night€of€the€murders€andÏreported€back€to€him€that€they€were€a€couple€of€hours€off€with€the€time€frame;Ïthe€investigators€could€not€account€for€a€couple€of€hours€during€the€night.€ÏNewman€stated,€however,€that€they€stuck€with€the€alibi€in€part€because€theÏpetitionerððs€family€could€state€that€he€was€at€his€trailer€at€11:00€p.m.€€NewmanÍtestified€that€they€did€not€contest€the€time€of€death€because€they€saw€no€realÏissue€with€it€as€the€petitioner€claimed€he€was€not€even€there.€€According€toÏNewman,€by€contesting€the€time€of€death,€they€would€have€lost€credibility€in€theÏalibi€defense.€€Newman€stated€that€they€discussed€the€time€issue€with€theÏpetitioner€and€he€agreed.€€Newman€testified€they€were€not€surprised€at€all€byÏthe€stateððs€theory€of€the€crimes,€but€they€knew€they€would€have€a€tough€timeÏconvincing€the€jury€of€the€petitionerððs€alleged€innocence€because€of€the€strongÏcircumstantial€evidence€the€state€possessed.€€Newman€conveyed€theseÏthoughts€to€the€petitioner€before€trial.ÌÌà àNewman€stated€that€the€palm€print€was€ð ðabsolutely€devastating.ðð€ÏNewman€researched€the€alternate€light€source€technique€used€to€raise€the€palmÏprint€and€asked€Allen€Barrett,€a€fingerprint€expert€for€the€F.B.I.€and€T.B.I.,€toÏreview€the€fingerprint€evidence€in€the€presence€of€the€petitioner.€€According€toÏNewman,€the€petitioner€was€not€contesting€that€the€print€was€his;€he€wasÏclaiming€that€someone€planted€the€print€at€the€scene.€€Nonetheless,€BarrettÏopined€that€the€print€was€indeed€the€petitionerððs.€€Newman€testified,€however,Ïthat€Barrett€informed€him,€because€the€print€was€in€blood,€as€well€as€otherÏfactors,€that€it€would€have€been€improbable€for€someone€to€have€planted€it.€ÏAccordingly,€they€did€not€see€the€need€to€obtain€other€experts€in€this€area.€€TheÍdefense€figured€that€the€only€successful€way€to€keep€this€piece€of€evidence€outÏwas€to€attack€the€technique€used€to€confirm€the€print€comparison.ÌÌà àNewman€testified€that€they€saw€no€reason€to€investigate€if€Jason€movedÏhimself€or€if€someone€else€moved€him.€€According€to€him,€this€evidence€wouldÏhave€done€nothing€for€their€case.€€Moreover,€they€decided€not€to€emphasize€tooÏmuch€of€the€medical€testimony€because€of€fear€of€inflaming€the€jury.€€Nor€did€theyÏexplore€the€apparent€presence€of€fingerprints€on€Chadððs€body€because€theyÏappeared€a€little€far€apart€and€the€petitionerððs€fingers€are€a€little€far€apart.€ÏNewman€testified€that€upon€hearing€Nute€testify€at€the€hearing€he€would€notÏhave€used€him€as€a€witness.€€Newman€did€not€think€he€would€have€impressedÏthe€jury€and€thought€he€raised€too€many€collateral€issues€that€were€of€no€value.€ÏHe€further€testified€that€Nute€did€not€address€anything€they€did€not€alreadyÏconsider.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€petitioner€was€initially€opposed€to€a€psychological€expert,€heÏultimately€agreed€to€using€one€in€the€penalty€phase.€€Newman€testified€that€theyÏattempted€to€focus€a€lot€of€attention€toward€Billy€Fields,€Judyððs€boyfriend,Ïbecause€he€was€one€of€the€two€suspects.€€Newman€testified€that€he€knewÏabout€the€existence€of€the€broken€knife€prior€to€trial,€but€upon€Dr.€HarlanððsÏopinion€that€the€wounds€were€not€caused€by€a€serrated„blade€knife,€he€did€notÍsee€any€connection.€€Newman€stated€that€they€did€not€have€the€knife€analyzedÏbecause€they€were€not€sure€whose€prints€may€appear€on€it,€but€mostlyÏbecause€his€experience€told€him€that€finding€both€pieces€of€a€broken€knife€in€theÏsame€area€usually€means€that€the€knife€was€broken€where€it€was€found.€ÏAccording€to€Newman,€this€piece€of€evidence,€therefore,€was€probably€notÏrelevant€in€this€case€and€was€most€likely€used€to€pry€something€open.€ÏNewman€did€not€investigate€the€fact€that€a€hair€dryer€was€running€when€theÏbodies€were€found,€but€he€testified€that€this€did€not€affect€their€defense.ÌÌà àNewman€testified€they€did€not€see€any€reason€to€consult€an€independentÏmedical€examiner€since€they€were€not€contesting€the€medical€testimony€and€theyÏdid€not€want€to€emphasize€this€evidence€in€front€of€the€jury.€€He€stated€that€theyÏwould€have€never€considered€introducing€testimony€that€the€injuries€were€notÏpainful€because€they€would€have€lost€credibility€with€the€jury.€€He€neverÏconsidered€consulting€a€linguist€in€this€case.€€Newman€stated€that€the€petitionerÏexplained€to€the€jury€that€he€said€what€he€said€to€the€police€because€he€wasÏnervous€and€frightened.€€The€petitioner€also€testified€about€the€insurance€policiesÏand€nothing€the€agents€testified€about€surprised€the€defense€team.€€ÌÌà àNewman€testified€that€they€discussed€the€jury€selection€process€with€theÏpetitioner€and€that,€based€upon€information€provided€at€death€penalty€seminarsÍDean€had€attended,€counsel€decided€not€to€use€any€peremptory€challengesÏbecause€they€felt€that€one€or€two€of€the€jurors€in€the€first€round€could€possiblyÏhang€the€jury.€€Newman€stated€that€the€petitioner€concurred€with€this€strategy.€ÏNewman€stated€that€they€considered€all€suggestions€the€petitioner€made,Ïwhether€or€not€they€followed€them.€€He€testified€that€the€petitioner€neverÏexpressed€dissatisfaction€with€counselððs€performance,€and€in€fact€the€petitionerÏsent€counsel€a€Christmas€card.ÌÌà àKarl€Dean€was€called€on€behalf€of€the€state€and€testified€that€he€neverÏtold€the€petitioner€that€he€had€tried€a€death€penalty€case€and€got€an€acquittal.€ÏAlthough€Dean€testified€it€was€possible€he€considered€the€relevance€of€theÏbroken€knife,€he€stated€that€he€did€not€remember€anything€about€it.€€He€alsoÏstated€that€all€decisions€were€ultimately€his€as€lead€counsel.ÌÌà àW.€Allen€Barrett€testified€on€behalf€of€the€state.€€Before€obtaining€his€lawÏdegree€and€practicing€law,€Barrett€was€a€fingerprint€examiner€with€the€F.B.I.€andÏthe€T.B.I.,€and€has€testified€in€the€Tennessee€courts€as€an€expert€in€fingerprintÏanalysis.€€Barrett€testified€that€he€compared€the€latent€prints€with€the€knownÏimpressions€in€this€case€and€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€palm€print€found€at€theÏscene€belonged€to€the€petitioner.€€He€stated€that€he€conveyed€his€opinion€to€theÏpetitioner.€€Barrett,€however,€was€unfamiliar€with€the€alternative€light€systemÍused€by€the€investigators,€but€he€stated€that€the€process€by€which€theÏinvestigator€obtained€the€latent€print€did€not€affect€his€comparison€with€theÏknown€impression.ÌÌà@ àò òANALYSISó óÌÌà àAfter€what€appears€to€have€been€an€exhaustive€review€of€the€originalÏtrial€record,€as€well€as€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€court€below€found€that€trialÏcounsel€were€not€ineffective€in€their€representation€of€the€petitioner€during€trial€andÏfound€that€there€were€no€other€errors€of€constitutional€dimension.ÌÌà àIt€has€long€been€established€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€andÏconclusions€of€law€in€post„conviction€suits€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€juryÏverdict.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€67€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1991).€€ð ðIn€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð€ÏòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).× ƒ) ××  ×€€Furthermore,Ïthe€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€appellateÍcourt€finds€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€findings.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,Ï789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).ÌÌÓ  ÓINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELÌÌÓ  Óà àOur€review€of€the€post„conviction€courtððs€judgment€is€governed€by€severalÏwell„established€principles.€€In€order€for€the€petitioner€to€be€granted€relief€onÏgrounds€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€he€must€establish€that€the€adviceÏgiven€or€the€services€rendered€were€not€within€the€range€of€competenceÏdemanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases€and€that,€but€for€his€counselððs€deficientÏperformance,€the€result€of€his€trial€would€have€likely€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€80€L.€Ed.€2d€674€(1984);€òòBaxter€v.ÏRoseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930€(Tenn.€1975).€€Furthermore,€this€Court€may€notÏsecond„guess€the€tactical€and€strategic€choices€made€by€trial€counsel€unlessÏthose€choices€were€uninformed€because€of€inadequate€preparation.€€òòHellard€v.ÏStateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Trial€counsel€may€not€be€deemedÏineffective€merely€because€a€different€procedure€or€strategy€might€have€producedÏa€different€result.€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€599€S.W.2d€276€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).ÏThe€reviewing€courts€must€indulge€a€strong€presumption€that€the€conduct€ofÏcounsel€falls€within€the€range€of€reasonable€professional€assistance.€€òòStricklandóó,Ï466€U.S.€at€690.€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€alleges€numerous€instances€of€counselððs€ineffectiveness.€ÏInitially,€he€claims€that€his€defense€team,€which€was€comprised€of€employees€ofÏthe€Public€Defenderððs€Office,€was€unorganized,€and€he€suggests€that€counselÏcould€not€agree€on€who€maintained€the€various€roles.€€The€post„convictionÏtestimony€reasonably€demonstrates€that€Karl€Dean€was€assigned€as€leadÏcounsel€and€that€he€was€assisted€primarily€by€Paul€Newman.€€As€establishedÏby€the€evidence€and€found€by€the€trial€court,€both€of€these€attorneys€wereÏexperienced€and€very€capable€of€handling€this€type€of€case.€€Dean€hadÏattended€numerous€seminars€on€trial€technique€and€capital€case€litigation.€€DeanÏalso€stated€that€they€relied€upon€the€resources€of€the€Capital€Case€ResourceÏCenter.€€Moreover,€at€least€five€other€attorneys€from€the€Public€Defenderððs€OfficeÏhad€some€input€at€various€stages€of€the€trial€preparation€and€appeal.€€In€all,Ïduring€the€approximately€nine€months€prior€to€trial,€Dean€testified€that€he€andÏNewman€recorded€294€hours€of€preparation€and€spent€about€135€hours€in€courtÏduring€preliminary€matters€and€the€actual€trial.€€Dean€testified€that€the€time€spentÏby€the€other€attorneys€was€not€recorded.€€Both€Dean€and€Newman€testified€thatÏthey€had€never€known€any€other€case€to€receive€as€much€attention€by€theirÏoffice€as€this€case€did.ÌÌà àLisa€Freeman€was€originally€assigned€to€investigate€the€facts€of€the€case.€ÏAlthough€the€petitioner€asserts€that€Freeman€was€inexperienced,€she€had€spentÏsome€time€with€the€Capital€Case€Resource€Center€prior€to€being€hired€by€theÏPublic€Defenderððs€Office.€€Nothing€in€the€record€demonstrates€that€Dean€orÏNewman€were€responsible€for€hiring€Freeman.€€And€although€Newman€admittedÏthat€Freeman€was€not€very€experienced,€Dean€testified€that€he€was€satisfiedÏwith€the€work€she€had€done€on€a€previous€death€penalty€case.€€BesidesÏFreeman,€the€petitioner€had€the€benefit€of€the€experienced€investigativeÏtechniques€of€Newman,€who€also€assisted€in€the€investigation€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€maintained€his€innocence€throughout€this€case,€despiteÏsome€rather€damning€evidence€against€him.€€The€petitioner€claims€that€theÏinexperience€and€lack€of€organization€of€his€defense€team€hampered€theÏpresentation€of€a€solid€reasonable„doubt€defense.€€The€record€before€the€CourtÏsimply€fails€to€support€the€petitionerððs€contention€in€this€respect.€€It€is€clear€thatÏthe€petitioner€received€substantial€devotion€from€the€members€of€the€PublicÏDefenderððs€Office.€€Moreover,€as€noted€by€the€post„conviction€court€and€impliedÏby€the€Supreme€Court€on€direct€appeal,€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561,€583Ï(Tenn.€1993)€(Reid,€C.J.,€concurring),€the€members€of€the€petitionerððs€defenseÏteam€provided€highly€competent€representation€to€the€petitioner€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€correctly€asserts€that€counsel€must€conduct€an€adequateÏinvestigation€of€all€possible€defenses€available.€€The€petitioner€in€this€case,Ïhowever,€insisted€that€counsel€advance€nothing€but€an€alibi€defense€andÏadamantly€refused€to€pursue€the€possibility€of€any€mental€defense.€€CounselÏcannot€fabricate€any€evidence€to€support€the€petitionerððs€alibi,€and€upon€anÏexhaustive€investigation€of€the€petitionerððs€story,€counsel€was€left€with€aÏdefense€that€was€open€to€attack.€€Counsel€informed€the€petitioner€of€this,€andÏthe€petitioner€offered€to€rely€upon€the€testimony€of€his€family€to€support€hisÏposition.€€Dean€testified€that€he€made€the€decision,€based€upon€the€petitionerððsÏinsistence€of€a€somewhat€questionable€alibi€defense€and€the€unrefutableÏexistence€of€the€petitionerððs€bloody€palm€print,€the€911€tape,€and€statementsÏfrom€witnesses€that€the€petitioner€had€talked€about€killing€his€wife,€to€foregoÏacting€as€lead€counsel€during€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial€and€focus€his€attentionÏon€the€sentencing€phase€in€order€to€salvage€credibility€for€the€defense€and€saveÏthe€petitionerððs€life.ÌÌà àNevertheless,€the€petitioner€claims€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failingÏto€seek€the€investigative€and€expert€services€available€to€the€petitioner€in€thisÏdeath€penalty€case.€€As€a€preliminary€observation,€the€majority€of€the€expertÏtestimony€introduced€by€the€petitioner€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€addressedÏthe€circumstances€surrounding€the€deaths€and€the€condition€of€the€crime€scene.€ÍAs€both€defense€attorneys€testified,€because€they€were€asserting€that€theÏpetitioner€was€not€even€present€at€the€scene,€they€did€not€consider€thisÏinformation€particularly€relevant€to€their€defense€and€did€not€want€to€belabor€orÏemphasize€this€horrific€crime€scene€in€front€of€the€jury.€€Even€though€the€petitionerÏasserts€that€counsel€should€have€done€more€to€create€a€reasonable€doubtÏconcerning€the€stateððs€analysis€of€the€crime€scene,€counsel€decided€thisÏapproach€would€have€hurt€any€credibility€regarding€the€alibi€defense,€which€theÏpetitioner€wanted€to€advance.€€Counselððs€strategy€appears€to€have€beenÏbased€upon€more€than€adequate€preparation€and€appears€to€be€well€withinÏthe€range€of€competence€demanded.€€Moreover,€it€appears€reasonable€toÏassume€counsel€likely€could€not€have€created€a€reasonable€doubt€by€attackingÏthe€crime€scene€analysis€when€there€was€certain€evidence€they€believed€couldÏnot€be€disputed.€€Regardless,€as€shown€below,€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏdemonstrate€how€contesting€the€crime€scene€analysis€or€the€stateððs€theoryÏabout€the€time€of€death€would€have€changed€the€outcome€of€the€trial.ÌÌÓ  Ó(1)€Use€of€an€Independent€Forensic€PathologistÌÌÓ  Óà àFirst,€the€petitioner€claims€the€testimony€of€an€independent€forensicÏpathologist€could€have€rebutted,€among€other€things,€Dr.€Harlanððs€testimonyÏconcerning€the€time€of€death.€€The€petitioner€argues,€because€defense€counselÍconceded€the€stateððs€theory€of€when€the€murders€occurred,€they€did€not€presentÏany€evidence€to€bolster€a€reasonable€doubt.€€In€response,€the€state€argues€thatÏit€was€not€counselððs€failure€to€consult€an€independent€pathologist€that€affectedÏthe€outcome€of€his€trial€but,€rather,€the€overwhelming€physical€evidenceÏconnecting€him€to€the€crimes.ÌÌà àDefense€counsel€testified€they€started€with€a€ð ðworking€presumptionðð€thatÏthe€deaths€occurred€contemporaneously€with€or€shortly€after€the€911€call.€€Dr.ÏHarlan€opined€at€trial€that€the€deaths€occurred€about€11:30€p.m.€€The€petitionerÏclaims,€however,€that€based€upon€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Sperry,€the€time€of€deathÏwas€a€disputable€issue.€€Dr.€Sperry€opined€that€it€would€have€been€impossibleÏfor€the€medical€examiner€to€pinpoint€a€time€of€death€by€observing€only€the€rigorÏand€livor€mortis€of€the€bodies.€€Dr.€Sperry€further€opined€that€the€deaths€couldÏhave€occurred€as€late€as€eight€to€twelve€hours€prior€to€the€viewing€of€the€bodiesÏby€the€medical€examiner€(based€upon€the€fixing€of€rigor€and€livor€mortis),€whichÏwould€be€sometime€earlier€than€8:40€a.m.€to€12:40€p.m.€the€next€day.€€ÌÌà àDr.€Sperry€acknowledged,€however,€that€he€did€not€have€any€evidence€toÏcontradict€Dr.€Harlanððs€opinion€that€the€time€of€death€was€around€11:30€p.m.€€Dr.ÏSperry€did€not€review€the€911€tape€or€the€transcript€therefrom.€€He€stated€that€theÏmedical€examiner€would€consider€all€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€not€just€theÍanatomical€condition€of€the€bodies,€to€draw€an€opinion€as€to€time€of€death.€€HeÏalso€stated€that€despite€the€stomach€contents€of€the€victims,€which€indicatedÏthey€ate€within€an€hour€to€an€hour€and€a€half€prior€to€death,€the€victims€couldÏhave€died€at€6:00€a.m.€€During€the€post„conviction€hearing,€however,€Dr.ÏCharles€Harlan€testified€that€Dr.€Sperry€was€ð ðabsolutely€wrongðð€when€heÏopined€that€death€could€have€occurred€as€late€as€9:00€a.m.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€time€of€death€was€a€disputableÏissue€and€that€the€defense€erroneously€conceded€the€stateððs€theory€thereon,€theÏpetitioner€has€not€adequately€explained€how€this€approach€could€haveÏproduced€a€different€result€at€trial.€€It€has€been€the€petitionerððs€contention€from€theÏoutset€of€the€case,€even€at€the€hearing€below,€that€he€was€not€present€whenÏthe€murders€occurred.€€As€the€state€notes,€changing€the€time€of€death€would€notÏhave€bolstered€the€alibi€defense,€especially€when€a€possibly€later€time€of€deathÏcould€not€erase€the€existence€of€the€911€call€or€the€petitionerððs€bloody€palm€print.€ÏIn€fact,€as€counsel€noted,€challenging€the€time€of€death,€when€the€petitioner€wasÏsupposed€to€be€driving€to€Kentucky,€could€possibly€hurt€the€credibility€of€the€alibiÏdefense.€€Moreover,€Dr.€Sperry€admitted€that€he€could€not€refute€with€anyÏevidence€the€medical€examinerððs€conclusion,€based€on€the€911€call€and€theÏstomach€contents,€that€death€occurred€around€11:30€p.m.ÌÌà àAs€the€post„conviction€court€found,€ð ðthis€proffered€testimony€of€Dr.€SperryÏwould€have€been€questionable,€if€not€incredulous,€and€would€have€almostÏcertainly€destroyed€any€credibility€that€petitionerððs€attorneys€were€trying€toÏmaintain€with€the€jury.ðð€€The€petitioner€does€not€address€on€appeal€Dr.€SperryððsÏopinion€that€Jason€would€not€have€experienced€pain€as€a€result€of€hisÏintestines€protruding€from€his€abdomen.€€He€does€argue,€however,€that€Dr.ÏSperryððs€opinion€that€Chad€did€not€experience€a€lot€of€pain€would€have€beenÏuseful€during€cross€examination€during€the€penalty€phase.€€Of€course,€asÏcounsel€suggested,€putting€this€type€of€testimony€before€the€jury,€in€the€face€ofÏthe€nature€and€extent€of€the€wounds€suffered,€would€have€been€extremelyÏdetrimental€to€the€defense.€€Moreover,€it€is€reasonable€to€assume€that€defenseÏcounsel€thought€it€was€risky€to€suggest€that€the€deceased€children€in€this€caseÏate€as€late€as€4:00€a.m.,€after€they€were€heard€pleading€in€the€911€call.€ÏBecause€of€the€nature€of€the€petitionerððs€defense,€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏdemonstrate€how€the€outcome€of€this€case€would€have€been€different€if€counselÏhad€attempted€to€dispute€the€alleged€time€of€death.€€We€do€not€find€that€counselÏwas€deficient€by€failing€to€challenge€the€time€of€death.ÌÌà àAs€a€result€of€conceding€the€time€of€death,€the€petitioner€argues€thatÏdefense€counsel€failed€to€investigate€or€consider€other€factors€which€could€haveÏraised€a€reasonable€doubt€concerning€the€stateððs€theory€of€the€case.€€It€wasÍagreed€by€the€experts€that€Jasonððs€body€was€moved€sometime€after€theÏinfliction€of€the€wounds.€€Dr.€Sperry€opined€that€the€movement€occurred€afterÏdeath,€which€would€mean€that€someone€moved€him.€€Dr.€Harlan€testified,Ïhowever,€based€upon€his€observations€and€experience,€that€Jason€probablyÏturned€himself€over€before€dying.€€Again,€although€there€may€have€been€aÏdifference€of€opinion€regarding€when€the€body€moved€(Dr.€Sperry€admitted€thatÏthe€evidence€could€permit€someone€else€to€have€a€completely€different€opinionÏthan€his),€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€how€this€fact€could€haveÏchanged€the€outcome€at€trial.€€The€petitioner€seems€to€suggest€that€theÏpossibility€that€someone€moved€Jasonððs€body€is€ð ðinconsistentðð€with€the€stateððsÏtheory€that€the€petitioner€left€immediately€after€inflicting€the€fatal€wounds.€€TheÏpetitioner,€however,€claimed€he€was€not€present.€€Accordingly,€the€fact€that€theÏmurderer€or€someone€other€than€the€murderer€moved€the€body€would€not€bolsterÏthe€petitionerððs€alibi€defense€in€any€way.€€Moreover,€after€viewing€the€crimeÏscene€photographs€before€trial,€Newman€testified€that€he€noticed€that€the€bodyÏhad€been€moved,€but€he€did€not€think€this€was€relevant€to€their€defense.€€ÌÌà àNewman€stated€the€defense€counsel€wanted€to€have€as€little€medicalÏevidence€before€the€jury€as€possible€in€order€to€take€the€attention€away€from€theÏgruesome€nature€of€the€killings.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€counselððsÏdeficiency€in€this€respect,€or€how€the€outcome€would€have€differed.€€TheÍpetitioner€argues€that€a€reasonable„doubt€defense€should€have€been€presentedÏto€support€his€alibi.€€The€problem€with€this€position€is€that€a€reasonable€doubtÏas€to€the€time€of€death€or€movement€of€the€body€could€not€have€discounted€theÏpalm€print,€the€911€call,€or€the€statements€of€witnesses€that€the€petitionerÏwanted€to€kill€his€wife.€€The€petition€has€not€established€counselððsÏineffectiveness€on€this€issue.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€claims€that€conceding€the€time€of€death€affected€counselððsÏability€to€investigate€other€circumstances€of€the€crime€scene.€€The€petitionerÏchallenges€counselððs€failure€to€investigate€whether€or€not€a€hair€dryer€that€wasÏfound€at€the€scene€was€turned€on€or€off.€€The€petitioner€states€that€the€officersÏresponding€to€the€911€call€did€not€hear€any€noise€coming€from€the€house,€butÏnotes€that€the€person€who€discovered€the€bodies€supposedly€heard€a€hairÏdryer.€€The€petitioner€does€not€suggest,€however,€how€this€played€into€hisÏdefense.€€The€petitioner€does€not€even€argue€why€defense€counsel€wasÏineffective€for€failing€to€investigate€this.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicateÏthe€condition€of€the€hair€dryer€could€have€bolstered€the€alibi€defense€or€changedÏthe€outcome€of€the€trial.ÌÌà àSimilarly,€the€petitioner€states€that€there€was€some€discrepancy€in€theÏtestimony€of€the€witnesses€regarding€whether€or€not€the€lights€were€on€inside€theÍhouse.€€The€petitioner€suggests€counsel€was€deficient€for€failing€to€furtherÏinvestigate.€€Again,€however,€the€petitioner€fails€to€show€why€counsel€wasÏdeficient€or€how€the€outcome€of€the€trial€would€have€been€different€if€thisÏdiscrepancy€was€highlighted.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€notes€that€the€police€initially€considered€two€individuals€asÏsuspects€in€this€case:€the€petitioner€and€Billy€Fields.€€The€petitioner€claims€thatÏcounsel€should€have€explored€and€emphasized€in€front€of€the€jury€the€allegedÏinconsistencies€between€Fieldsðð€testimony€and€that€of€other€witnessesÏconcerning€the€hair€dryer,€the€lights,€and€also€the€number€of€visits€Fields€made€toÏthe€residence€that€day€before€the€bodies€were€discovered.€€As€Dean€testified,Ïhowever,€one€of€the€witnesses€placing€Fields€at€the€scene€apparently€recantedÏhis€or€her€testimony.€€Detective€McElroy€testified€during€the€hearing€below€thatÏupon€further€investigation,€Fields€was€no€longer€considered€a€suspect€by€theÏpolice.€€Also,€Newman€testified€that€the€defense€did€attempt€to€focus€attention€onÏFields€as€a€suspect,€but€apparently€with€little€success.€€The€petitioner€simplyÏhas€failed€to€show€how€the€apparent€inconsistencies€in€the€testimony€establishÏthat€Fields€had€any€involvement€in€the€murders.€€Nothing€in€the€record€suggestsÏthe€outcome€of€the€trial€would€have€been€different€if€counsel€had€highlighted€thisÏfact€more€than€they€did.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€places€a€good€deal€of€emphasis€on€the€broken€kitchen€knifeÏthat€was€found€underneath€the€victimððs€house.€€The€petitioner€claims€the€knifeÏshould€have€been€tested€for€the€presence€of€blood€and€should€have€beenÏintroduced€into€evidence€as€a€possible€murder€weapon.€€The€petitioner€reliesÏupon€the€post„conviction€testimony€of€Dr.€Harlan€who€acknowledged€that,Ïalthough€this€particular€serrated„blade€knife€could€not€have€produced€most€of€theÏwounds,€including€the€stab€wounds,€a€knife€of€this€sort€could€have€causedÏseveral€of€the€defensive€wounds€to€the€fingers€and€some€of€the€slash€woundsÏto€the€necks€of€the€victims.€€The€testimony€of€counsel€and€Detective€McElroy,Ïhowever,€revealed€that€prior€to€trial€the€medical€examiner€did€not€have€this€sameÏopinion.€€The€petitioner€relays€that€Dr.€Nute€testified€one€possible€escape€routeÏthe€murderer€could€have€taken€was€past€the€crawl€space€of€the€house,€whereinÏthis€knife€was€found.€€The€petitioner€also€observes€that€Dr.€Nute€commentedÏthat€one€of€the€stains€on€the€blade€had€characteristics€of€blood.€€He€could€notÏstate€this€with€certainty,€however,€unless€the€stain€was€tested.€€Accordingly,€theÏpetitionerððs€characterization€of€this€knife€as€ð ðbloodyðð€is€tenuous.€€The€petitionerÏnever€sought€testing€of€this€evidence€during€his€post„conviction€suit.€€TheÏpetitioner€suggests€the€mere€presence€of€this€knife€could€have€established€aÏreasonable€doubt€to€the€stateððs€theory€of€the€crime.€€This€suggestion,€however,Ïdoes€not€adequately€demonstrate€how€this€object€would€have€altered€theÏoutcome€of€the€trial,€given€the€other€evidence€presented.ÌÌà àDetective€McElroy€testified€that€he€immediately€placed€this€piece€ofÏevidence€in€the€property€room.€€Although€he€acknowledged€there€was€someÏsubstance€on€the€blade,€Detective€McElroy€did€not€believe€this€to€be€blood.€ÏMoreover,€based€upon€the€medical€examinerððs€then„existing€opinion€that€theÏwounds€were€caused€by€a€straight„edged€knife,€Detective€McElroy€did€notÏbelieve€this€object€was€particularly€relevant.€€The€petitionerððs€claim€that€DetectiveÏMcElroy€ð ðburiedðð€this€piece€of€evidence€is€wholly€unfounded.€€Detective€McElroyÏappears€to€have€followed€the€proper€procedures€for€documenting€the€evidenceÏand€placing€it€in€the€property€room.€€And€although€the€petitioner€points€out€thatÏDean€did€not€have€much€recollection€of€this€knife,€Newman,€a€former€homicideÏdetective,€testified€that€he€examined€the€knife€before€trial.€€Based€upon€hisÏexperience€that€a€broken€knife€is€usually€broken€where€it€is€found€and€theÏstatement€of€the€medical€examiner€that€the€knife€which€caused€the€wounds€wasÏnot€serrated,€Newman€also€did€not€consider€this€object€relevant.€€Newman€alsoÏtestified,€despite€his€belief€that€the€knife€was€irrelevant,€that€he€made€a€tacticalÏdecision€not€to€have€the€knife€tested,€in€case€the€results€were€detrimental€to€hisÏclient.ÌÌà àNewman,€a€former€homicide€detective,€appears€to€have€made€anÏinformed€and€reasonable€decision€not€to€test€the€knife€or€introduce€it€intoÍevidence€before€the€jury.€€Although€the€petitioner€insists€that€any€unfavorableÏtest€results€did€not€have€to€be€revealed€to€the€prosecutor,€the€petitioner€hasÏfailed€to€adequately€demonstrate€how€this€knife€would€otherwise€have€changedÏthe€outcome€of€the€trial,€especially€given€the€other€evidence€introduced.€ÏRegardless,€counselððs€actions€were€not€deficient.€€As€the€state€notes,€counselÏð ðhad€to€weigh€the€potential€benefits€against€the€potential€cost.ðð€€Nothing€counselÏpossessed€at€that€time€indicated€the€knife€was€relevant€or€could€have€rebuttedÏthe€prosecutorððs€evidence€at€trial.€€Counsel€testified€that€the€medical€examinerÏinformed€them€before€trial€that€the€wounds€were€not€caused€by€a€serratedÏblade.€€As€stated€earlier,€this€Court€will€not€second„guess€counselððs€informedÏstrategy.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).ÌÌà àFinally,€with€regard€to€the€forensic€pathologist,€the€petitioner€claims€thatÏcounsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€adequately€cross€examine€the€medicalÏexaminer.€€Specifically,€the€petitioner€argues€that€consultation€with€anÏindependent€pathologist€could€have€raised€questions€regarding€the€bloodÏtransfer€around€Judy€Smithððs€body,€the€length€of€time€the€victims€lived,€and€theÏpain€each€victim€suffered.€€The€petitioner€suggests€that€contesting€the€testimonyÏof€the€medical€examiner€could€have€given€the€jury€a€better€picture€of€whatÏactually€happened.€€What€the€petitioner€tends€to€ignore,€however,€is€that€theÏdefense€was€relying€on€an€alibi.€€Counsel€testified€they€did€not€want€toÍemphasize€the€medical€testimony€of€the€events€because€it€did€nothing€for€theirÏdefense.€€This€was€a€reasonable€and€informed€trial€strategy.€€Nothing€theÏpetitioner€has€suggested€in€this€respect€could€have€possibly€changed€theÏoutcome€of€the€trial.€€As€the€state€notes,€the€lack€of€blood€transfer€does€notÏnecessarily€exclude€the€petitioner€as€the€perpetrator.€€Although€Dr.€SperryÏopined€the€times€of€consciousness€were€somewhat€less€than€the€testimonyÏintroduced€at€trial,€he€still€stated€that€the€victims€would€have€been€conscious€forÏsome€period€of€time.€€ÌÌà àAs€counsel€has€stated,€they€did€not€want€to€emphasize€the€brutality€ofÏthese€crimes,€especially€since€they€were€claiming€the€petitioner€did€not€commitÏthem.€€Nonetheless,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€this€approach€wouldÏhave€changed€the€juryððs€verdict.€€Further,€it€seems€very€reasonable€to€assume,Ïas€counsel€testified,€that€the€defense€would€have€lost€credibility€if€they€attemptedÏto€explain€to€the€jury,€as€Dr.€Sperry€suggested,€that€the€wounds€inflicted€uponÏthe€victims€were€not€painful.ÌÌÓ  Ó(2)€Use€of€a€Forensic€CriminologistÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€asserts€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€challengeÏthe€stateððs€analysis€of€the€crime€scene.€€In€this€respect,€the€petitioner€contendsÍthe€use€of€a€forensic€criminologist€could€have€assisted€in€the€defense.€€TheÏpetitioner€acknowledges€in€his€brief€that€counsel€decided€not€to€challengeÏanything€about€the€crime€scene€because€it€did€not€affect€their€alibi€defense.€ÏHowever,€the€petitioner€also€asserts€that€counsel€were€relying€upon€this€alibiÏdefense€even€though€they€did€not€feel€strongly€about€it.€€The€petitioner€insistedÏbefore€trial€and€throughout€trial,€and€he€insists€even€now,€that€he€did€not€commitÏthese€murders€and€was€not€present€at€the€scene.€€It€seems€unreasonable,Ïdespite€what€the€petitioner€implies,€that€he€would€have€wanted€counsel€to€riskÏany€credibility€in€his€alibi€defense€by€contesting€and€arguing€with€the€crimeÏscene€analysis.€€In€fact,€counsel€decided€this€would€not€be€wise.€€Given€theÏpetitionerððs€insistence€and€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€we€believe€counselÏmade€an€informed€and€reasonable€decision.€€Counsel€stated€that€certain€piecesÏof€evidence,€including€the€palm€print,€simply€could€not€be€contested.€€Accordingly,Ïdespite€the€alibi€defense,€it€would€not€have€been€particularly€helpful€to€theÏpetitioner€to€contest€some,€but€not€all,€of€the€crime€scene€evidence.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€elicited€testimony€from€Dr.€Nute,€who€opined€that€theÏperpetrator€possibly,€but€not€probably,€could€have€committed€the€crimes€withinÏthe€amount€of€time€it€took€the€police€to€respond€to€the€911€call.€€Dr.€Nute€basedÏhis€reconstruction€of€the€crime€upon€the€stateððs€theory€of€how€it€happened.€€HeÏadmitted,€however,€that€he€was€aware€a€jury€can€convict€based€upon€theÍevidence€presented€without€regard€to€the€prosecutorððs€argument.€€Moreover,€Dr.ÏNute€testified€that€he€did€not€review€the€entire€file€or€the€defenseððs€arguments€inÏthis€case.€€The€petitioner€contends€that€evidence€of€Dr.€Nuteððs€reconstructionÏcould€have€controverted€the€stateððs€theory.€€The€petitioner€apparently€ignores€theÏsimple€fact€that€Dr.€Nute€testified€that€the€perpetrator€could€have€acted€exactlyÏas€the€state€professed€and€left€before€the€police€arrived.€€Accordingly,€thisÏevidence€would€not€likely€have€altered€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€Interestingly,€theÏpetitioner€claims€that€witnesses€like€Dr.€Nute€would€have€been€ð ðmuch€moreÏviableðð€than€the€alibi€defense,€which€the€petitioner€himself€was€so€adamant€toÏadvance€during€trial.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€also€challenges€counselððs€failure€to€contest€the€stateððsÏtheory€that€the€petitioner€left€a€glove€at€the€crime€scene.€€Despite€the€fact€thatÏcounsel€did€not€want€to€address€the€crime€scene,€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏshow€how€the€presence,€or€lack€thereof,€of€this€glove€would€have€affected€theÏoutcome€of€the€trial.€€The€petitioner€also€relies€upon€Dr.€Nuteððs€suggestion€thatÏother€areas€of€the€crime€scene€should€have€been€questioned.€€Of€course,€theÏpetitionerððs€reliance€on€this€expert€must€be€premised€with€the€fact€that€theÏpetitioner€himself€insisted€on€an€alibi€defense.€€Counsel€has€testified€that€arguingÏabout€the€movement€of€the€body€or€the€transfer€of€blood€would€not€haveÏbuttressed€their€defense.€€If€anything,€challenging€these€aspects€of€the€crimeÍscene€without€having€anything€to€contradict€the€damning€evidence€of€the€palmÏprint,€which,€interestingly€enough,€the€petitioner€does€not€even€attack€on€appealÏhere€(and€as€the€trial€court€noted,€expert€services€were€available€for€thisÏpurpose),€would€more€likely€than€not€hurt€their€alibi€defense.€€Deciding€not€toÏraise€questions€or€cross€examine€about€certain€things€when€they€knew€theyÏcould€not€question€other€things€about€the€crime€scene€was€a€reasonable€andÏinformed€trial€strategy€on€counselððs€part.ÌÌÓ  Ó(3)€Use€of€a€Expert€LinguistÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€counsel€should€have€utilized€the€expertÏtestimony€of€a€linguist€to€rebut€the€stateððs€implication€that€the€petitionerððs€use€ofÏthe€past€tense€when€referring€to€his€wife€before€being€informed€she€was€deadÏinferred€guilt.€€Dr.€Dumas€testified€that€there€are€alternative€explanations€as€toÏwhy€the€petitioner€spoke€in€the€past€tense.€€She€stated€that€she€would€have€toÏconduct€an€interview€of€the€petitioner€to€ascertain€his€particular€speech€patternsÏin€order€to€determine€what€he€meant€by€these€statements.€€However,€she€furtherÏtestified€that€the€results€of€the€interview€would€not€necessarily€be€accurateÏbecause€the€petitioner€would€have€known€the€purpose€of€the€interviewÏbeforehand.€€ÌÌà àCounsel€stated€that,€although€they€filed€all€the€pertinent€pretrial€motions€toÏexclude€the€petitionerððs€statements€to€the€police,€they€did€not€consider€seekingÏthe€services€of€an€expert€linguist€to€address€the€verb€tense€of€these€statements.€ÏDuring€trial,€the€petitioner€was€able€to€explain€to€the€jury€that€he€was€nervousÏand€frightened€when€he€gave€his€statement€to€the€police.€€The€stateÏappropriately€argues€that€a€reasonable€attorney€would€have€no€reason€toÏbelieve€that€consulting€a€linguist€under€these€circumstances€would€be€helpful.€ÏMoreover,€after€reviewing€the€testimony,€the€post„conviction€court€concluded€thatÏthis€expert€testimony€would€not€likely€have€produced€a€different€result€at€trial.€ÏAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€in€thisÏinstance.ÌÌÓ  Ó(4)€Use€of€a€Speech€Perception€ExpertÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€counsel€was€ineffective€by€failing€to€profferÏthe€testimony€of€a€speech€perception€expert€to€support€their€pretrial€motion€toÏexclude€the€admission€of€the€transcript€of€the€911€call.€€During€trial,€the€jury€wasÏprovided€with€a€transcript€of€the€tape€of€the€911€call€prior€to€hearing€the€tape.€ÏThe€petitioner€introduced€Dr.€Ohde€during€the€post„conviction€hearing,€whoÏstated€that€the€juryððs€perception€of€what€they€heard€on€the€911€tape€wasÏpotentially€influenced€by€knowledge€they€had€from€the€transcript€beforehand.€€Dr.ÍOhde€testified€that€the€trial€courtððs€limiting€instruction€regarding€the€transcript€wasÏinadequate€and€that€the€only€way€to€have€avoided€any€bias€would€have€beenÏto€play€the€tape€before€the€jury€heard€any€information€regarding€the€case,Ïincluding€the€petitionerððs€name.ÌÌà àThe€post„conviction€court,€noting€that€counsel€challenged€the€admission€ofÏthe€transcript€at€trial€and€on€direct€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court,€found€thatÏcounselððs€failure€to€consult€with€this€type€of€expert€did€not€constitute€ineffectiveÏassistance.€€Counsel€testified€that€they€never€considered€using€this€type€ofÏexpert€in€support€of€their€pretrial€motion.€€Counselððs€actions€in€this€instance€didÏnot€fall€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€in€criminal€cases.€€CounselÏdid€indeed€complain€that€the€transcript€was€prejudicial€because€the€content€ofÏthe€tape€was€in€dispute,€but€the€Supreme€Court€found€no€error,€in€part€becauseÏthe€trial€court€properly€instructed€the€jury€that€any€discrepancies€should€beÏresolved€in€favor€of€the€tape.€€As€the€state€observes,€because€the€trial€courtÏfollowed€the€proper€legal€procedures€regarding€the€transcript,€the€testimony€of€Dr.ÏOhde€would€not€have€caused€a€different€result.€€Moreover,€Dr.€Ohde€admittedÏthat€the€only€way€to€be€sure€the€jury€relied€solely€upon€what€they€heard€on€theÏtape€would€be€to€play€the€tape,€in€essence,€before€the€trial€started.€€It€is€highlyÏunlikely€any€attorney€could€reasonably€expect€this€type€of€concession€from€aÍtrial€court.€€The€petitioner€has€simply€failed€to€prove€how€counsel€was€ineffectiveÏin€this€respect.ÌÌà àIn€a€related€matter,€the€petitioner€contends€counsel€were€ineffectiveÏbecause€they€failed€to€discover€that€the€state€apparently€made€several€drafts€ofÏthe€transcript€of€the€911€call.€€Although€one€counsel€stated€he€did€not€rememberÏif€he€was€ever€shown€the€different€drafts€of€the€transcript,€he€testified€that€theyÏindependently€consulted€someone€who€informed€them€that€the€tape€recordingÏcould€not€be€made€any€clearer€and€that€it€had€not€been€doctored€or€edited.€€AllÏof€the€drafts€of€the€transcript€at€issue€contain€the€petitionerððs€name.€€We€noteÏthat€the€petitioner€did€not€seek€to€have€the€tape€examined€during€the€post„conviction€proceeding€to€determine€whether€or€not€the€petitionerððs€nameÏappeared€in€the€recording.€€The€petitioner€does€not€explain€how€the€introductionÏof€all€the€various€drafts,€each€identifying€him€as€the€assailant,€would€haveÏaffected€the€outcome€when€the€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€that€the€tape€itself,Ïnot€the€transcript,€was€the€evidence,€and€when€counsel€had€confirmed€that€theÏtape€had€not€been€altered.ÌÌÓ  Ó(5)€Communication€Between€Counsel€and€PetitionerÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€states€that€he€never€intended€to€waive€any€issue€at€trial€orÏon€appeal.€€The€petitioner€suggests€the€ð ðfact€that€[he]€did€not€knowingly€waiveÏany€issue€demonstrates€the€prejudice€prong€of€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€analysis.ðð€€The€petitioner€claims€he€would€not€have€waived€the€allegedÏconflict€between€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office€and€a€potential€witness€if€he€hadÏknown€counsel€was€going€to€accept€the€crime€scene€analysis,€concede€the€timeÏof€death,€fail€to€use€an€independent€medical€examiner€or€forensic€scientist,€andÏfail€to€have€the€broken€knife€tested.€€However,€the€petitioner€has€failed€toÏdemonstrate€how€his€voluntary€waiver€of€the€potential€conflict€connotesÏineffectiveness€on€behalf€of€counsel.€€Counsel€testified€that€they€provided€theÏpetitioner€with€the€best€possible€defense€given€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€ÏAgain,€there€is€a€strong€presumption€that€counselððs€conduct€falls€within€theÏrange€of€competence€demanded,€and€the€petitioner€has€simply€failed€toÏovercome€the€presumption€in€this€respect.€This€claim€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Ó(6)€Failure€to€Object€to€Improper€ArgumentsÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€petitioner€also€alleges€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€objectÏto€certain€improper€and€inflammatory€statements€the€prosecutor€made€duringÏopening€and€closing€arguments.€€Counsel€testified€that€they€did€not€make€theÏdecision€before€trial€not€to€object€to€any€of€the€stateððs€argument.€€However,Ícounsel€further€testified€that,€although€he€does€not€remember€why€he€did€notÏobject€to€specific€statements,€he€does€not€always€object€during€the€stateððsÏargument€because€it€merely€prolongs€the€prosecutorððs€argument€and€possiblyÏemphasizes€the€stateððs€position.ÌÌà àNothing€in€the€record€demonstrates€that€counsel€undertook€an€uninformedÏtrial€strategy€in€this€case.€€Even€though€it€is€possible€different€counsel€may€haveÏchosen€another€tactic,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€counselððs€lack€ofÏobjections€during€argument€in€this€case€would€have€resulted€in€a€different€verdict.€ÏFor€example,€the€petitioner€argues€that€counsel€should€have€objected€duringÏargument€to€the€prosecutorððs€description€of€the€petitionerððs€former€place€ofÏemployment€as€a€slaughterhouse.€€Counsel,€however,€testified€that€theyÏunsuccessfully€moved€before€trial€to€prevent€the€state€from€using€this€type€ofÏdescription.€€Moreover,€the€Supreme€Court€considered€the€propriety€of€theseÏstatements€on€direct€appeal€in€this€case€and€found€no€error.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868ÏS.W.2d€561,€578„79€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€jury€was€properly€instructed€on€the€lawÏto€be€applied€and€was€informed€that€counselððs€argument€should€not€beÏconsidered€evidence.€€It€is€well„settled€law€that€the€jury€is€presumed€to€haveÏfollowed€these€instructions.€€òòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€695€S.W.2d€202,€204€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1985).€€ÌÌà àDespite€his€blanket€allegations,€the€petitioner€has€simply€failed€to€carry€hisÏburden€in€this€instance.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€adequately€demonstrate€thatÏthe€prosecutorððs€brief€and€limited€statements€would€require€reversal€of€hisÏsentence€or€conviction€in€light€of€the€overwhelming€evidence€against€him.€€òòSeeóóÏòòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,€759€(Tenn.€1965);€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670ÏS.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€__€S.W.2d€__,€No.Ï02S01„9612„CC„00108€(Tenn.€Mar.€23,€1998)€(for€publication)€(isolatedÏstatements€in€present€case€are€not€as€egregious€as€lengthy€argument€inÏòòCauthernóó,€which€was€not€found€to€be€reversible€error).ÌÌÓ  Ó(7)€Failure€to€Object€to€Jury€InstructionsÌÌÓ  Óà àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏobject€to€certain€jury€instructions€given€during€the€guilt€and€sentencing€phases€ofÏthe€trial.€€Although€the€petitioner€contends€the€jury€instructions€warrant€reversal,Ïhe€has€failed€to€cite€any€relevant€case€law€specifically€holding€these€instructionsÏerroneous.€€Below€is€a€summary€of€the€contested€instructions,€all€of€which€haveÏbeen€upheld€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court:€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruelÏaggravating€circumstance€(òòState€v.€Blackóó,€815€S.W.2d€166,€182€(Tenn.€1991)),Ïreasonable€doubt€(òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994)),Ïassessing€credibility€of€witnesses,€œeffect›€of€mitigating€evidence€(òòState€v.€Smithóó,Í857€S.W.2d€1,€16„17€(Tenn.€1994)),€premeditation€and€deliberation€(òòState€v.ÏBrownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€1992)€(Court€did€not€hold€instructionÏunconstitutional)),€expert€testimony€(òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€834€S.W.2d€54,€70€(Tenn.Ï1992)),€elements€of€underlying€felony€in€felony€murder€(òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877ÏS.W.2d€722,€735€(Tenn.€1994)€(not€error€for€failing€to€reinstruct)).€€Accordingly,Ïcounselððs€performance€in€this€respect€was€adequate.ÌÌÓ  Ó(8)€Appellate€CounselÌÌÓ  Óà àFinally,€in€an€apparent€effort€to€avoid€the€waiver€and€previousÏdetermination€provisions€of€the€post„conviction€statute,€the€petitioner€claims€thatÏhe€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€because€his€appellate€counsel€failed€to€raise€issuesÏregarding€jury€instructions,€prosecutorial€misconduct,€and€the€constitutionality€ofÏthe€death€penalty.€€The€post„conviction€court,€noting€that€the€petitioner€is€boundÏby€the€action€or€inaction€of€counsel,€found€that€these€issues€have€beenÏpreviously€determined€or€waived.€€òòSeeóó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€710„14Ï(Tenn.€1995).€€ÌÌà àAppellate€counsel€testified€that€he€spent€at€least€two€hundred€hours€onÏthe€appeal€and€met€with€the€petitioner€three€or€four€times€during€the€appellateÏprocess.€€And€although€counsel€stated€the€petitioner€wanted€him€to€focus€onÍissues€pertaining€to€the€guilt€phase,€counsel€testified€that€he€raised€everyÏlegitimate€issue€on€appeal.€€Of€course,€there€is€no€constitutional€requirement€thatÏan€attorney€argue€every€issue€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Draperóó,€800€S.W.2d€489,Ï498€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€As€noted€above,€none€of€the€contestedÏinstructions€appear€to€be€erroneous.€€Moreover,€since€counsel€did€not€object€toÏthe€instructions€at€trial,€these€issues€would€have€been€considered€waived€onÏappeal.€€òòSee,e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€924€S.W.2d€912,€916€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€also€contends€it€was€error€for€appellate€counsel€not€toÏchallenge€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€give€the€jury€all€of€the€petitionerððs€requestedÏinstructions,€specifically:€€consideration€of€mercy,€life€equals€life,€mitigatingÏevidence€is€not€an€excuse,€mitigation€circumstance€of€lingering€doubt,€and€thatÏthe€petitionerððs€cooperation€with€the€authorities€should€be€considered€asÏmitigating€evidence.€€Counsel,€however,€testified€that€he€did€not€think€he€wouldÏhave€succeeded€by€raising€these€issues€on€appeal.€€Moreover,€the€petitionerÏhas€failed€to€cite€to€any€relevant€authority€holding€that€failure€to€provide€theseÏinstructions€was€prejudicial.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908,€921Ï(Tenn.€1994)€(mercy€instruction€not€required);€òòState€v.€Caughronóó,€855€S.W.2dÏ526,€543€(Tenn.€1993)€(life€equals€life€instruction€not€required);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€253,€268€(Tenn.€1994)€(trial€court€not€required€to€instruct€on€non„statutory€mitigators).€€Again,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€how€the€appeal€ofÏhis€conviction€and€sentence€would€have€differed€had€counsel€raised€theseÏseemingly€meritless€issues.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏchallenge€the€alleged€improper€conduct€of€the€prosecutors.€€Of€course,€becauseÏtrial€counsel€did€not€object€to€any€of€the€prosecutorððs€argument,€appellateÏcounsel€would€have€been€precluded€from€raising€the€issues€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a);€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€862€S.W.2d€574,€578€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€Nonetheless,€as€stated€above,€appellate€counsel€testified€that,Ïeven€though€he€would€raise€more€issues€in€a€capital€case€versus€a€non„capitalÏcase,€he€raised€every€issue€he€deemed€legitimate€in€this€case.€€The€directÏappeal€brief€filed€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner€is€almost€two€hundred€pages€longÏand€raises€twenty€issues,€some€of€which€contain€sub„issues.€€Counsel€wasÏobviously€very€thorough€in€his€preparation€of€the€appeal,€and€there€is€nothing€toÏsuggest€counsel€inadvertently€omitted€valid€issues.€€Furthermore,€even€if€some€ofÏthe€statements€the€petitioner€complains€about€may€have€been€improper,€theÏpetitioner€has€failed€to€adequately€demonstrate€that€these€brief€and€limitedÏstatements€would€require€reversal€of€his€sentence€or€conviction€in€light€of€theÏoverwhelming€evidence€against€him.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarrington€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2d€758,Ï759€(Tenn.€1965);€òòState€v.€Buckóó,€670€S.W.2d€600,€609€(Tenn.€1984);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÍòòState€v.€Cauthernóó,€__€S.W.2d€__,€No.€02S01„9612„CC„00108€(Tenn.€Mar.€23,Ï1998)€(for€publication)€(isolated€statements€in€present€case€are€not€as€egregiousÏas€lengthy€argument€in€òòCauthernóó,€which€was€not€found€to€be€reversible€error).ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€also€claims€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏchallenge€the€constitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€statute.€€Contrary€to€theÏpetitionerððs€claim,€the€brief€filed€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner€on€direct€appeal€didÏattack€certain€aspects€of€the€death€penalty€statute.€€As€the€petitioner€himselfÏacknowledges,€however,€the€courts€of€this€state€have€repeatedly€upheld€theÏvalidity€of€the€statute€in€the€face€of€similar€challenges.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Blackóó,Ï815€S.W.2d€166€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àð ðJudicial€scrutiny€of€counselððs€performance€must€be€highly€deferential.ðð€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2065,€80€L.€Ed.€2dÏ674€(1984).€€€ð ðA€ððfair€assessment€.€.€.€requires€that€every€effort€be€made€toÏeliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€ofÏcounselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselððsÏperspective€at€the€time.ðððð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)Ï(quoting€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689).€€The€mere€failure€of€a€particular€tactic€orÏstrategy€does€not€òòperóó€òòseóó€establish€unreasonable€representation.€€òòId.óó€€ð ðTheÏbenchmark€for€judging€any€claim€of€ineffectiveness€must€be€whether€counselððsÍconduct€so€undermined€the€proper€functioning€of€the€adversarial€process€that€theÏtrial€cannot€be€relied€on€as€having€produced€a€just€result.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ïat€686.€€The€petitioner€has€failed€to€carry€his€burden€in€this€case.€€After€reviewingÏthe€entire€record€on€appeal,€we€find€that€counsel€was€not€ineffective€in€theirÏrepresentation€of€the€petitioner€in€this€case€and€the€evidence€does€not,€therefore,Ïpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ÌÌà@ àò òREMAINING€ISSUESó óÌÌà àTo€the€extent€the€petitioner€challenges€the€jury€instructions,€prosecutionÏargument,€and€the€constitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€statute€outside€theÏscope€of€the€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel€claim,€these€issuesÏhave€either€been€waived€or€previously€determined.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112;€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705€(Tenn.€1995).€€Nonetheless,€asÏdiscussed€above,€there€were€no€constitutional€errors€in€the€instructions,€or€lackÏthereof,€or€prosecution€argument.€€Similarly,€the€petitionerððs€issues€regardingÏadmissibility€of€the€transcript€of€the€911€tape,€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€and€theÏissues€raised€in€the€direct€appeal€have€all€been€previously€determined.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112;€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà@ àò òCONCLUSIONó óÌÌà àThe€record€fully€supports€the€post„conviction€courtððs€findings€andÏconclusions.€€The€petitioner€has€not€met€his€burden€of€proof.€€We€conclude,Ïtherefore,€that€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€properly€denied.€ÏAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€sentence€of€death€by€electrocution€shall€be€carried€out€onÏSeptember€30,€1998,€unless€otherwise€stayed€by€an€appropriate€order.ÌÌÓ  Óà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE