ÿWPCÈA ÞÀm‰X™&Õ[B®ºúZK®1«ôX€Ê"°àˆ©ÉÃYéJ¶Òð¹â Q…ÜNŽ¿Ì3“víÝ XBüøë´ÐKu0JeCý¤ŸÊ ¿ÃvU—ß U£@{`—KyBjеŒƒwªkŠŒa7*´¹C"¤’"-ô»ž¸n‚ò2åGð<™¶* 8It¨´QÝdd)¤·ýÑö3+ôeYžïƒ RUH2~ÐÁ¥Å•L1çzq†$,†ÑÓþµÊ ãY4aa –3)™9õˆ£®Z="hŒ1¢p¨›M +ž¯ õn‘'oPìÕËY©Ohæ±Aé^{ï[Ýü«âY£ÃŒ+p« ;€8Ûb¡—.=2€JüqZ"ù¡“òŒÖät¢艫U¬{œH>Žà;ø}KÐs«Ù´ºJµðr:EbÉ© k†è6ÔØNp›;àÜĸ.¶cçñãA^( Xôº=¨;χxö®lûVâ±Ùv€NˆºXG0Ûo·–ûy4òø,le85×êg럕 ÷ÇNUùÀø„ùW–Ö/z í,ºÿ\Q»F«ŒÊ3y è ,duV ›‰ëyó–vÁÈäà – 4\f %”w@š 0ÜÚU/:¶ 4ð  U: M »U 01  0D02t`¦ O& D3U)ùˆ)U:-Ú »-é•8g~9åR1æUwZªŽ\U:8_þr_U:pcbªcý kÔ o BÝqäúqËÞtO©wxø~pU:‰ljU:H‘¶‚‘U:8˜¡r˜*›4= U:q§Õ «§¶ €³U:6¿U:p¿¬ª¿«VÂÅU:ÉU:WÉê‘ÉU:{ÌU:µÌïÌU: ÔU:EÔ<ÔU:»ÜU:õÜÕ/ÝU:äU:>äÿxäU:wô]±ô-øU:;ýÚuýU:OU:‰÷ÃU:º*ôU: X U:t ή U:|§ ¶U:]é— AQ€ÆÑ 0D— 0DÛÆU:å!±"U:Ð$h %U:r> 0D¬> D/ð> B?) Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àto€get€a€grasp€on€things.ðð ÷Ô‡ôùôXXÔÝ ƒ ¤˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7Àl½XXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€State€concedes€that€defense€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€present€adequateÐ  Ðproof€at€the€hearing€held€to€determine€whether,€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€appellant€could€receive€aÏsentence€of€death. 'Ô‡ôùôXXÔÝ ƒ ¤˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7Àl½XXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAgain,€the€appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€on€April€18,€1995.€Ð  ÐBecause€it€was€filed€prior€to€May€10,€1995,€it€is€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„101€òòet€seq.óóРƾ Ð(òòrepealedóó€1995),€rather€than€the€revised€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð †~ Ð30„210€òòet€seq.óó€(1997).€€Under€the€current€statute,€the€standard€is€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€Ð F > ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f). mÔ‡ôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defense€team€consisted€of€Robert€Jones€(lead€counsel),€Carolyn€Watkins€(co„Ð  Ðcounsel),€and€two€staff€investigators.  Ô‡ôùôXXÔÝ ƒ ¤˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7Àl½XXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€defense€team€consisted€of€Robert€Jones€(lead€counsel),€Carolyn€Watkins€(co„Ð  Ðcounsel),€and€two€staff€investigators.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ôÔ‡ôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAgain,€the€appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€on€April€18,€1995.€Ð  ÐBecause€it€was€filed€prior€to€May€10,€1995,€it€is€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„101€òòet€seq.óóРƾ Ð(òòrepealedóó€1995),€rather€than€the€revised€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„Ð †~ Ð30„210€òòet€seq.óó€(1997).€€Under€the€current€statute,€the€standard€is€ð ðclear€and€convincing€evidence.ðð€Ð F > ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular XÝ ƒ ¤˜$ÝÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôùôXXÔÔ‡ô!ü ôôôùÔHe€contends€that€either€the€prosecution,€defense€counsel,€or€the€court€should€haveÐ  Ðquestioned€the€jurors€regarding:Ìà8 ` à(1)€whether€the€jurors€€would€be€able€to€consider€mitigating€evidence€and€a€lifeÏsentence€if€they€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€first„degree€murder;€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(2)€whether€the€jurors€would€be€able€to€consider€mitigating€evidence€and€a€lifeÏsentence€after€first€finding€the€defendant€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€and€thenÏfinding€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€one€or€more€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(3)€whether€the€jurors€were€capable€of€understanding€what€mitigatingÏcircumstances€mean;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(4)€whether€the€jurors€were€capable€of€understanding€the€different€burdens€ofÏproof€for€the€prosecution€in€the€proof€of€aggravating€circumstances€versus€that€forÏthe€defense€in€the€proof€of€the€mitigating€circumstances;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(5)€whether€the€jurors€were€capable€of€understanding€their€obligations€concerningÏthe€difference€between€the€unanimity€requirement€of€the€juryððs€verdict€in€theÏdetermination€of€aggravating€circumstances€versus€that€in€the€determination€ofÏthe€mitigating€circumstances;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(6)€whether€the€jurors€were€capable€of€the€ð ðweighingðð€of€the€aggravating€and€theÏmitigating€circumstances,€e.g.,€that€it€is€a€qualitative,€not€a€quantitative€analysis;ÏandÐ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(7)€whether€the€jurors€were€capable€of€understanding€the€instructions€with€regardÏto€non„enumerated€mitigating€circumstances.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓà ` àÔ#†ôùô ôô!üp#Ô óÝ ƒ ¤˜$ÝÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôùôXXÔÔ‡ô!ü ôôôùÔWhen€this€letter€was€written,€the€appellant€had€not€been€indicted€for€murder.€€The€letterÐ  Ðprovides€in€pertinent€part:€€Ìà8 ` àAs€you€can€see,€Willie€Cox€has€furnished€valuable€information€on€numerousÏoccasions€and€has€never,€to€my€knowledge,€asked€for€anything€in€return.€€He€hasÏdeveloped€into€a€good,€reliable€source€of€information,€and€I€would€appreciate€anyÏassistance€in€this€case€that€you€deem€feasible.€€Willie€Lee€Cox,€Jr.,€male€black,Ïdate€of€birth€2„9„69,€is€presently€incarcerated€in€the€Shelby€County€jail€for€secondÏdegree€murder,€reckless€driving,€driving€while€license€revoked/suspended€underÐ B :  Ðbooking€number€90091080.€€The€second€degree€murder€case€is€set€in€division€5Ïfor€8„14€of€ðð90,€and€the€other€charges€are€set€in€division€3€for€9„4„90.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÔ#†ôùô ôô!üp#Ô ÊÔ‡ôùôXXÔÝ ƒ ¤˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7Àl½XXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAllegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€raised€under€this€heading€areÐ  Ðaddressed€generally€under€the€heading€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel. d ÚÔ‡ôùôXXÔÝ ƒ ¤˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7Àl½XXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIndeed,€as€observed€by€Justice€Reid€in€his€separate€concurring/dissenting€opinion€in€theÐ  Ðdirect€appeal,€ð ðthis€[was€a]€poorly€tried€case.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€928 ÁÝ ƒ ¤˜$ÝÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôùôXXÔÔ‡ô!ü ôôôùÔHARRIS:€Now,€just€so€the€jury€will€have€the€context€of€your€conversation,€you€were€inÐ  Ðtrouble,€werenððt€you?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes,€sir.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€In€fact,€youððve€been€in€trouble€several€times,€havenððt€you?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes,€sir.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€And€youððve€done€time€yourself€for€a€homicide,€have€you€not?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes,€sir.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€One€you€were€guilty€of?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes,€sir.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€All€right.€€And€it€was€voluntary€manslaughter;€is€that€correct?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes,€sir. EÔ‡ôùôXXÔÝ ƒ ¤˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7Àl½XXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOn€cross„examination:Ð  Ðà ` àÔ‡ô!ü ôôôùÔWATKINS:€And€you€talked€to€the€police€because€you€yourself€had€gotten€in€trouble?Рƾ Ðà ` àCOX:€Yeah.Ìà ` àWATKINS:€You€were€trying€to€make€a€deal?Ìà ` àCOX:€No,€it€wasnððt€really€a€deal.Ìà ` àWATKINS:€It€wasnððt€really€a€deal,€but€you€thought€it€might€be€a€deal?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yeah.Ìà ` à.€.€.Ìà ` àWATKINS:€Voluntary€manslaughter;€is€that€correct,€Mr.€Cox?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yeah.€€Yes,€maððam.€€Ìà ` àWATKINS:€How€much€jail€time€did€you€do?Ìà ` àCOX:€Six€months.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€Your€Honor,€Iððm€going€to€object€as€being€irrelevant.Ìà ` àCOURT:€Sustained.Ìà ` àAnd,€again€on€recross„examination:ÌÔ#†ôùô ôô!üM#ÔÔ‡ô!ü ôôôùÔà ` àWATKINS:€At€the€time€you€made€your€statement,€Mr.€Cox,€you€were€really€charged€with€aÐ ¶®  Ðà ` àmurder€in€the€second€degree,€werenððt€you?€€Ìà ` àHARRIS:€Your€Honor,€Iððm€going€to€object€to€that.Ìà ` àCOURT:€Sustained.€€The€objection€is€sustained.Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes.€€Ìà ` àCOURT:€The€objection€is€sustained.€€The€jury€[sic]€disregard€the€answer.€€Ô#†ôùô ôô!üJ#ÔÔ‡ô!ü ôôôùÔ nÔ‡%ôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€%ôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€both€òòOdomóó€and€the€instant€case€involve€both€the€same€trial€judge€and€theÐ  Ðsame€clinical€psychologist. Ý ƒ ¤˜$ÝÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôùôXXÔÔ‡ô!ü ôôôùÔThe€evidence€produced€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€established€the€followingÐ  Ðchronology€of€events:€€Ìà ` à07„03„89à  àThe€murder€of€Olive€Brewer.Ð ˜ Ðà ` à05„29„90à  àCox€indicted€for€second€degree€murder.Ð ` X Ðà ` à07„25„90à  àGeneral€Peterson€offered€Cox€fifteen€years€for€second€degree€murder€Ð (  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àwhich€was€rejected€by€Cox.Ìà ` à07„30„90à  àCox€informs€the€Memphis€Police€Department€that€the€appellant€murderedÐ ¸ ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àMs.€Brewer.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àThe€appellant€had€not€been€charged.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àOfficer€Cook€sends€letter€to€District€Attorney€Stanton€requesting€leniency€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àfor€Cox.Ìà ` à08„07„90à  àGeneral€Stanton€offers€three€years.Ð  ˜  Ðà ` à08„13„90à  àCox€pled€guilty€to€three€years€for€voluntary€manslaughter.Ð h`  Ðà ` à09„05„90à  àGeneral€Pierotti€recommends€suspended€sentence€and€dismissal€of€Ð 0(  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àdriving€charges€for€Cox.Ìà ` à09„20„90à  àCoxððs€three€year€sentence€was€suspended.Ð À¸  Ðà ` à03„07„91à  àPetition€to€revoke€Coxððs€probation€for€cocaine€use€was€denied€by€the€Ð ˆ€  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àcourt.Ìà ` à09„24„91à  àThe€appellantððs€trial€at€which€Cox€testified.à  àÐ  Ðà ` à10„14„91à  àPetition€to€revoke€Coxððs€probation€for€theft€of€property€was€withdrawn€by€Ð àØ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àthe€State.à À àÐ ¨  Ðà ` à03„30„92à  àPetition€to€revoke€Coxððs€probation€was€granted.€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular wÝ ƒ  ­$ÝÔ€'XlXXXÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡'ôSÝôXXlÔÔ‡)ôÁƒ ôôôSÝÔHe€contends€that€either€the€prosecution,€defense€counsel,€or€the€court€should€haveÐ  Ðquestioned€the€jurors€regarding:Ìà8 ` à(1)€whether€the€jurors€€would€be€able€to€consider€mitigating€evidence€and€a€lifeÏsentence€if€they€found€the€defendant€guilty€of€first„degree€murder;€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(2)€whether€the€jurors€would€be€able€to€consider€mitigating€evidence€and€a€lifeÏsentence€after€first€finding€the€defendant€guilty€of€first€degree€murder€and€thenÏfinding€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€the€existence€of€one€or€more€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(3)€whether€the€jurors€were€capable€of€understanding€what€mitigatingÏcircumstances€mean;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(4)€whether€the€jurors€were€capable€of€understanding€the€different€burdens€ofÏproof€for€the€prosecution€in€the€proof€of€aggravating€circumstances€versus€that€forÏthe€defense€in€the€proof€of€the€mitigating€circumstances;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(5)€whether€the€jurors€were€capable€of€understanding€their€obligations€concerningÏthe€difference€between€the€unanimity€requirement€of€the€juryððs€verdict€in€theÏdetermination€of€aggravating€circumstances€versus€that€in€the€determination€ofÏthe€mitigating€circumstances;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(6)€whether€the€jurors€were€capable€of€the€ð ðweighingðð€of€the€aggravating€and€theÏmitigating€circumstances,€e.g.,€that€it€is€a€qualitative,€not€a€quantitative€analysis;ÏandÐ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(7)€whether€the€jurors€were€capable€of€understanding€the€instructions€with€regardÏto€non„enumerated€mitigating€circumstances.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌÓÓà ` àÔ#†'ôSÝô ôôÁƒ#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ¬Ý ƒ ¤˜$ÝÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôùôXXÔÔ‡ô!ü ôôôùÔIn€òòGiglioóó,€405€U.S.€at€152,€92€S.Ct.€at€765,€an€Asst.€U.S.€Attorney€promised€a€witnessÐ  Ðthat€he€would€not€be€prosecuted,€while€the€subsequent€attorney€in€charge€of€the€case€was€notÏaware€that€a€deal€had€been€made€by€the€former€assistant.€€The€Supreme€Court€held:Ìà8 ` à[N]either€DiPaolaððs€[Asst.€U.S.€Attorney]€authority€nor€his€failure€to€inform€hisÏsuperiors€or€his€associates€is€controlling.€€Moreover,€whether€the€nondisclosureÏwas€a€result€of€negligence€or€design,€it€is€the€responsibility€of€the€prosecutor.€€TheÏprosecutorððs€office€is€an€entity€and€as€such€it€is€the€spokesman€for€theÏGovernment.€€A€promise€made€by€one€attorney€must€be€attributed,€for€theseÏpurposes,€to€the€Government.€€(Citations€omitted).€€òòId.óó,€405€U.S.€at€154,€92€S.Ct.Ð H @ Ðat€766.€€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà ` àWe€note€that€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€recognized€that€without€this€witnessððsÏtestimony€there€would€have€been€no€indictment€or€enough€evidence€to€present€the€case€to€theÏjury.€€òòId.óó,€405€U.S.€at€154„155,€92€S.Ct.€at€766.€€Therefore,€that€witnessððs€credibility€was€critical€toÐ 0(  Ðthis€case€and€any€agreement€for€leniency€from€the€prosecution€would€have€been€pertinent€inÏdeciding€his€credibility.€€òòId.óó€€However,€in€the€case€before€us,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€notedÐ À¸  Ðthat,€ð ð[t]he€Defendantððs€confession€to€his€niece€and€the€presence€of€his€fingerprints€in€the€bedroomÏcorroborated€Coxððs€testimony.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€924.€€€, øð AZ"Arial Regular —Ô‡-ôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€-ôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAllegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€raised€under€this€heading€areÐ  Ðaddressed€generally€under€the€heading€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel. Ô‡ôùôXXÔÝ ƒ ¤˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7Àl½XXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€death€penalty€may€not€be€imposed€where€the€defendant€is€mentally€retarded.€€òòSeeóó€Ð  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203(b).€€To€prove€that€he€is€ineligible€for€a€death€sentence,€a€defendantÏhas€the€burden€of€showing,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€(1)€he€has€a€functional€I.Q.Ïof€seventy€(70)€or€below;€(2)€he€exhibits€deficits€in€adaptive€behavior;€and€(3)€that€the€mentalÏretardation€manifested€during€the€defendantððs€developmental€period,€or€by€age€eighteen€(18).€ÏòòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203(a).€€Ð ¾ ¶ ÐÌà ` àOn€direct€appeal,€our€supreme€court€determined€that€the€appellant€failed€to€prove€ð ðdeficitsÏin€his€adaptive€behavior.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€918.€Ô#†Xl½Xôôù#Ô *Ô‡ôùôXXÔÝ ƒ ¤˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7Àl½XXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSee,€e.g.óó,€€òòSeidel€v.€Merkleóó,€146€F.3d€750,€755€(9th€Cir.€1998)€(ineffective€performanceÐ  Ðwhen€trial€counsel€failed€to€conduct€any€investigation€at€all€into€his€clientððs€psychiatric€history€andÏtherefore€neglected€to€pursue€a€potentially€successful€defense),€òòpetition€for€cert.€filedóó,€No.€98„433Ð „| Ð(U.S.€Sept.€10,€1998);€òòDeutscher€v.€Whitleyóó,884€F.2d€1152,€1159„1160€(9th€Cir.€1989),€òòvacated€onÐ B : Ðother€groundsóó,€500€U.S.€901,€111€S.Ct.€1678€(1991)€(Counsel€made€no€tactical€decision€not€toÐ  ø Ðinvestigate€the€defendantððs€possible€mental€impairment.€€He€simply€failed€to€do€so.);€òòEvans€v.Ð ¾ ¶ ÐLewisóó,€855€F.2d€€631,€637€(9th€Cir.€1988)€(counselððs€failure€to€pursue€the€possibility€of€establishingÐ | t Ðthe€defendantððs€mental€instability€constituted€deficient€performance);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBloom€v.€Calderonóó,Ð : 2 Ð132€F.3d€1267,€1277€(9th€Cir.€1997),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€„„€U.S.€„„,€118€S.Ct.€1856€(1998);€€òòHendricks€v.Ð ø ð ÐCalderonóó,€70€F.3d€1032„1044€(9th€Cir.€1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€517€U.S.€1111,€116€S.Ct.€1335€(1996);Ð ¶ ®  ÐòòMaddox€v.€Lordóó,€818€F.2d€1058,€1061„1062€(2d€Cir.€1987).,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ë Ý ƒ  ­$ÝÔ€0XlXXXÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡0ôSÝôXXlÔÔ‡1ôÁƒ ôôôSÝÔJONES:€Your€Honor,€this€is€definitely€exculpatory€information.€€We€havenððt€had€anÐ  Ðopportunity€to€check€out.€€We€would€ask€the€Court€to€allow€us€time€to€check€this€out€before€we€goÏforward.Ìà ` àCOURT:€Mr.€Jones,€youððve€had€since€October€the€19th,€1990,€to€have€hearings€onÏmotions,€which€you€did€not€do.€€Youððve€waived€your€rights€to€have€a€hearing€on€the€motion.€€YouÏcan€have€all€the€time€you€want,€but€weððre€not€going€to€delay€the€trial€for€your€now€investigatingÏsomething€you€should€have€done€in€October€of€1990.€€Ìà ` àJONES:€Your€Honor,€this€information€was€not€available€to€us.Ìà ` àCOURT:€It€was€certainly€available€under€the€discovery€procedures.Ìà ` àJONES:€Your€Honor,€it€wasnððt€turned€over€to€us.Ìà ` àCOURT:€If€you€didnððt€make€a€motion€to€hear€the€motion€on€it,€Mr.€Jones.Ìà ` àJONES:€The€discovery€only€requires€a€request,€and€it€was€filed€in€October.€€We€didÏrequest€it.€€We€didnððt€get€it.€€Also€we€have€numerous€Jencks€Act€statements€or€supplements€here.€€Ìà ` àCOURT:€You€didnððt€ask€for€Jencks€Act€by€way€of€a€motion€since€October€of€1990.Ìà ` àJONES:€Your€Honor,€the€rules€says€[sic]€that€the€Jencks€Act€is€supposed€to€be€turnedÏover€to€us€after€the€witness€testifies.€€Mr.€Harris€turned€it€over€to€us€about€an€hour€ago€becauseÏthey€were€numerous.€€Iððm€requesting€additional€time€to€review€this€because€of€the€exculpatoryÏinformation€that€Iððve€found€at€this€time,€your€Honor.€.€.€.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€First€of€all,€the€information€that€heððs€referring€to€the€supplements,€is€notÏexculpatory.€€The€people€that€are€„„€you€named,€the€people€that€are€„„€you€referred€to€are€notÏnamed.€€Itððs€hearsay.€€Itððs€one€party€saying€one€other€party€heard€a€third€party€say€something,€soÏitððs€at€least€third„hand€hearsay€and€that€„„€and€itððs€not€exculpatory€because€itððs€not€admissibleÏevidence,€number€one.€€Number€two,€we€gave€the€Jencks€Act€material€to€him€on€this€oneÏparticular€witness€at€ten€oððclock€this€morning€for€him€to€review€so€we€would€not€delay€the€trial.€€IÏwould€suggest,€your€Honor,€that€he€do€exactly€what€Mr.€Carter€and€I€are€going€to€have€to€doÏduring€lunch,€that€is,€work€on€the€case.€€.€.€.€I€called€him€and€got€in€touch€with€him€as€soon€as€IÏcould€this€morning€and€gave€it€to€him,€and€heððs€had€it.€€We€gave€it€to€him.€€Your€Honor,€heððs€notÏentitled€to€read€it€anyway€until€after€the€witnesses€testify.€€We€gave€it€to€him€to€accommodate€theÏCourt€and€jury€so€they€wouldnððt€have€to€sit€here€and€so€your€Honor€wouldnððt€have€to€sit€here€andÏwatch€him€read€thirty€or€forty€supplements.€€Thatððs€why€we€did€that,€to€facilitate€the€case.€€Ìà ` àCOURT:€Weððll€go€forward€with€the€trial,€Mr.€Jones.€€You€will€have€plenty€of€time€if€you€wantÏto€exercise€your€time€judiciously.€€ ¬ Ý ƒ ¤˜$ÝÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôùôXXÔÔ‡ô!ü ôôôùÔJONES:€Your€Honor,€this€is€definitely€exculpatory€information.€€We€havenððt€had€anÐ  Ðopportunity€to€check€out.€€We€would€ask€the€Court€to€allow€us€time€to€check€this€out€before€we€goÏforward.Ìà ` àCOURT:€Mr.€Jones,€youððve€had€since€October€the€19th,€1990,€to€have€hearings€onÏmotions,€which€you€did€not€do.€€Youððve€waived€your€rights€to€have€a€hearing€on€the€motion.€€YouÏcan€have€all€the€time€you€want,€but€weððre€not€going€to€delay€the€trial€for€your€now€investigatingÏsomething€you€should€have€done€in€October€of€1990.€€Ìà ` àJONES:€Your€Honor,€this€information€was€not€available€to€us.Ìà ` àCOURT:€It€was€certainly€available€under€the€discovery€procedures.Ìà ` àJONES:€Your€Honor,€it€wasnððt€turned€over€to€us.Ìà ` àCOURT:€If€you€didnððt€make€a€motion€to€hear€the€motion€on€it,€Mr.€Jones.Ìà ` àJONES:€The€discovery€only€requires€a€request,€and€it€was€filed€in€October.€€We€didÏrequest€it.€€We€didnððt€get€it.€€Also€we€have€numerous€Jencks€Act€statements€or€supplements€here.€€Ìà ` àCOURT:€You€didnððt€ask€for€Jencks€Act€by€way€of€a€motion€since€October€of€1990.Ìà ` àJONES:€Your€Honor,€the€rules€says€[sic]€that€the€Jencks€Act€is€supposed€to€be€turnedÏover€to€us€after€the€witness€testifies.€€Mr.€Harris€turned€it€over€to€us€about€an€hour€ago€becauseÏthey€were€numerous.€€Iððm€requesting€additional€time€to€review€this€because€of€the€exculpatoryÏinformation€that€Iððve€found€at€this€time,€your€Honor.€.€.€.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€First€of€all,€the€information€that€heððs€referring€to€the€supplements,€is€notÏexculpatory.€€The€people€that€are€„„€you€named,€the€people€that€are€„„€you€referred€to€are€notÏnamed.€€Itððs€hearsay.€€Itððs€one€party€saying€one€other€party€heard€a€third€party€say€something,€soÏitððs€at€least€third„hand€hearsay€and€that€„„€and€itððs€not€exculpatory€because€itððs€not€admissibleÏevidence,€number€one.€€Number€two,€we€gave€the€Jencks€Act€material€to€him€on€this€oneÏparticular€witness€at€ten€oððclock€this€morning€for€him€to€review€so€we€would€not€delay€the€trial.€€IÏwould€suggest,€your€Honor,€that€he€do€exactly€what€Mr.€Carter€and€I€are€going€to€have€to€doÏduring€lunch,€that€is,€work€on€the€case.€€.€.€.€I€called€him€and€got€in€touch€with€him€as€soon€as€IÏcould€this€morning€and€gave€it€to€him,€and€heððs€had€it.€€We€gave€it€to€him.€€Your€Honor,€heððs€notÏentitled€to€read€it€anyway€until€after€the€witnesses€testify.€€We€gave€it€to€him€to€accommodate€theÏCourt€and€jury€so€they€wouldnððt€have€to€sit€here€and€so€your€Honor€wouldnððt€have€to€sit€here€andÏwatch€him€read€thirty€or€forty€supplements.€€Thatððs€why€we€did€that,€to€facilitate€the€case.€€Ìà ` àCOURT:€Weððll€go€forward€with€the€trial,€Mr.€Jones.€€You€will€have€plenty€of€time€if€you€wantÏto€exercise€your€time€judiciously.€€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular ¢Ô‡ô3æôXXÔÝ ƒ ó—ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7À,ŒXXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝContained€within€the€appellantððs€six€general€issues€are€ninety„one€plus€allegations€ofÐ  Ðerror€set€forth€as€sub„issues. ¡Ô‡ôùôXXÔÝ ƒ ¤˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7Àl½XXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€both€òòOdomóó€and€the€instant€case€involve€both€the€same€trial€judge€and€theÐ  Ðsame€clinical€psychologist. Ý ƒ  ­$ÝÔ€5XlXXXÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡5ôSÝôXXlÔÔ‡6ôÁƒ ôôôSÝÔWhen€this€letter€was€written,€the€appellant€had€not€been€indicted€for€murder.€€The€letterÐ  Ðprovides€in€pertinent€part:€€Ìà8 ` àAs€you€can€see,€Willie€Cox€has€furnished€valuable€information€on€numerousÏoccasions€and€has€never,€to€my€knowledge,€asked€for€anything€in€return.€€He€hasÏdeveloped€into€a€good,€reliable€source€of€information,€and€I€would€appreciate€anyÏassistance€in€this€case€that€you€deem€feasible.€€Willie€Lee€Cox,€Jr.,€male€black,Ïdate€of€birth€2„9„69,€is€presently€incarcerated€in€the€Shelby€County€jail€for€secondÏdegree€murder,€reckless€driving,€driving€while€license€revoked/suspended€underÐ € x  Ðbooking€number€90091080.€€The€second€degree€murder€case€is€set€in€division€5Ïfor€8„14€of€ðð90,€and€the€other€charges€are€set€in€division€3€for€9„4„90.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÔ#†5ôSÝô ôôÁƒ#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular àÝ ƒ  ­$ÝÔ€8XlXXXÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡8ôSÝôXXlÔÔ‡9ôÁƒ ôôôSÝÔHARRIS:€Now,€just€so€the€jury€will€have€the€context€of€your€conversation,€you€were€inÐ  Ðtrouble,€werenððt€you?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes,€sir.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€In€fact,€youððve€been€in€trouble€several€times,€havenððt€you?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes,€sir.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€And€youððve€done€time€yourself€for€a€homicide,€have€you€not?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes,€sir.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€One€you€were€guilty€of?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes,€sir.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€All€right.€€And€it€was€voluntary€manslaughter;€is€that€correct?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes,€sir.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular Ô‡;ôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€;ôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝOn€cross„examination:Ð  Ðà ` àÔ‡<ôÁƒ ôôôSÝÔWATKINS:€And€you€talked€to€the€police€because€you€yourself€had€gotten€in€trouble?Рƾ Ðà ` àCOX:€Yeah.Ìà ` àWATKINS:€You€were€trying€to€make€a€deal?Ìà ` àCOX:€No,€it€wasnððt€really€a€deal.Ìà ` àWATKINS:€It€wasnððt€really€a€deal,€but€you€thought€it€might€be€a€deal?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yeah.Ìà ` à.€.€.Ìà ` àWATKINS:€Voluntary€manslaughter;€is€that€correct,€Mr.€Cox?Ìà ` àCOX:€Yeah.€€Yes,€maððam.€€Ìà ` àWATKINS:€How€much€jail€time€did€you€do?Ìà ` àCOX:€Six€months.Ìà ` àHARRIS:€Your€Honor,€Iððm€going€to€object€as€being€irrelevant.Ìà ` àCOURT:€Sustained.Ìà ` àAnd,€again€on€recross„examination:ÌÔ#†;ôSÝô ôôÁƒ#ÔÔ‡<ôÁƒ ôôôSÝÔà ` àWATKINS:€At€the€time€you€made€your€statement,€Mr.€Cox,€you€were€really€charged€with€aÐ ¶®  Ðà ` àmurder€in€the€second€degree,€werenððt€you?€€Ìà ` àHARRIS:€Your€Honor,€Iððm€going€to€object€to€that.Ìà ` àCOURT:€Sustained.€€The€objection€is€sustained.Ìà ` àCOX:€Yes.€€Ìà ` àCOURT:€The€objection€is€sustained.€€The€jury€[sic]€disregard€the€answer.€€Ô#†;ôSÝô ôôÁƒ#ÔÔ‡<ôÁƒ ôôôSÝÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular 2Ý ƒ  ­$ÝÔ€>XlXXXÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡>ôSÝôXXlÔÔ‡?ôÁƒ ôôôSÝÔThe€evidence€produced€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€established€the€followingÐ  Ðchronology€of€events:€€Ìà ` à07„03„89à  àThe€murder€of€Olive€Brewer.Ð ˜ Ðà ` à05„29„90à  àCox€indicted€for€second€degree€murder.Ð ` X Ðà ` à07„25„90à  àGeneral€Peterson€offered€Cox€fifteen€years€for€second€degree€murder€Ð (  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àwhich€was€rejected€by€Cox.Ìà ` à07„30„90à  àCox€informs€the€Memphis€Police€Department€that€the€appellant€murderedÐ ¸ ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àMs.€Brewer.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àThe€appellant€had€not€been€charged.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àOfficer€Cook€sends€letter€to€District€Attorney€Stanton€requesting€leniency€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àfor€Cox.Ìà ` à08„07„90à  àGeneral€Stanton€offers€three€years.Ð  ˜  Ðà ` à08„13„90à  àCox€pled€guilty€to€three€years€for€voluntary€manslaughter.Ð h`  Ðà ` à09„05„90à  àGeneral€Pierotti€recommends€suspended€sentence€and€dismissal€of€Ð 0(  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àdriving€charges€for€Cox.Ìà ` à09„20„90à  àCoxððs€three€year€sentence€was€suspended.Ð À¸  Ðà ` à03„07„91à  àPetition€to€revoke€Coxððs€probation€for€cocaine€use€was€denied€by€the€Ð ˆ€  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àcourt.Ìà ` à09„24„91à  àThe€appellantððs€trial€at€which€Cox€testified.à  àÐ  Ðà ` à10„14„91à  àPetition€to€revoke€Coxððs€probation€for€theft€of€property€was€withdrawn€by€Ð àØ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àthe€State.à À àÐ ¨  Ðà ` à03„30„92à  àPetition€to€revoke€Coxððs€probation€was€granted.€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular ËÝ ƒ  ­$ÝÔ€AXlXXXÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡AôSÝôXXlÔÔ‡BôÁƒ ôôôSÝÔIn€òòGiglioóó,€405€U.S.€at€152,€92€S.Ct.€at€765,€an€Asst.€U.S.€Attorney€promised€a€witnessÐ  Ðthat€he€would€not€be€prosecuted,€while€the€subsequent€attorney€in€charge€of€the€case€was€notÏaware€that€a€deal€had€been€made€by€the€former€assistant.€€The€Supreme€Court€held:Ìà8 ` à[N]either€DiPaolaððs€[Asst.€U.S.€Attorney]€authority€nor€his€failure€to€inform€hisÏsuperiors€or€his€associates€is€controlling.€€Moreover,€whether€the€nondisclosureÏwas€a€result€of€negligence€or€design,€it€is€the€responsibility€of€the€prosecutor.€€TheÏprosecutorððs€office€is€an€entity€and€as€such€it€is€the€spokesman€for€theÏGovernment.€€A€promise€made€by€one€attorney€must€be€attributed,€for€theseÏpurposes,€to€the€Government.€€(Citations€omitted).€€òòId.óó,€405€U.S.€at€154,€92€S.Ct.Ð H @ Ðat€766.€€Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà ` àWe€note€that€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€recognized€that€without€this€witnessððsÏtestimony€there€would€have€been€no€indictment€or€enough€evidence€to€present€the€case€to€theÏjury.€€òòId.óó,€405€U.S.€at€154„155,€92€S.Ct.€at€766.€€Therefore,€that€witnessððs€credibility€was€critical€toÐ 0(  Ðthis€case€and€any€agreement€for€leniency€from€the€prosecution€would€have€been€pertinent€inÏdeciding€his€credibility.€€òòId.óó€€However,€in€the€case€before€us,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€notedÐ À¸  Ðthat,€ð ð[t]he€Defendantððs€confession€to€his€niece€and€the€presence€of€his€fingerprints€in€the€bedroomÏcorroborated€Coxððs€testimony.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€924.€€€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular õÔ‡DôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€DôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝSpecifically,€these€claims€include:Ð  Ðà8 ` à(1)€€Counsel€failed€to€challenge€Count€One€in€the€Indictment€.€.€.€because€itÏomitted€an€element€of€the€offense€of€felony€murder;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(2)€€Counsel€failed€to€make€reasonable€efforts€to€negotiate€a€settlement€of€theÏcase;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(3)€€Counsel€failed€to€challenge€the€prosecutionððs€forum€shopping;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(4)€€Counsel€failed€to€investigate€to€determine€whether€the€appellant€had€beenÏdenied€his€right€to€a€jury€pool€representative€of€a€fair€cross„section€of€theÏcommunity;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(5)€Counsel€failed€to€consult€with€the€appellant€at€crucial€stages€of€theÏproceedings;€à8` Ð ` Ð àÐtl xx Ðà8 ` à(6)€€Counsel€failed€to€adequately€advise€the€appellant€as€to€his€right€to€testify;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(7)€€Counsel€failed€to€develop€a€reasonable€trial€strategy€or€defenseððÐ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(8)€€Counsel€failed€to€make€a€motion€to€recuse€the€trial€judge;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(9)€€Counsel€failed€to€adequately€question€prospective€jurors€regarding€theÏsentencing€phase€of€the€trial;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(10)€Counsel€failed€to€develop€an€adequate€record€regarding€the€prosecutorððsÏdiscriminatory€use€of€peremptory€challenges€to€remove€African„American€jurors€inÏviolation€of€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó;Ðd\ ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(11)€€Counsel€failed€to€adequately€question€prospective€jurors€regarding€theirÏpossible€misperceptions€concerning€parole€eligibility€and€racial€and€other€biases;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(12)€€Counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€exclusion€of€jurors€based€on€religiousÏobjections;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(13)€€Counsel€failed€to€file€motions€and€or€obtain€rulings€in€advance€of€trial€onÏpretrial€motions;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(14)€€Counsel€failed€to€adequately€cross„examine€witnesses;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(15)€€Counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€prosecutorððs€improper,€misleading,€andÏprejudicial€statements€concerning€the€law,€the€evidence€and€the€appellant;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(16)€€Counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€prosecutionððs€repeated€use€of€leadingÏquestions€during€direct€examination€of€prosecution€witnesses;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(17)€€Counsel€failed€to€object€to€certain€jury€instructions;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(18)€€Counsel€failed€to€object€to€instruction€that€relieved€the€prosecution€of€itsÏburden€of€proving€all€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(19)€€Counsel€failed€to€object€to€erroneous€and€misleading€reasonable€doubtÏinstructions;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(20)€€Counsel€failed€to€investigate€or€present€evidence€in€support€of€the€issuesÏraised€in€their€motion€for€new€trial;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(21)€€Counsel€failed€to€discuss€with€the€appellant€the€legal€claims€that€could€beÏraised€pretrial,€in€the€motion€for€new€trial,€and/or€on€appeal;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(22)€€Counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€presented€inÏsupport€of€the€aggravating€circumstances;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(23)€€Counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€constitutionally€of€the€aggravatingÏcircumstances;Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` à(24)€€Counsel€failed€to€object€to€the€qualifiers€ð ðextremeðð€and€ð ðsubstantiallyðð€in€theÏstatutory€mitigating€circumstances€instructed€to€the€jury.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular SÔ‡ôùôXXÔÝ ƒ ¤˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7Àl½XXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Indeed,€the€supreme€court€noted€in€its€opinion,€ð ð[i]t€is€regrettable€that€Dr.€Hutson€.€.€.€didÐ  Ðnot€discuss€the€adaptive€deficit€prong.€€.€.€.€€The€record€is€inadequate€to€support€a€finding€that€theÏdefendant€suffers€from€deficits€in€his€adaptive€behavior.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€918. #Ô‡GôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€GôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝRegarding€trial€counselððs€failure€to€have€pre„trial€motions€set€for€hearing,€the€followingÐ  Ðcolloquy€occurred€at€the€trial€level:Ìà8 ` àCOURT:€€Why€in€the€world€havenððt€you€asked€for€a€hearing€on€these€motions?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà ` àJONES:€€Your€Honor,€we€probably€should€have.Ìà8 ` àCOURT:€You€didnððt€answer€my€question.€€Why€havenððt€you?Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` àJONES:€I€donððt€have€a€reason.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà ` àCOURT:€€Thatððs€the€question.Ìà8 ` àJONES:€I€donððt€have€a€reason,€your€Honor.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  Ðà8 ` àCOURT:€€I€think€youððve€waived€your€motions.€€I€think€youððve€waived€your€motionsÏwaiting€to€the€day€of€trial.€€Iððm€not€going€to€hear€motions€on€the€day€of€trial,€period.€ÏI€rule€that€you€have€waived€them.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÐÝ ƒ  ­$ÝÔ€IXlXXXÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡IôSÝôXXlÔÔ‡JôÁƒ ôôôSÝÔIn€addition,€the€appellant€contends€that€defense€counsel€failed€to€investigate€the€reportÐ  Ðfrom€the€fingerprint€examiner.€€The€report€of€Officer€Sims€indicated€that€prints€of€two€separateÏadult€individuals€were€found€on€the€scene€as€well€as€one€print€of€a€juvenile.€€One€of€the€adult€printsÏcame€from€inside€the€victimððs€home€and€that€print€belonged€to€the€appellant.€€The€other€adultÏprints€were€located€on€the€victimððs€vehicle,€one€belonging€to€the€appellant€and€the€other€to€a€policeÏofficer€who€had€worked€the€crime€scene.€€The€juvenile€hand€print€remained€unidentified.€ÏCounselððs€failure€to€investigate€the€unidentified€fingerprint€is€encompassed€within€his€failure€toÏrequest€a€fingerprint€expert.€€ÌÔ#†IôSÝô ôôÁƒ#ÔÔ‡JôÁƒ ôôôSÝÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular íÔ‡LôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€LôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€death€penalty€may€not€be€imposed€where€the€defendant€is€mentally€retarded.€€òòSeeóó€Ð  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203(b).€€To€prove€that€he€is€ineligible€for€a€death€sentence,€a€defendantÏhas€the€burden€of€showing,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€(1)€he€has€a€functional€I.Q.Ïof€seventy€(70)€or€below;€(2)€he€exhibits€deficits€in€adaptive€behavior;€and€(3)€that€the€mentalÏretardation€manifested€during€the€defendantððs€developmental€period,€or€by€age€eighteen€(18).€ÏòòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„203(a).€€Ð ¾ ¶ ÐÌà ` àOn€direct€appeal,€our€supreme€court€determined€that€the€appellant€failed€to€prove€ð ðdeficitsÏin€his€adaptive€behavior.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€918.€Ô#†LXlXôôSÝ#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô‡NôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€NôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Indeed,€the€supreme€court€noted€in€its€opinion,€ð ð[i]t€is€regrettable€that€Dr.€Hutson€.€.€.€didÐ  Ðnot€discuss€the€adaptive€deficit€prong.€€.€.€.€€The€record€is€inadequate€to€support€a€finding€that€theÏdefendant€suffers€from€deficits€in€his€adaptive€behavior.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€918.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô‡PôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€PôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€records€from€the€Department€of€Correction€in€the€possession€of€defense€counselÐ  Ðtranscribed€an€evaluation€of€the€appellant€when€he€was€seventeen€years€old€finding:€€ð ðWe€believeÏsubject€to€have€below€average€intelligence.€€Prognosis€for€prison€and€civil€adjustment€guarded.ðð,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÄÔ‡RôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€RôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€State€concedes€that€defense€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€present€adequateÐ  Ðproof€at€the€hearing€held€to€determine€whether,€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€appellant€could€receive€aÏsentence€of€death.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô‡TôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€TôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Specifically,€the€following€time€line€exemplifies€the€severity€of€the€appellantððsÐ  Ðinstitutionalization:Ìà8 ` àò ò1964„1965ó óà  àà h àState€Vocational€Training€School€for€Colored€Boys×ÃU×× C ×Є|` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà ` àò ò1966„1968à  àà h àó óTennessee€Department€of€CorrectionÐ   ÐÌà8 ` àò ò1970„1987ó óà  àà h àTennessee€Department€of€Correction€ÐŒ „` Ð ` Ð  Ðò òà ` àó óò òó óÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò ò1976ó ó:€€administered€antipsychotic€medicationÐ   Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò ò1979ó ó:€€referred€to€Covington€Mental€Health€Center€€for€à Ð àÐ Ö Î  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àevaluation:€€suffered€mental€confusion,€impaired€memory,€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àparanoid€ideation,€auditory€hallucinations,€depressive€symptoms,€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àobsessive€compulsive€behavior.€€Treated€with€antipsychotic€and€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àantidepressant€€medication.€€Parole€Board€advised€that€upon€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àrelease,€appellant€should€continue€medication.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò ò1980ó ó:€€€€psychiatric€evaluation€completed,€results€à Ð àÐ RJ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€concluded€that€appellant€is€completely€institutionalized€and€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àdependent€upon€controlled€environment€for€survival.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò ò1987ó ó:€€Defendant€paroled€and€does€not€continue€à Ð àÐ RJ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€medication.ÌÌà ` àò ò1988ó óà ¸ àà  àà h àShelby€County€Jail.€€No€mental€treatment,€defendant€à Ð àÐ ”Œ Ðà ` àà ¸ à€€€€€€€€€€€à  àà h àexperiences€auditory€hallucinations.Ð ZR ÐÌà ` àò ò1990ó óà ¸ àà  àà h àShelby€County€Jail.€No€medication.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ßÝ ƒ ìô$ÝÔ‡TXÊ«XXXÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhile€at€pikeville,€the€appellant€scored€an€IQ€of€59€on€the€PeabodyÐ ° ÐPicture€Vocubalry€Test.WXY`aCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý ¼Ô‡[ôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€[ôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€we€find€that€the€trial€counselððs€failure€to€conduct€a€reasonable€investigation€into€theÐ  Ðappellantððs€mental€condition€and€history€denied€the€appellant€to€effectively€participate€in€theÏadversarial€process,€we€need€not€individually€address€the€issues€of€competency,€sanity,€andÏmental€retardation.€We€again€note,€however,€that€the€State€concedes€that€counsel€was€ineffectiveÏregarding€the€presentation€of€proof€at€the€mental€retardation€hearing.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular §Ô‡]ôSÝôXXÔÝ ƒ  ­ÿÝÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€]ôSÝôôôSÝÔÒ°Òà ` àòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIndeed,€as€observed€by€Justice€Reid€in€his€separate€concurring/dissenting€opinion€in€theÐ  Ðdirect€appeal,€ð ðthis€[was€a]€poorly€tried€case.ðð€€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€928,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ^Ô‡_ôùôXXÔÝ ƒ ¤˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7Àl½XXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýòòò òÐ  ÐDateó óóóà ` àà ¸ àòòò òAgeóóó óà  àò òòòReportóóó óÐ |t Ð5„19„82à ¸ à34à  àRecommendation€of€psychiatric€interviews€through€TCMHC.Ð B: ÐÌ10„13„81à ¸ à33à  àð ðOn€10„2„81€subject€was€deferred€clemency€consideration€à Ð àÐ ¾ ¶ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àuntil€6„83.€€States€he€is€still€receiving€psychiatric€counseling.ððÌÌ3„31„81à ¸ à33à  àð ðSubject€is€currently€receiving€[psychological]€interviews€and/€à Ð àÐ ø ð Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àor€medication.€.€.€ð ðÌÌ10„23„80à ¸ à32à  àð ðThis€man€brings€to€the€interview€a€long€and€varied€history€of€charges,€Ð 2*  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àproblem€behavior€while€in€prison,€and€a€continuing€need€for€mental€healthÏà ` àà ¸ àà  àinterventions.€€He€is€presently€on€maintenance€psychotropic€medication,€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àalthough€he€has€received€none€since€returning€to€the€Main€Prison€and€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àreports€no€ill€effects.€€Earlier€testing€indicates€an€intellectual€ability€below€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àaverage€but€within€the€normal€range.€.€.€.While€there€is€no€reason€to€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àsuspect€at€this€time€the€presence€of€any€primary€mood€or€thinking€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àdisorder,€he€does€appear€to€be€a€man€completely€institutionalized€and€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àdependant€on€a€controlled€and€supervised€environment€for€survival.ðð€€Dr.€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àMorganððs€Report.ÌÌ10„2„80à ¸ à32à  àð ðPsychological€interviews€at€discretion€of€inst.€counselor.ðð€€ð ðMental€HealthÐ \T Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àfor€Medicationðð€€ð ðThis€man€was€17€years€old€when€he€was€sentenced€in€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  à1966€for€Burg[lary].€.€.€.€.€His€life€has€been€a€nightmare€since€then.€It€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àwould€take€pages€to€get€a€full€picture€of€the€past.€.€.€.€In€December€1979€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  à[Philip€Rhoads]€began€to€notice€general€mental€confusion.€.€.€.€In€late€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àJanuary€plans€were€made€to€have€him€seen€by€Covington€Mental€Health.€Ïà ` àà ¸ àà  àFinally€he€was€permitted€to€go€April€1980€to€see€Dr.€Esther€Roberts.€€WithÏà ` àà ¸ àà  àher€help€later€he€was€given€a€neurological€evaluation€by€Dr.€Georgia€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àMontouris€.€.€.€.€€Her€report€said€he€had€no€brain€damage.€Another€referralÏà ` àà ¸ àà  àwas€made€to€Dr.€Roberts€at€Convington€Mental€Health€in€July€1980€and€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àwas€placed€on€medication.€He€continues€to€improve€at€this€time.ððÌÌ9„30„80à ¸ à32à  àRecommendation€of€psychological€interviews.Ð D<! ÐÌ7„16„80à ¸ à32à  àð ðAppears€more€in€control€today€but€stating€that€he€still€is€in€need€of€Ð À ¸# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àassistance€for€control€of€his€impulsive€desire€to€hurt€himself€or€others€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àespecially€if€they€appear€ignorant€in€behavior.€€Obsessive€compulsive€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àthinking€evidence€as€effort€to€reduce€anxiety€to€more€manageable€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àencounters.€€There€still€seems€to€be€evidence€of€organicity€and€failure€to€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àcomprehend€various€facets.ðð€€Dr.€Roberts,€Covington€Mental€Health.ÌÌ4„9„80à ` àà ¸ à32à  àð ðHe€appeared€through€the€interview€session€as€being€quite€preoccupied€Ð ò%ê* Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àin€thought€and€manner€and€frequently€exhibiting€a€smiling€inappropriate€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àaffective€response€to€questions.€€Depressive€features€were€very€à Ð àÐ n'f , Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  ànoticeable€with€psycho„motor€retardation€and€conscious€focused€attentionÏà ` àà ¸ àà  àon€suicidal€ideation€that€centered€on€the€deaths€of€his€parents.€.€.€.€.€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àDescription€of€prodromal€symptoms€accompanying€the€onset€of€one€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àsided€headaches€bright€halo€type€lights€creating€effects€and€à Ð àÐ f*^#0 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àoverwhelming€needs€to€isolate€himself€from€others€in€his€surrounding€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àbecause€of€irritability.€€Also€exhibits€paranoid€ideation€that€other€inmates€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àare€setting€him€up€to€get€him€in€trouble.€€Circumstantial€and€loose€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àideation€also€present.€€He€furthermore€rationalizes€his€paranoid€thinking€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àas€justification€for€possible€homicidal€intents€against€guards€and€fellow€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àprisoners.€€.€.€.€The€overall€impressions€of€Mr.€Smith€is€that€he€requires€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àfurther€neuropsychological€evaluation€for€evidence€of€organic€impairment.Ïà ` àà ¸ àà  à.€.€.€€This€injury€is€probably€accentuating€a€personality€defect€or€à Ð àÐ V0N)8 Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àpathological€psychosis€manifested€by€poor€impulse€and€judgment€and€¼à ` àà ¸ àà  àparanoid€thinking.ðð€€Dr.€Roberts.ÌÌ7„25„79à ¸ à31à  àRecommendation€of€psychiatric€treatment.ÓÓÐ N3F,< ÐÓÓ12„2„68à ¸ à20à  àð ðThis€subject€shows€a€willingness€to€work€but€just€canððt€seemà Ð àÐ Ê4Â-> Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àto€get€a€grasp€on€things.ðð,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óbb'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd Ý ƒX¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XŒÂXXXÔÔ€©?XXŒÂÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XŒÂX©?ÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€29,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô3æôXXŒÂÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒX¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€eXŒÂXXXÔÔ€e©?XeXŒÂÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€eXŒÂXe©?ÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€28,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€eô3æôXeXŒÂÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularÝ ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ŒÂXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýñ“ñ›ñ“ñÓ ÔþÓò òÓ  ÓñŸññ“ñßr€Vc<,(j 8` `€€@EÈ ` ttx$ð Õrßñ“ññŸññ¢ññŸñßr€Vd<,(j 8` `€€@EÈ ` ttx$ð ÕrßñŸññ¢ññ¢ññ¢ññ¢ññ“ñ›ñ“ññ¢ññ¢ññ¢ññ¢ñ›ñ¢ññ¢ñßt€Vd>.*jxxË` `€€@E@Ó` ttx$x 4 œ tß›ñ¢ñà@. . ®àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@**)®àAT€JACKSONˆÌà@ÈÈ$®àOCTOBER€SESSION,€1998ˆÌÌÌÌÌSYLVESTER€SMITH,à h àà À à)Ð | t Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àNo.€02C01„9801„CR„00018Ð h` Ðà ` àœAppellantñ‹ñeeñ‹ñ›à  àà h àà À à)Ð TL  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àSHELBY€COUNTYÐ @8  Ðvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð ,$  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHon.€Bernie€Weinman,€JudgeÐ   ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)Ð ü  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à(POST„CONVICTION)Ð ðè  Ðà ` àœAppellñŒñeeñŒñññantññ›à  àà h àà À à)Ð ÜÔ  Ðó óÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð zr ÐÌò òWilliam€P.€Redick,€Jr.ó óà h àà À àò òà  àJohn€Knox€Walkupó óÐ F> ÐP.€O.€Box€137à  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ 2* ÐWhites€Creek,€TN€€37189à h àÐ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò òAmy€L.€Tarkingtonó óÐ þö Ðò òPeter€D.€Heiló óà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð êâ ÐP.€O.€Box€40651à  àà h àà À àà  àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÐ ÖÎ ÐNashville,€TN€€37204à h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ ¼´ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à x àà Ð àà (# àÐ ˆ!€ Ðà ` àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àThomas€Hooverà  àà x àà Ð àà (# àó óÐ :$2  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCriminal€Justice€ComplexÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSuite€301,€201€Poplar€StreetÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMemphis,€TN€€38103Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ /(, ÐÌREVERSED;€CONVICTION€VACATED;€REMANDED€FOR€NEW€TRIALÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÐ l4d-2 ÐJudgeÐ  X5P.3¿ ÐÓÓà@+®àòòò òOPINIONóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ` àIn€this€capital€case,€the€appellant,€Sylvester€Smith,€appeals€as€of€right€theÏjudgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€of€Shelby€County€denying€his€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief.€€In€1991,€the€appellant€was€convicted€of€felony€murder,€and,€following€a€separateÏsentencing€hearing,€was€sentenced€to€death€by€electrocution.€€The€appellantððsÏconviction€and€sentence€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal€by€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1994),€òòrehððg€deniedóó,€(1995),€òòcert.Ð ¨   Ðdeniedóó,€516€U.S.€829,€116€S.Ct.€99€(1995).Ð tl Ðà ` àÌà ` àThe€appellant€filed€the€instant€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€April€18,€1995.€ÏAn€amended€petition€was€filed€on€September€16,€1996.€€A€hearing€was€held€onÏSeptember€24„26,€1996.€€On€May€19,€1997,€the€post„conviction€court€entered€an€orderÏdenying€the€appellant€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌà ` àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€raises€the€following€issues:׃2×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð " ÐÓÓà ` àI.€€Whether€the€appellant€was€denied€his€constitutional€rights€at€sentencing€¼à ` àwhen€the€trial€court€limited€the€testimony€of€his€sole€mitigation€witness;ÌÌà8 ` àII.€€Whether€the€appellant€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€trial€by€anÏimpartial€jury;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àIII.€€Whether€constitutional€errors€not€addressed€by€the€post„convictionÏcourt€entitle€the€appellant€to€relief;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà ` àIV.€€Whether€the€appellant€was€denied€his€constitutional€rights€during€the€guilt€¼à ` àand€sentencing€phases€by€the€prosecutionððs€failure€to€provide€the€defense€¼à ` àexculpatory€and€impeachment€materials;à È àÐ ¶-®&+ ÐÌà8 ` àV.€€Whether€the€appellant€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€atÏtrial€and€on€appeal;Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àVI.€€Whether€the€cumulative€effect€of€all€errors€violated€the€appellantððsÏconstitutional€rights.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÓÓÌÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðà ` àIn€this€appeal,€the€State€concedes€error€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€this€capitalÏtrial.€€We€agree.€€Moreover,€after€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€also€find€error€at€theÏguilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€Accordingly,€the€appellantððs€conviction€and€sentence€areÏvacated.€€This€cause€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial.ÌÌÌà@ff)®àò òBackgroundó óˆÐ ÐÈ  ÐÌà ` àThe€proof,€as€set€forth€in€the€supreme€courtððs€decision,€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€893Ð tl ÐS.W.2d€at€911„912,€established€that€Mrs.€Olive€Brewer,€an€elderly€widow,€lived€aloneÏin€a€house€on€Winchester€Road€in€Memphis.€€On€Sunday,€July€2,€1989,€Mrs.€BrewerÏattended€church,€ate€lunch€with€a€friend,€and€went€to€the€grocery€store€before€returningÏhome.€€Mrs.€Brewer€was€wearing€a€diamond€ring€when€she€left€the€restaurant.ÌÌà ` àLater€that€evening,€Memphis€Police€Officer€Steve€Perry€noticed€a€vehicle€stuckÏin€the€mud€in€the€woods€next€to€Mrs.€Brewerððs€house.€€The€vehicleððs€engine€was€stillÏwarm€and€it€appeared€obvious€that€someone€had€been€trying€to€get€the€car€out€of€theÏmud.€€Officer€Perry€also€observed€a€stereo€and€television€set€on€the€ground€beside€theÏvehicle€and€a€television€stand€on€the€front€seat€of€the€car.ÌÌà ` àOfficer€Perry€discovered€that€the€vehicle€was€registered€to€Mrs.€Brewer€who€livedÏnext€door€and€he€and€another€officer€decided€to€check€Mrs.€Brewerððs€residence.€TheÏtwo€officers€found€the€back€door€of€Mrs.€Brewerððs€house€ajar.€€A€search€of€the€houseÏled€to€the€discovery€of€Mrs.€Brewerððs€body€lying€in€one€and€one„half€to€two€inches€ofÏbloody€water€in€the€bathtub.€€A€blue€blanket€was€over€her€face€and€her€dress€was€pulledÏabove€her€hips.€€Mrs.€Brewer€had€been€beaten€over€her€entire€body€and€her€throat€wasÏlacerated.ÌÌÐ d9\28 Ðà ` àIn€the€front€bedroom,€the€officers€discovered€large€bloodstains€at€the€head€andÏfoot€of€the€bed.€€Strips€of€torn€sheet€and€a€rope€were€lying€on€the€floor.€€One€of€theÏstrips€was€blood€soaked.€€A€used€condom€was€found€in€the€bedroom€closet.€€In€theÏkitchen,€the€officers€found€evidence€of€blood€on€a€knife,€and,€in€the€living€room,€theyÏdiscovered€another€knife€in€a€chair.ÌÌà ` àFingerprints€on€the€bathroom€sink€and€on€the€front€hood€of€the€victimððs€carÏmatched€the€appellantððs€prints.€€The€appellantððs€sister€identified€the€knife€found€in€theÏliving€room€as€resembling€one€of€her€own€that€had€been€missing.€€The€appellantððs€nieceÏtestified€that€the€appellant€had€told€her€that€ð ðhe€cut€this€ladyððs€throat€and€put€her€in€aÏbathtub€full€of€water.ððÌÌà ` àShortly€after€the€murder,€the€appellant€offered€to€sell€Willie€Cox€a€ladyððs€diamondÏring€and€three€necklaces.€€The€appellant€informed€Cox€that€the€jewelry€had€come€ð ðoutÏof€the€ladyððs€house€on€Winchester.ðð€€He€continued€to€tell€Cox€that€he€had€killed€theÏwoman€because€ð ðhe€donððt€leave€no€witnesses.ðð€€He€then€described€cutting€her€throat,Ïtying€her€hands,€and€putting€her€in€the€bathtub.€€He€also€stated€that€he€had€placed€anÏelectrical€appliance€in€the€bathtub€with€her.ÌÌà ` àWhen€confronted€about€the€murder,€approximately€one€year€later,€the€appellantÏdenied€any€knowledge€of€the€murder,€denied€knowing€the€victim,€and€denied€ever€beingÏin€her€house.€€He€also€denied€that€the€fingerprints€were€his.€€The€Shelby€County€PublicÏDefenderððs€Office€was€appointed€to€represent€the€appellant.ñ†ñ׃×ñ†ññ†ñ׃×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð .ˆ', ÐÌà ` àDuring€the€guilt€phase€of€his€subsequent€trial,€the€appellant€elected€not€to€testifyÏnor€did€he€offer€any€evidence.€€Based€on€the€evidence€presented€by€the€State,€the€juryÏfound€the€appellant€guilty€of€felony€murder€committed€during€the€course€of€a€robbery.Ð À5¸.4 Їà ` àAt€the€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial,€the€State€introduced€proof€that€the€appellantÏhad€previously€been€convicted€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon,€assault€with€intent€toÏcommit€first€degree€murder,€and€aggravated€rape.€€Photographs€were€also€introducedÏdepicting€numerous€bruises€and€the€fatal€wounds€on€the€victimððs€body.€€The€pathologistÏtestified€that€the€victim€would€have€been€alive€at€the€time€that€the€water€entered€herÏlungs€and€that€she€could€have€lived€hours€after€the€lacerations€to€her€throat€wereÏinflicted.ÌÌà ` àThe€defense€introduced€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Hutson,€a€clinical€psychologist€whoÏhad€administered€the€Stanford„Binet€Intelligence€test€to€the€appellant.€€The€testÏindicated€that€the€appellant€had€an€IQ€of€54.€€School€records€showed€that€in€the€thirdÏgrade€the€appellant€had€an€IQ€of€72,€and€of€67€in€the€fifth€grade.€€A€parole€evaluationÏdescribed€the€appellant€as€having€mild€to€moderate€impairment€in€intellectual€function.ÏThe€psychologist€testified€that€the€appellant€would€be€classified€as€mentally€retarded,Ïthat€the€appellantððs€intellectual€capacity€was€diminished,€and€that€this€impairment€wasÏa€mental€defect.ÌÌà ` àThe€jury€found€that€the€appellant€had€previously€been€convicted€of€a€violentÏfelony,€the€murder€was€especially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€tortureÏor€depravity€of€mind,€and€that€the€murder€was€committed€in€the€commission€of€anotherÏfelony.€€€Finding€no€mitigating€factors€sufficiently€substantial€to€outweigh€the€statutoryÏaggravating€circumstances,€the€jury€sentenced€the€appellant€to€death€by€electrocution.€ÏÌà ` àOn€direct€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€the€court,€under€its€mandateÏin€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€124,Ð (2 +0 Ð114€S.Ct.€651€(1993),€found€that€the€juryððs€consideration€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„¼204(i)(7)€was€improper.€€òòSeeóó€€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€924„925.€€Nonetheless,€the€courtÐ À5¸.4 Ðheld€that€the€error€in€applying€this€factor€was€harmless€in€light€of€the€two€remaining€validÏaggravating€circumstances.€€òòIdóó.Ð X9P28 Їà@  #®àò òPost„Conviction€Hearingó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ` àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€appellant€must€prove€the€allegationsÏcontained€in€his€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ñ†ñ׃×ñ†ññ†ñ׃×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòState€v.€Kerleyóó,€820Ð x p ÐS.W.2d€753,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1991);€òòOliphantÐ D< Ðv.€Stateóó,€806€S.W.2d€215,€218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ð   Ð1991).€€Findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€post„conviction€court€areÏgiven€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,€and,€this€court€is€bound€by€those€findings€unless€theÏevidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2dÐ tl Ð898,€899€(Tenn.€1990);€òòTeague€v.€Stateóó,€772€S.W.2d€932,€934€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð @8 Ð1988),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€493€U.S.€874,€110€S.Ct.€210€(1989).€€This€court€may€not€reweighÐ   Ðor€reevaluate€the€evidence€or€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€post„¼conviction€court.€€Questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€andÏvalue€to€be€given€their€testimony€are€for€resolution€by€the€post„conviction€court.€€òòBlackÐ ph Ðv.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).Ð < 4 ÐÌÓÓà@P P ®àò òI.€€Limitation€of€Mitigating€Evidence€during€Sentencing€PhaseÔ‡X,XXXÔó óˆÐ Ô#Ì  ÐÓª4Óà ` àÌà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€by€limiting€theÏtestimony€of€the€clinical€psychologist,€Dr.€Hutson,€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€theÏtrial€with€regard€to€mitigating€evidence.€€The€appellant€concedes€that€this€issue€wasÏpredetermined€by€the€supreme€court€in€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€921„922.€€However,€heÐ @,8%) Ðargues€that,€in€light€of€subsequent€decisions€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòStateÐ  .'+ Ðv.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18€(Tenn.€1996)€and€this€court€in€òòState€v.€Sledgeóó,€No.€02C01„Ð 0ø(- Ð9405„CR„00089€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Nov.€25,€1997),€this€issue€should€not€beÏtreated€as€previously€determined.€€€Ð À3¸,1 Їà ` àIn€òòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€27„28,€mitigation€evidence€was€limited€by€the€trial€courtÐ  Ðregarding€the€family€background€of€the€defendant€as€testified€to€by€the€clinicalÏpsychologist€because€the€trial€court€ruled€the€information€was€hearsay.ñ†ñ׃3×ñ†ññ†ñ׃#×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€supremeÐ È À Ðcourt€under€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„204(c)€held€that€the€hearsayÏevidence€was€relevant€and,€therefore,€admissible.€€As€such,€the€error€was€not€harmless.€ÏòòOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€28.€€Ð h`  ÐÌà ` àIn€òòSledgeóó,€No.€02C01„9405„CR„00089,€the€trial€court€rejected€the€profferedÐ (  Ðtestimony€of€a€Psychological€Chaplain€II,€employed€by€the€Department€of€Correction,Ïas€an€expert€on€the€defendantððs€remorsefulness€based€upon€his€self„developed€testingÏprocedure.€However,€the€court€acknowledged€his€ability€to€testify€to€his€personalÏobservations€of€the€defendant€as€a€pastoral€counselor.€€òòIdóó.€€During€a€hearing€out€of€theÐ ¨  Ðjuryððs€presence,€the€witness€related€his€knowledge€of€pertinent€background€informationÏof€the€defendant€and€his€observations€of€the€defendant€in€a€prison€environment.€€òòId.óó€€Ð h` ÐThe€trial€court€refused€to€allow€the€witness€to€testify€further€and€dismissed€him.€€òòId.óó€€TheÐ H!@ Ðfollowing€day,€the€trial€court€recanted€its€ruling€and€decided€to€allow€the€witness€toÏtestify€regarding€his€personal€observations€arising€out€of€his€counseling€and€interviewsÏwith€the€defendant;€however,€the€witness€could€not€be€found.€€òòId.óó€€This€court,€Ô#†Xl½XXX,5#ÔÔ‡X,XXXl½ÔcitingÐ è&à" ÐòòOdomóóÔ#†Xl½XXX,?#ÔÔ‡X,XXXl½Ô,€held€the€refusal€to€allow€the€witness€to€testify€constituted€reversible€error.€€òòId.óó€Ð È(À!$ Ðà ` à€€€€€Ìà ` àIn€the€matter€before€us,€at€the€appellantððs€trial,€Dr.€Hutson€testified€that€he€onlyÏspoke€with€the€appellant€for€a€ð ðfew€minutesðð€and€administered€the€IQ€test.€€Dr.€HutsonÏstated,€ð ðI€really€didnððt€go€into€any€background€details€or€anything€of€that€nature.ðð€ÏContrary€to€the€appellantððs€assertion€that€òòOdomóó€and€òòSledgeóó€present€a€ð ðchange€in€theÐ (2 +. Ðlaw,ðð€we€conclude€that€this€issue€was€previously€determined€by€the€supreme€court€onÏdirect€appeal.€€òòÔ#†Xl½XXX,…?#ÔÔ‡X,XXXl½ÔSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€921„922.Ô#†Xl½XXX,NB#ÔÔ‡X,XXXl½Ô€Accordingly,€because€a€newÐ è5à.2 Ðconstitutional€right€had€not€been€created,€this€issue€may€not€be€relitigated€within€theÏpost„conviction€context.€€Ô#†Xl½XXX,ºB#ÔòòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€An.€ðð€40„30„111,„112;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ èà Ð40„30„105.Ô‡X,XXXl½Ô€€€Ô#†Xl½XXX,D#ÔÐ Ì Ä ÐÌà@WW®àò òII.€€Ô‡X,XXXl½ÔSuperficial€Jury€Selectionó óˆÐ |t ÐÌà ` àNext,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€and€defense€counsel€deprivedÏhim€of€an€impartial€jury€based€upon€volumes€of€research€by€Dr.€Michael€BlankenshipÏregarding€jurorsðð€lack€of€comprehension€of€jury€instructions.€€Moreover,€he€argues€thatÏthe€trial€court€should€have€permitted€individual€voir€dire€because€of€the€findings€of€Dr.ÏBlankenshipððs€studies.ñ†ñ׃×ñ†ññ†ñ׃&×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÌÄ ÐÌà ` àThe€State€contends€that€any€issues€regarding€jury€selection€were€previouslyÏdetermined€by€the€supreme€court,€òòseeóó€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€914„16,€or€have€beenÐ ld Ðwaived€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1)€and€(2).€€We€agree€with€theÏStateððs€position€on€waiver.€€These€issues€could€have€been€raised€by€the€appellant€onÏdirect€appeal.€€Moreover,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€provide€a€basis€for€a€rebuttableÐ  %  Ðpresumption€overcoming€the€waiver€of€these€issues.€€Thus,€they€are€inappropriate€forÏour€determination€of€post„conviction€relief.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ì€€Ô#†Xl½XXX,uD#ÔÐ È À Ðò òà@L L ®àIII.€€Issues€Not€Addressed€by€the€Post„Conviction€Courtó óñ†ñ׃×ñ†ññ†ñ׃*×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׈Ð ¨   ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€asks€this€court€to€review€the€following€errors€he€alleges€wereÏcommitted€by€both€the€trial€court€and€the€prosecution:Ìà8 ` àBy€the€trial€court:Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÓÓà8 ` à1.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€not€òòsua€sponteóó€taking€the€precautionsÐ °¨ Ðnecessary€to€make€a€determination€of€the€appellantððs€competency€toÏstand€trial;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à2.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€making€repeated€displays€of€hostility€towardÏand€bias€against€the€defense;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à3.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€limiting€the€testimony€of€the€psychologistÏduring€the€pretrial€hearing€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€appellant€isÏmentally€retarded;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à4.€€The€appellant€is€not€eligible€to€be€sentenced€to€death€because€he€isÏmentally€retarded;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à5.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€consider€and€rule€on€pretrialÏmotions;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à6.€€The€trial€court€erred€in€its€charge€to€the€jury;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à7.€€The€trial€court€gave€erroneous€and€misleading€definitions€ofÏð ðreasonable€doubt;ððÐ ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à8.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€defense€objections€to€theÏprosecutionððs€referring€to€the€death€penalty€as€a€ð ðnecessary€lawðð€duringÏthe€voir€dire;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à9.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€defense€an€opportunity€to€makeÏan€offer€of€proof€at€the€close€of€the€ð ðBatson€hearingðð€during€voir€dire;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à10.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€employing€leading€questions€and€excusing€forÏcause€prospective€jurors€who€were€opposed€to€the€death€penalty;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à11.€The€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€the€defense€motion€for€continuanceÏbased€on€the€need€to€investigate€exculpatory€evidence€withheld€by€theÏprosecution€until€the€first€day€of€trial;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à12.€€The€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€introduction€of€irrelevant,Ïcumulative,€and/or€prejudicial€evidence;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à13.€The€trial€court€erred€by€giving€instructions€that€relieve€the€prosecutionÏof€its€burden€of€proving€all€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à14.€The€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€defense€objection€to€prosecutionalÏmisrepresentation€in€its€penalty€phase€closing€argument.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÓ1KÓÌà8 ` àBy€the€prosecution:Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÓÓà8 ` à1.€€The€prosecution€failed€to€disclose€evidence€to€which€the€appellant€wasÏentitled€before,€during,€and€after€the€trial.Ðð6è/5` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à2.€The€prosecution€possessed€information€exculpatory€to€the€defendantÏconcerning€Willie€Lee€Cox.Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à3.€€The€prosecution€failed€to€turn€over€to€the€defense€other€evidenceÏexculpatory€to€the€defense;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à4.€€The€prosecutionððs€arguments€and€conduct€misstated€or€causedÏmisstatements€of€facts€and€law€and€misled€the€jury;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à5.€€The€District€Attorneyððs€Office€for€Shelby€County€has€no€formal€policy,Ïstandards,€or€criteria€for€selecting€defendants€who€will€be€subjected€toÏcapital€prosecution.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÓrTÓÌà ` àAdditionally,€the€appellant€makes€eight€general€challenges€regarding€the€Ïconstitutionality€of€Tennesseeððs€death€penalty€statutes.ÌÌà ` àThe€appellantððs€allegations€raised€under€these€subsections€must€be€consideredÏwaived€for€failure€to€provide€citation€to€the€record,€explanation,€argument€or€citation€toÏany€legal€authority.€€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€Tenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€ThisÏcourt€will€not€speculate€as€to€the€argument€supporting€these€allegations,€nor€will€thisÏcourt€delineate€the€issues€for€the€appellant€from€an€extensive€record.€€€Additionally,Ïissues€specifically€raising€allegations€of€improper€jury€selection,€jury€instructions,Ïprosecutorial€misconduct€during€closing€argument,€and€our€supreme€courtððs€review€ofÏTennesseeððs€death€penalty€statutes€have€been€addressed€on€direct€appeal€by€ourÏsupreme€court.€€òòSeeóó€€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€914„916,€920„921,€922„923,€924„927.€Ð ®$¦! ÐIssues€that€have€been€previously€determined€on€direct€appeal€cannot€support€a€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief€and€are,€therefore,€excluded.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„Ð F(>!% Ð111,„112€(a);€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373,€377€(Tenn.1996);€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911Ð * #' ÐS.W.2d€705,€710€(Tenn.€1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€517€U.S.€1193,€116€S.Ct.€1685€(1996).€Ð Þ+Ö$) ÐFinally,€we€note€that€the€majority€of€the€appellantððs€exhaustive€list€of€allegations€haveÏalready€been€raised€elsewhere€in€the€petition€and€on€appeal,€òòe.g.óó,€€alleged€òòBradyóóÐ v/n(- Ðviolations,€competency,€mental€retardation.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€all€unsupported€allegations€raised€by€the€appellant€are€waived.ÌÌÌÐ B::39 Ðà@&&®àò òIV.€€ó óÔ‡X,XXXl½Ôà@@    ìàò òAlleged€Brady/Giglio€ViolationsˆÐ  Ðà ` àÌà ` àó óThe€appellant€alleges€that€the€State€withheld€exculpatory€evidence€therebyÐ Ø Ð Ðviolating€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194€(1963).€€Specifically,€theÐ ¸ ° Ðappellant€argues€that€(1)€the€State€withheld€the€statement€of€Alice€Cooper€and€(2)€theÏState€failed€to€disclose€an€alleged€deal€with€Willie€Lee€Cox€in€exchange€for€hisÏtestimony.€€ÌÌà ` àIn€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€83,€83€S.Ct.€at€1194,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€theÐ  Ðprosecution€has€a€duty€to€furnish€the€defendant€with€exculpatory€evidence€relatingÏeither€to€the€defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence€or€to€the€potential€punishment€that€may€beÏimposed.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBell€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9210„CR„00364€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ ¸° ÐKnoxville,€Mar.€15,1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Aug.€28,€1995).€€ExculpatoryÐ ˜ Ðevidence€includes€information€or€statements€of€witnesses€which€are€favorable€to€theÏdefendant.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòMcDowell€v.€Dixonóó,€858€F.2d€945€(4th€Cir.€1988),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð X!P Ð489€U.S.€1033,€109€S.Ct.€1172€(1989);€òòState€v.€Goodmanóó,€643€S.W.2d€375,€379„380Ð 8#0 Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€€Additionally,€under€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,Ð %  Ð154„155,€92€S.Ct.€763,€766€(1972),€exculpatory€evidence€includes€information€whichÏcan€be€used€for€impeachment€purposes€only.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€823€S.W.2dÐ Ø(Ð!$ Ð217,€218€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€Failure€to€reveal€exculpatory€evidence€violates€dueÏprocess€where€the€evidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,€irrespective€ofÏthe€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution.€€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87,€83€S.Ct.€at€1196„Ð x.p'* Ð1197.€€In€order€to€determine€the€materiality€of€undisclosed€information,€the€reviewingÏcourt€must€ascertain€whether€ð ðin€[the]€absence€[of€the€information]€[the€defendant]Ïreceived€a€fair€trial,€understood€as€a€trial€resulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€of€confidence.ðð€Ð 4-0 ÐòòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€434,€115€S.Ct.€1555,€1566€(1995).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.Ð ø5ð.2 ÐEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€390€(Tenn.),€òòas€amended€on€rehððgóó,€(1995).€€Thus,€in€order€toÐ Ø7Ð04 Ðprove€a€òòBradyóó€violation,€a€defendant€must€show€the€ð ðthe€favorable€evidence€couldÐ ¸9°26 Ðreasonably€be€taken€to€put€the€whole€case€in€such€a€different€light€as€to€undermineÏconfidence€in€the€verdict.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð èà ÐÌà ` àIn€order€for€this€court€to€find€a€Brady€violation,€four€requirements€must€beÏsatisfied:ÌÓÓà8 ` à(1)€The€defendant€must€have€requested€the€information€(unless€theÏevidence€is€obviously€exculpatory,€in€which€case€the€State€is€bound€toÏrelease€the€information€whether€requested€or€not);Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` à(2)€The€State€must€have€suppressed€the€information;Ð ` ü!` ü! Ðà ` à(3)€The€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€the€accused;€and€Ìà ` à(4)€The€information€must€have€been€material.ÌÌòòÓÓEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€390.€€The€appellant€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€theÐ øð Ðelements€of€this€claim€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€757Ð ØÐ ÐS.W.2d€14,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).ÌÌà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Carolyn€Watkins,€appellantððs€defense€counsel€atÏtrial,€testified€that€she€oversaw€the€preparation€of€the€pretrial€motions,€including€a€òòBradyóóÐ X P Ðmotion€and€a€òòGiglioóó€motion€regarding€discovery€of€exculpatory€information.€€TheseÐ 8"0 Ðmotions€were€not€heard€by€the€trial€court€because€they€were€not€set€in€advance€of€theÏtrial.€€òòBut€seeóó€,€òòinfra,óó€Section€V,€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counsel.€€€Both€Watkins€andÐ ø%ð! ÐAssistant€District€Attorney€General€Harris,€lead€counsel€for€the€State,€testified€that€theÏdefense€had€ð ðopen€file€discoveryðð€in€which€she€took€notes,€looked€through€the€file,€andÏcopied€several€items.€€Watkins€was€satisfied€that€she€had€received€everything€inÏdiscovery.€€Harris€testified€that€nothing€was€taken€from€the€file€or€hidden€from€€Watkins.€ÏÌà ` àà ¸ àà@TT ®àò òA.€€Alice€Cooperððs€Statementó óˆà  àÐ 810*- Ðà ` à€In€Ms.€Cooperððs€statement€to€the€police€contained€within€a€supplemental€offenseÏreport,€she€advised€that€she€had€overheard€four€young€men,€between€nineteen€andÏtwenty„five€years€old,€across€the€street€from€the€victimððs€home€talking€about€killing€ð ðthatÏold€bitch.ðð€€Two€of€the€boys€claimed€they€had€killed€her€in€the€bed€and€placed€her€bodyÐ ¸8°15 Ðin€the€bathtub.€€Ultimately,€the€police€identified€one€of€the€individuals.€€The€prosecutorÏprovided€the€defense€with€a€summary€of€this€statement€following€jury€selection€butÏbefore€any€proof€was€presented.ñ†ñ׃/×ñ†ññ†ñ׃.×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Jones,€defenseÐ È À Ðcounsel,€recalled€receiving€this€information€before€the€trial;€and€afterwards,€he€movedÏfor€a€continuance€which€the€court€denied.€ÌÌ€€à ` à€The€State,Ô#†Xl½XXX,¡^#ÔÔ‡X,XXXl½Ô€citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Bencsóó,€28€F.3d€555€(6th€Cir.€1994),Ô#†Xl½XXX,Gt#ÔÔ‡X,XXXl½Ô€arguesÐ H@  Ðthat€this€information€does€not€fall€within€the€parameters€of€òòBradyóó€because€theÐ (  Ðinformation€was€disclosed,€although€delayed.€€We€agree.€€òòBradyóó€only€applies€to€aÐ  Ðcomplete€failure€to€disclose€exculpatory€information€and€normally€does€not€apply€toÏdelayed€disclosure,€only€violating€òòBradyóó€if€the€delay€itself€causes€prejudice.€€òòState€v.Ð ÈÀ ÐInmanóó,€No.€03C01„9201„CR„00020€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Nov.€23,€1993),Ð ¨  Ðòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.,€April€4,€1994)€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Wordóó,€806€F.2dÐ ˆ€ Ð658,€665€(6th€Cir.€1986),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€480€U.S.€922,€107€S.Ct.€1383€(1987));€òòsee€alsoóóÐ h` ÐòòState€v.€Ewingóó,€No.€01C01„9612„CR„00531€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€June€19,Ð  Ð1998),€òòvacated€and€reenteredóó,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Aug.€18,€1998).€€Ð èà Ѐ€Ìà ` àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€only€a€delayed€disclosure€was€involved€before€any€proofÐ ¨   Ðwas€presented.€€Therefore,€no€òòBradyóó€violation€exists€unless€the€appellant€canÐ ˆ€ Ðdemonstrate€prejudice.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€no€physical€evidence€wasÏpresented€connecting€this€identified€declarant€to€the€crime€nor€was€Ms.€Cooper€calledÏto€testify€for€the€appellant.€€We€will€not€speculate€as€to€the€veracity€of€this€ð ðoverheardððÏstatement.€€Thus,€we€conclude€no€prejudice€resulted€undermining€the€confidence€of€theÏtrial€from€the€Stateððs€delayed€disclosure€of€this€statement.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€Ï€€€€Ì€€à ` à€€€€€€€à@–– ®àò òB.€€Deal€with€Willie€Lee€Coxó óˆÐ ¨  Ѐà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Officer€Cook€testified€that€Willie€Lee€Cox€providedÐ ˆ€ Ðhim€with€the€information€regarding€the€perpetrator€of€the€murder€of€Olive€Brewer.€€InÏreturn€for€this€information,€the€officer€testified,€ð ð[t]he€only€thing€that€I€told€Mr.€Cox€wasÏthat€if€his€information€was€good,€then€I€would€write€a€letter€to€the€attorney€generalÏadvising€the€attorney€general€of€the€assistance€that€he€had€given€us€in€the€past.ðð€€FromÏthe€supplemental€offense€report€dated€July€24,€1990,€ÌÓÓà8 ` àCox€was€wanting€to€wait€for€his€attorney€to€show€up€because€he€wasÏafraid€he€would€not€get€credit€for€furnishing€the€information€that€mightÏsolve€this€homicide.€€However,€we€[officers]€insured€him€[Cox]€we€wouldÏmake€sure€he€got€credit€for€anything€he€was€able€to€tell€us€that€was€theÏtruth.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓä}ÓOfficer€Cook€further€stated€to€Cox,€ð ðI€canððt€make€you€any€promises,€I€canððt€make€youÏany€deals.ðð€€Officer€Cook,€in€fact,€wrote€that€letter€on€July€30,€1990,€to€District€AttorneyÏGeneral€Hugh€Stanton.ñ†ñ׃×ñ†ññ†ñ׃4×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€letter€referred€to€information€provided€by€Cox€in€relationÐ (2 +. Ðto€three€other€cases€besides€the€information€identifying€the€appellant€in€the€murder€ofÏOlive€Brewer.€€Ìà ` àÌà ` àDuring€their€ongoing€investigation,€the€police€had€concluded€that€the€perpetratorÏwas€a€lone€black€male.€€Captain€Houston€of€the€Memphis€Police€Department€stated€thatÏhe€was€informed€by€Cox€that€the€appellant€had€murdered€Ms.€Brewer.€€Thereafter,€theÏofficers€verified€Coxððs€statement€through€fingerprint€examinations€lifted€from€theÏbathroom€sink€near€the€location€of€the€victimððs€body€and€from€the€victimððs€vehicle.€€HeÏreiterated€the€fact€that€the€officers€promised€to€mention€Coxððs€cooperation€to€theÏAttorney€Generalððs€Office,€however,€they€did€not€promise€any€specific€deal€in€exchangeÏfor€his€testimony.€€Captain€Houston€further€testified€that€no€agreement€existed€as€toÏwhether€Cox€would€have€to€testify.€€€ÌÌà ` àAssistant€District€Attorney€General€Harris€stated€that€he€made€no€deal€with€Cox.€ÏDuring€the€appellantððs€trial,€Harris€asked€Cox€about€his€recent€guilty€plea€to€voluntaryÏmanslaughter.ñ†ñ׃!Þ×ñ†ññ†ñ׃7Þ×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Harris€stated€that€he€never€talked€to€Cox€until€after€the€trial€had€begunÐ (#  Ðand€Cox€had€been€released€on€the€voluntary€manslaughter€conviction.€€Harris€testifiedÏthat€he€built€the€case€on€the€testimony€of€the€appellantððs€niece€who€testified€that€theÏappellant€had€admitted€to€killing€the€victim.€€Harris€testified€that€he€was€not€aware€of€theÏletter€written€by€Officer€Cook€until€the€day€of€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€If€he€had€ÌÐ ˆ,€%( Ðknown€of€the€existence€of€the€letter,€Harris€testified€that€he€would€have€communicatedÏthat€to€defense€counsel.€€ÌÌà ` àAssistant€District€Attorney€General€Peterson,€the€prosecutor€in€charge€of€theÏWillie€Lee€Cox€case,€testified€that€he€made€an€offer€to€Cox€on€July€25,€1990,€for€fifteenÏyears€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€for€his€second€degree€murder€charge.€€TheÏfollowing€memo,€Ô#†Xl½XXX,Ët#ÔÔ‡X,XXXl½Ôwritten€by€District€Attorney€General€Pierotti€Ô#†Xl½XXX,‰#ÔÔ‡X,XXXl½Ôon€September€5,€1990,Ð H@  Ðcontained€within€the€Cox€file,€was€introduced€through€the€testimony€of€Peterson:€ÌÓÓà8 ` àAt€the€request€of€T.E.€Cook€and€Bobby€Garner,€and€due€to€[sic]€huge€Ïamount€of€information€defendant€has€given€us,€recommend€probation.€ÏDefendant€is€worth€more€to€us€on€the€street€than€in€jail.€€Dismiss€drivingÏcharges.€€Any€questions,€see€me.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÌÓÓ€€€€€€€€€Jones,€defense€counsel,€did€not€recall€receiving€any€specific€information€from€theÏDistrict€Attorneyððs€Office€regarding€a€deal€that€was€made€with€Cox.€€Watkins€stated€thatÏthe€public€defenderððs€investigator,€Mr.€Carlisle,€attempted€to€talk€to€Cox€before€theÏappellantððs€trial€but€to€no€avail.€€However,€at€trial,€Watkins€attempted€to€cross„examineÏCox€regarding€a€deal.ñ†ñ׃"×ñ†ññ†ñ׃:×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð (#  ÐÌÐ è&à" Ðà ` àOn€appeal,€the€State€argues€that€there€was€no€òòBradyóó€violation€for€its€failure€toÐ  Ðdisclose€information€of€a€deal€because€ð ðthere€was€no€deal.ðð€€Contrary€to€this€assertion,Ïthe€record€of€the€post„conviction€proceeding€clearly€demonstrates€that€there€was€a€dealÏfor€leniency€with€Cox.€€Although€the€supreme€court€on€direct€appeal€was€not€privy€to€thisÏinformation€regarding€a€deal,€these€factsñ†ñ׃$×ñ†ññ†ñ׃=×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€cause€this€court€considerable€concern€underÐ ˆ€ Ðthe€requirements€of€òòGiglioóó.ñ†ñ׃(À×ñ†ññ†ñ׃@À×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€we€are€precluded€from€holding€otherwise€in€thisÐ h`  Ðmatter€because€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€previously€held€this€harmless€error.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€923„924.€Ð (  ÐÓÓà8 ` à[I]f€the€voluntary€manslaughter€conviction€did€grow€out€of€the€ððtroubleðð€CoxÏwas€in€when€he€contacted€the€authorities,€and€this€is€not€entirely€clearÏfrom€the€record,€the€trial€court€should€have€allowed€inquiry€into€CoxððsÐ èà Ðtreatment€by€the€State€on€this€conviction.€€òòAny€error,€however,€isÐ  Ðharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.óó(citations€omitted).€€Coxððs€testimonyÐ øð Ðmade€it€clear€that€it€was€only€after€he€was€ð ðin€troubleðð€that€he€cameÏforward€to€tell€the€authorities€about€Defendantððs€remarks.€€Although€heÏdenied€any€deal,€he€said€that€he€had€hoped€there€might€have€been€one.€ÏThe€jury€also€heard€he€had€served€only€six€months€on€a€guilty€plea€toÏvoluntary€manslaughter.€€The€Defendantððs€confession€to€his€niece€and€theÏpresence€of€his€fingerprints€in€the€bedroom€corroborated€Coxððs€testimony.€ÏWe€find€no€reversible€error.€€Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓ€€òòSmithóó,€893€S.W.2d€at€923„924€(emphasis€added).Ð h`  ÐÌà ` àIssues€that€have€been€previously€determined€on€direct€appeal€cannot€supportÏa€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€are,€therefore,€excluded.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð  Ððð€40„30„111,€„112(a);€òòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€377.€€€Thus,€in€accordance€with€ourÐ èà Ðsupreme€courtððs€previous€ruling,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€€ÌÔ#†Xl½XXX,‡‰#ÔÌÌà@ÝÝ®àò òV.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óˆÐ @8 ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€bothÏat€trial€and€on€appeal€due€to€counselððs€(1)€failure€to€object€to€the€introduction€ofÏevidence€and€testimony€of€a€used€condom€found€at€the€crime€scene;€(2)€failure€toÏpursue€hearings€on€pre„trial€motions;€(3)€failure€to€properly€investigate€the€possibility€ofÏother€perpetrators;€€(4)€failure€to€request€money€for€expert€services;€(5)€failure€toÏinvestigate,€litigate,€or€present€proof€regarding€the€appellantððs€competency€to€stand€trial;Ï(6)€failure€to€investigate,€litigate,€or€present€proof€regarding€the€appellantððs€sanity;€(7)Ïfailure€to€investigate,€litigate,€or€present€proof€regarding€the€appellantððs€mentalÏretardation;€(8)€failure€to€investigate€or€present€proof€concerning€mitigating€evidence€atÏsentencing;€(9)€failure€to€present€facts€on€appeal€to€demonstrate€that€the€òòMiddlebrooksóóÐ 3,0 Ðerror€was€not€harmless;€and€(10)€failure€to€show€that€the€appellantððs€death€sentence€isÏcomparatively€disproportionate.ÌÌÐ @:838 Ðà ` àAdditionally,€without€citation€to€the€record,€explanation,€or€citation€to€any€legalÏauthority,€the€appellant€lists€twenty„four€supplementary€claims€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel.ñ†ñ׃ ×ñ†ññ†ñ׃C×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ô‡X,XXXl½ÔAlso,€the€appellant€contends€(1)€that€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€forÐ   ˜ Ðð ðnot€presenting€sufficient€facts€to€demonstrate€that€[the]€òòMiddlebrooksóó€errorðð€was€notÐ „ | Ðharmless€error€under€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€1993);€and€(2)€Ô#†Xl½XXX,ÿœ#ÔÔ‡X,XXXl½ÔthatÐ d\ Ðappellate€counsel€was€ineffective€for€its€failure€to€demonstrate€that€his€death€sentenceÏwas€comparatively€disproportionate€based€upon€ð ðnew€factsðð€unavailable€to€the€supremeÏcourt€regarding€his€mental€condition;€unavailable€exculpatory€evidence;€and€the€age,Ïrace,€gender€of€the€appellant.Ð äÜ Ѐ€Ô#†Xl½XXX,iž#ÔÔ‡X,XXXl½ÔÐ  Ðà ` àÔ#†Xl½XXX, #Ô€€The€State€submits€that€these€additional€allegations€have€been€previouslyÐ èà Ðdetermined€and/or€waived.€€We€agree.€€€Initially,€we€note€that€the€post„conviction€courtÏdid€find€that€the€appellant€had€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€As€anÏineffective€counsel€claim€is€but€a€single€allegation,€the€court€did€rule€on€these€issues,Ïcontrary€to€the€appellantððs€assertion.€€òòSeeóó€€òòCone€v.€Stateóó,€927€S.W.2d€579,€581„582Ð   Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1996),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€„„€U.S.€„„,Ð äÜ  Ð117€S.Ct.€309€(1996).€€€Moreover,€the€appellantððs€cursory€enumeration€of€eachÏallegation€amounts€to€waiver,€because€these€issues€are€not€supported€by€argument€norÏare€there€appropriate€references€to€the€record.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7),€„(g);Ð H@ ÐTenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€Many€of€these€claims€were€not€argued€at€the€post„¼conviction€hearing€nor€was€any€proof€related€to€these€issues€presented.€€When€anÏappellant€fails€to€articulate€reasons€to€support€a€conclusory€statement,€the€issue€mayÏbe€deemed€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€òòState€v.€McKayóó,€680€S.W.2d€447,€454Ð xp Ð(Tenn.€1984),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€470€U.S.€1034,€105€S.Ct.€1412€(1985).€€òòSee€alsoóó€€Tenn.€Ct.Ð D < ÐCrim.€App.€R.€10(b).€€Finally,€several€of€the€issues€were€raised€and€determined€on€directÏappeal.€€The€fact€that€these€issues€are€now€couched€in€terms€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€is€of€no€consequence.€€òòSeeóó€€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€12€(Tenn.Ð ¨% " Ð1994).€€Thus,€our€review€of€the€appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€does€notÏencompass€these€numerous€and€often€duplicitous€allegations.ÌÌà@  ®àò òA.€€Standard€for€Determining€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Counseló óˆÐ Ø,Ð%* Ðà ` àWhen€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€raised,€the€burden€is€uponÏthe€appellant€to€show€(1)€that€counsel's€performance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€theÏdeficient€performance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,Ð H2@+0 Ð687,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984).€€Thus,€the€appellant€must€prove€that€counsel€"madeÏerrors€so€serious€that€counsel€was€not€functioning€as€the€'counsel'€guaranteed€theÏdefendant€by€the€Sixth€Amendment,"€and€the€appellant€must€demonstrate€thatÏcounsel's€errors€"were€so€serious€as€to€deprive€the€defendant€of€a€fair€trial,€a€trial€whoseÐ x9p28 Ðresult€is€reliable."€òòId.óó€The€appellant€must€establish€both€deficient€performance€andÐ  Ðprejudice€in€order€to€prevail.€€òòId.óó€€A€reviewing€court€need€not€consider€the€two€prongsÐ ÔÌ Ðof€€òòStricklandóó€in€any€particular€order.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€€104Ð   ˜ ÐS.Ct.€at€2069.€€Moreover,€if€the€appellant€fails€to€establish€one€prong,€a€reviewing€courtÏneed€not€consider€the€other.€€òòId.óóÐ 80 ÐÌà ` àWith€respect€to€deficient€performance,€the€proper€measure€of€attorneyÏperformance€is€reasonableness€under€prevailing€professional€norms.€€òòStrickland€v.Ð œ”  ÐWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€688,€€104€S.Ct.€at€2065.€€In€other€words,€the€attorney'sÐ h` Ðperformance€must€be€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€inÏcriminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.1975);€€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,Ð ø ÐNo.€01C01-9105-CR-00149€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,Ð ÌÄ Ð(Tenn.1994),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€513€U.S.€1163,€115€S.Ct.€1129€(1995).€€This€court€"mustÐ ˜ Ðindulge€a€strong€presumption€that€counsel's€conduct€falls€within€the€wide€range€ofÏreasonable€professional€assistance;€€that€is,€the€defendant€must€overcome€theÏpresumption€that,€under€the€circumstances,€the€challenged€action€'might€be€consideredÏsound€trial€strategy.'€"€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065.€Ð È#À  ЀWe€should€defer€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€basedÏupon€adequate€preparation.€€òòWrightóó,€No.€01C01-9105-CR-00149€(citing€òòHellard€v.Ð `'X $ ÐStateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.1982)).€€Additionally,€this€court€should€avoid€theÐ ,)$"& Ð"distorting€effects€of€hindsight"€and€"judge€the€reasonableness€of€counsel's€challengedÏconduct€on€the€facts€of€the€particular€case,€viewed€as€of€the€time€of€counsel's€conduct."€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689-690,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065-2066.€€Moreover,€weÐ .ˆ', Ðnote€that€defendants€are€not€entitled€to€perfect€representation,€only€constitutionallyÏadequate€representation.€€òòHarries€v.€Stateóó,€No.€833€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,Ð (2 +0 ÐAugust€29,€1990),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.1991).€€However,€we€recognize€thatÐ ô3ì,2 Ðð ðour€duty€to€search€for€constitutional€[deficiencies]€with€painstaking€care€is€never€moreÏexacting€than€it€is€in€a€capital€case.ðð€€òòBurger€v.€Kempóó,€483€U.S.€776,€785,€107€S.Ct.Ð Œ7„06 Ð3114,€3121€(1987).Ð X9P28 Їà ` àTo€establish€the€prejudice€prong€of€òòStricklandóó,€the€appellant€must€show€thatÐ  Ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counsel's€deficient€performance,€the€resultÏof€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€atÐ   ˜ Ð694,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068.€€€A€reasonable€probability€is€one€sufficient€to€undermineÏconfidence€in€the€outcome.€€òòIdóó.€€That€is,€the€evidence€stemming€from€failing€to€prepareÐ 80 Ða€sound€defense€or€present€witnesses€must€be€significant,€but€it€does€not€necessarilyÏfollow€that€the€trial€would€have€otherwise€resulted€in€an€acquittal.€€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€No.Ð ÐÈ  Ð03C01„9703„CC„00083€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Sept.€15,€1998)€(citing€òòNealyÐ œ”  Ðv.€Cabanaóó,€764€F.2d€1173,€1178„1179€(5th€Cir.€1985);€òòCode€v.€Montgomeryóó,€799€F.2dÐ h` Ð1481,€1483€(11th€Cir.€1986)).€€ð ðA€reasonable€probability€of€being€found€guilty€of€a€lesserÏcharge,€or€a€shorter€sentence,€satisfies€the€second€prong€in€òòStricklandóó.ðð€€òòBrimmeróó,€No.Ð ø Ð03C01„9703„CC„00083€(citing€òòState€v.€Zimmermanóó,€823€S.W.2d€220,€225€(Tenn.€CrimÐ ÌÄ ÐApp.€1991);€òòChambers€v.€Armontroutóó,€907€F.2d€825,€832€(8th€Cir.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ð ˜ Ð498€U.S.€950,€111€S.Ct.€369€(1990)).€€Moreover,€when€challenging€a€death€sentence,Ïthe€appellant€must€show€that€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€absent€the€errors,Ïthe€sentencer€.€.€.€would€have€concluded€that€the€balance€of€the€aggravating€andÏmitigating€circumstances€did€not€warrant€death.ðð€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,Ð È#À  Ð579„580€(Tenn.€1997),€òòrehððg€deniedóó,€(1998),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€No.€97„8880€(U.S.€Tenn.€Oct.Ð ”%Œ" Ð5,€1998)€(citing€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€695,€104€S.Ct.€at€2069).Ð `'X $ Ðà@®®.®àˆÌÓÓòòò òà@þþ ®à1.€€Counselððs€failure€to€object€to€the€admission€of€testimony€regarding€theˆÐ ø*ð#( Ðused€condom.ó óóóÐ ä+Ü$) ÐÌÓÓà ` àAt€the€appellantððs€trial,€the€State€introduced€a€used€condom€found€in€a€bedroomÏcloset€at€the€crime€scene.€€No€objection€was€made€to€the€introduction€of€this€evidence.€ÏThe€appellant€contends€that€his€attorneys€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€theÏintroduction€of€testimony€regarding€the€condom.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€theÏcondom€was€irrelevant€because€the€appellant€was€not€charged€with€rape€or€any€sexualÏoffense€and,€given€its€prejudicial€effect,€should€not€have€been€admitted.€€He€furtherÏasserts€that€no€evidence€of€sexual€activity€existed€other€than€the€condom€and€that€aÏcondom€alone€is€not€evidence€of€rape.Ð J:B39 Їà ` àIn€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€the€post„conviction€courtÏdetermined:ÌÓÓà8 ` àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€the€trial€counselððs€representation€wasÏineffective€because€they€did€not€object€to€irrelevant€evidence€that€wasÏpresented€during€the€trial.€€The€evidence€complained€about€was€a€usedÏcondom€found€at€the€scene€of€the€crime.€€The€petitioner€maintains€thatÏthe€condom€was€not€identified€through€physical€or€scientific€proof€to€theÏdefendant.€€This€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€evidence€complained€ofÏwas€clearly€relevant€considering€the€entire€record€of€the€case.€€TheÏcondition€and€position€of€the€victimððs€clothing,€the€victim€first€being€tied€upÏand€placed€on€the€bed€and€her€subsequent€removal€to€the€tub€wereÏcertainly€indications€separate€and€apart€from€the€condom€that€wouldÏindicate€the€victim€had€been€raped€prior€to€her€death.€€Defense€counselÏcannot€be€held€to€be€ineffective€for€not€objecting€to€evidence€that€isÏproperly€admissible.€€The€Court€finds€this€allegation€to€be€without€merit.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓÌà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€post„conviction€courtððs€finding€fails€to€addressÏthe€question€of€why€evidence€of€an€uncharged€rape€is€relevant€in€a€prosecution€forÏfelony€murder€where€the€underlying€crime€is€robbery.€€Generally,€ð ð[e]vidence€of€otherÏcrimes,€wrongs,€or€acts€is€not€admissible€to€prove€the€character€of€a€person€in€order€toÏshow€action€in€conformity€with€the€character€trait.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€However,Ïsuch€evidence€may€be€admissible€for€other€purposes.€€For€example,€€proof€of€bad€actsÏoccurring€before€and€after€the€offense€at€issue€are€admissible€to€provide€the€trier€of€factÏwith€ð ðthe€full€story.ðð€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Hoytóó,€928€S.W.2d€935,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)Ð ”%Œ" Ð(citing€N.€Cohen,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó,€ðð€404.11€(2d€ed.€1990).€òòE.g.óó,€òòState€v.Ð `'X $ ÐPayneóó,€791€S.W.2d€10,€16€(Tenn.€1990),€òòaffððd€byóó,€òòPayne€v.€United€Statesóó,€501€U.S.Ð 0)("& Ð808,€111€S.Ct.€2597€(1991));€òòsee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€McCaryóó,€922€S.W.2d€511,€514€(Tenn.Ð +ø#( Ð1996).€€Moreover,€considering€that€the€jury€learned€of€the€Stateððs€failure€to€test€theÏcontents€of€the€condom€and,€therefore,€could€only€infer€that€the€appellant€perpetratedÏa€rape€against€the€victim,€we€€conclude€that€the€probative€value€of€such€evidenceÏoutweighed€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€as€the€condom€was€not€specifically€identifiedÏas€belonging€to€the€appellant.€€òòSeeóó€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€401,€402,€403.€€Counsel€cannot€beÐ ü3ô,2 Ðfound€ineffective€for€failure€to€object€to€evidence€which€is€obviously€admissible.€€òòSeeóó€Ð È5À.4 ÐòòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€11.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.à  àÐ ”7Œ06 ÐÐ `9X28 ЇÓÓà ` àòòò ò2.€€Counselððs€failure€to€pursue€hearings€on€pretrial€motionsóóó ó.Ð  ÐÓWËÓÌà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€his€attorneys€ð ðutterly€failed€to€adequately€prepareÏthis€death€penalty€case€for€trial.ðð€€As€evidence€of€counselððs€total€inadequacy,€theÏappellant€asserts€that€counsel€ð ðdid€not€even€docket€for€hearing€a€number€of€non„case„¼specific,€generic€motions€that€had€been€previously€filed.ðð€€Thus,€the€appellant€arguesÏthat€he€was€deprived€of€the€opportunity€to€obtain€complete€discovery,€expand€the€scopeÏof€voir€dire€for€the€defense,€narrow€the€Stateððs€proof,€expand€the€defense€proof,€identifyÏthe€evidence€to€be€presented€at€trial,€and€to€generally€develop€his€case€and€exploreÏsettlement€possibilities.ÌÌà ` àApproximately€thirty€ð ðboilerplateðð€pre„trial€motions,€relative€to€all€capital€cases,Ïwere€filed€in€this€case.€€The€trial€court€refused€to€entertain€these€motions€because€theyÏhad€not€been€set€for€hearing€prior€to€trial.ñ†ñ׃ ×ñ†ññ†ñ׃F×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Isaiah€Gant,Ð „| Ðan€attorney€who€testified€as€an€expert€in€the€defense€of€capital€cases,€explained€thatÏpretrial€motion€practice€is€crucial€in€death€penalty€cases€in€that€such€practice€definesÏthe€parameters€of€both€the€prosecution€and€defense€cases.€€As€such,€Gant€concludedÏthat€trial€counselððs€failure€to€have€these€motions€heard€affected€the€entire€case.€€€RobertÏJones,€lead€trial€counsel€for€the€appellant,€explained€that€the€motions€were€notÏdocketed€for€trial€because€ð ðwe€felt€that€the€death€penalty€would€not€apply€in€this€case.ðð€ÏAdditionally,€Assistant€District€Attorney€Harris,€who€prosecuted€the€appellantððs€case,Ïrecalled€that€there€were€no€issues€requiring€a€pre„trial€hearing€and€that€the€motions€filedÏð ðgo€to€the€constitutionality€of€the€death€penaltyðð€and€ð ðare€filed€in€every€death€penaltyÏcase.ðð€€He€added€that€these€motions€are€normally€filed€in€order€for€ð ðthe€defense€[to]Ð |/t(- Ðpreserve€the€record.€€They€are€usually€submitted€€without€argument.ððÌÓÓà8 ` àÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÓ ÔÓà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€found€that€it€was€proper€to€file€these€ð ðgeneral€motionsÏto€protect€the€record.ðð€€However,€the€fact€that€the€motions€were€filed€is€not€the€basis€ofÏthe€claim€of€ineffectiveness.€€At€trial,€lead€counsel€could€offer€no€explanation€to€the€trialÏcourt€as€to€why€these€motions€had€not€been€set€for€argument.€€This,€in€and€of€itself,Ïamounts€to€deficient€performance.€€However,€as€the€appellant€has€failed€to€show€howÏany€of€these€motions€would€have€impacted€his€trial€and€that€he€was€prejudiced€thereby,Ïwe€conclude€that€he€has€not€met€his€burden€€of€establishing€his€claims€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.ÌÓÓÌÌà ` àò òòò3.€€Counselððs€failure€to€properly€investigate€other€possible€perpetrators.Ð æÞ ÐÌÌÓáÖÓà ` àóóó óThe€appellant€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failure€(1)€toÐ ª¢ Ðinvestigate€two€additional€suspects,€Anthony€Lewis€Ross€and€Taurus€Dwayne€Gardner;Ïand€(2)€to€investigate€and€question€the€officers€regarding€the€statement€of€Alice€Cooper.€ÏAppellantððs€post„conviction€counsel€failed€to€present€any€supporting€€evidence€of€theseÏcontentions;€and€we€will€not€speculate€as€to€the€alleged€suspectððs€involvement€nor€toÏthe€testimony€of€Ms.€Cooper,€as€previously€stated.€€Because€the€appellant€has€failedÏto€demonstrate€any€prejudice,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€€ÌÌÓÒÅÓà ` àò òòò4.€€Counselððs€failure€to€request€funds€for€expert€servicesóó.ó óÐ  +$( ÐÌÌÓîÙÓà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€secureÏthe€funds€necessary€to€provide€an€effective€defense.€€Specifically,€he€points€toÏcounselððs€failure€to€request€funds€to€conduct€a€mental€status€evaluation,€to€retain€aÏserologist€or€DNA€expert€to€test€the€used€condom€found€at€the€crime€scene,€to€retainÏa€forensic€expert€to€determine€whether€the€hair€combings€from€the€victim€included€orÏexcluded€the€appellant,€and€to€retain€a€fingerprint€expert€to€conduct€an€independentÏevaluation€of€the€incriminating€fingerprint€evidence.ÌÐ V:N39 Ðà ` àThere€is€no€dispute€that,€despite€the€appellantððs€continued€assertions€ofÏinnocence,€trial€counsel€failed€to€request€any€funds€for€any€of€the€above€enumeratedÏexpert€services.ÌÌÓÓà@.. ®àò òa.€€Failure€to€request€DNA/Serologist€expert€to€examine€condom€and€hairˆÐ 80 Ðsamples.ó óÐ $  ÐÌÓ›ÝÓà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Robert€Jones€testified€that€the€decision€not€toÏhave€the€hair€combings€from€the€victimððs€body€and€the€contents€of€the€condom€testedÏwere€tactical€decisions,€as€the€defense€team€believed€that€there€ð ðwas€a€good€chanceÏthat€it€would€have€been€our€client.€€We€felt€that€we€would€be€in€a€much€better€positionÏto€show€that€the€State€had€not€fully€investigated€the€case,€rather€than€taking€a€chanceÏon€proving€it€was€Mr.€Smith.ðð€€In€effect,€the€Stateððs€failure€to€submit€these€same€itemsÏfor€forensic€analysis€permitted€the€appellant€to€argue€that€the€State€had€failed€toÏestablish€his€connection€to€this€evidence.€€We€cannot€now€say€in€hindsight€that€this€wasÏan€unsound€strategical€decision.€€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9.€€Ð VN ÐÌà ` àMoreover,€before€he€may€succeed€on€such€a€claim€of€ineffectiveness,€theÏappellant€must€show€that,€but€for,€counselððs€failure€to€request€an€expert,€the€jury€wouldÏhave€had€a€reasonable€doubt€concerning€his€guilt.€€The€appellant€has€not€met€thisÏburden.€€In€order€to€obtain€expert€services,€a€defendant€must€show€a€particularizedÏneed€for€such€services.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Shepherdóó,€902€S.W.2d€895,€904€(Tenn.€1995).€Ð *#' Ѐ€ð ðThe€defendant€must€show€that€a€substantial€need€exists€requiring€the€assistance€ofÏstate€paid€supporting€services€and€that€his€defense€cannot€be€fully€developed€withoutÏsuch€professional€assistance.ðð€€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€192€(Tenn.€1992),Ð ‚/z(- Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€1064,€114€S.Ct.€740€(1994).€€He€has€not€identified€an€expertÐ N1F*/ Ðwitness€available€to€testify€on€his€behalf€or€the€type€of€testimony€such€a€witness€wouldÏhave€provided€beyond€that€elicited€at€trial.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€757.€€This€issueÐ æ4Þ-3 Ðis€without€merit.ÌÌÐ J:B39 Ðà@  ®àò òb.€Failure€to€request€funds€for€expert€mental€health€evaluation.ˆÐ  Ðà ` àó ó€€€ò ò€ó óAs€explanation€for€the€absence€of€a€request€for€funds€for€a€mental€healthÐ àØ Ðexpert,€Jones€testified€that€there€were€adequate€resources€from€the€Public€DefenderððsÏOffice€to€cover€the€fees€of€the€mental€retardation€examination,€thus,€there€was€no€needÏto€request€additional€funds€from€the€court.€€Although€Jonesðð€explanation€that€adequateÏfunds€were€available€from€the€Shelby€County€Public€Defenderððs€Office€suffices€toÏnegate€the€need€to€request€such€funding€from€the€court,€as€this€issue€affectsÏsubsequent€allegations€of€ineffectiveness€regarding€investigation€and€presentation€ofÏthe€case,€we€refrain,€at€this€juncture,€from€determining€whether€the€omission€of€suchÏa€request€prejudiced€the€appellantððs€defense.à p àÐ LD Ðà ` àÌà@p p ®àò òc.€€Failure€to€request€expert€services€for€fingerprint€analysis.ó óˆÐ äÜ Ðà ` àNo€testimony€was€presented€to€explain€the€failure€to€request€a€fingerprint€expert.ÏThere€is€no€doubt€that€the€fingerprint€evidence€was€a€crucial€piece€in€the€Stateððs€case,Ïestablishing€the€identity€of€the€appellant.ñ†ñ׃ ×ñ†ññ†ñ׃H×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€absent€any€explanation€in€the€record,Ð T L Ðwe€presume€a€threshold€finding€of€deficient€performance.€€Notwithstanding,€theÏappellant€has€not€demonstrated€how€he€was€harmed€by€counselððs€failure€to€request€theÏservices€of€independent€experts.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€757.€€The€qualificationsÐ ¸%°" Ðof€the€Stateððs€experts€were€not€challenged€and€there€is€no€allegation€of€bias.€ÏAdditionally,€at€trial,€counsel€cross„examined€the€expert€who€examined€the€fingerprints.€ÏThe€appellant€has€not€identified€an€expert€witness€available€to€testify€on€his€behalf€norÏhas€he€shown€what€additional€tests€his€experts€would€perform€or€what€new€testimonyÏthey€would€present.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBlackóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€757.€€The€appellant€has€failed€to€showÐ ´.¬', Ðhow€such€expert€testimony€would€have€altered€the€outcome€of€his€trial.€€€Moreover,€theÐ €0x). Ðmere€fact€that€the€State€relies€upon€expert€evidence€does€not€mean€that€an€indigentÏaccused€is€entitled€to€an€expert€absent€a€showing€that€the€failure€to€provide€expertÏservices€amounts€to€a€denial€of€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€728€S.W.2d€24,€25Ð   ˜ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Accordingly,€the€appellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€ofÏestablishing€that€counselððs€failure€to€request€a€fingerprint€expert€prejudiced€the€outcomeÏof€his€trial.Ìòòò òÓÓÌÌà ` à5.€€Counselððs€failure€to€€investigate,€litigate,€and€present€proof€on€theÏappellantððs€sanity,€his€competency€to€stand€trial,€and€his€mental€retardation€andÏcounselððs€failure€to€present€mitigating€evidence€during€the€€sentencing€phaseó óóó.Ð €x ÐÓ¯ðÓÌà ` àThe€appellant€argues€that€his€mental€condition€was€critical€at€both€the€guilt€andÏthe€sentencing€phases€of€his€trial€and€defense€counselððs€failure€to€explore,€investigate,Ïlitigate,€and€present€available€proof€of€his€mental€condition€constituted€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.ÌÌà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Robert€Jones€testified€that,€upon€assignment€toÏthe€appellantððs€case,€the€entire€defense€team,€which€included€two€attorneys€and€twoÏinvestigators,€met€with€the€appellant.€€€Jones€stated€that€the€appellant€gave€themÏnames€of€his€family€members€and€some€general€information.€€During€this€interview,€theÏappellant€denied€any€involvement€in€the€crime.€€He€explained€to€his€attorneys€that€heÏmay€have€been€at€work€at€the€time€of€the€crime,€but€counsel€was€unable€to€verify€thisÏalleged€alibi€or€develop€a€plausible€alibi€defense.€€Again,€the€appellant€presented€noÏproof€at€the€guilt€phase€of€his€trial.ÌÌà ` àJones€related€that€he€ordered€investigations€into€the€facts€of€the€case€and€theÏappellantððs€background.€€The€defense€team€interviewed€at€least€thirteen€witnesses€priorÏto€trial,€including€members€of€the€appellantððs€family,€however,€none€provided€any€helpfulÏinformation€regarding€the€appellant€or€the€case.€€Jones€also€testified€that€he€hadÏrequested€competency€and€sanity€evaluations€of€the€appellant.€€Despite€his€assertions,Ïhe€was€unable€to€provide€any€record€of€this€request,€nor€any€record€that€the€appellantÐ \:T39 Ðwas€ever€evaluated€to€determine€whether€the€defense€of€insanity€could€be€supportedÏor€whether€the€appellant€was€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Jones€stated€that€Dr.€HutsonÏwas€requested€to€administer€an€IQ€test€and€the€appellant€achieved€an€IQ€test€result€ofÏ54.€€The€results€of€this€test€and€the€appellantððs€school€records€were€the€basis€of€aÏmotion€to€determine€whether€the€appellant€was€mentally€retarded€and,€thus,€statutorilyÏineligible€to€receive€the€death€penalty.ñ†ñ׃+×ñ†ññ†ñ׃K×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€This€motion€was€filed€on€the€first€scheduledÐ ü  Ðday€of€trial€and€was€denied€by€the€trial€court€because€the€appellant€failed€to€proveÏð ðdeficits€in€his€adaptive€behavior,ðð€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€this€proof€was€readilyÏobtained€and€established€at€the€post„conviction€hearing.ñ†ñ׃E>×ñ†ññ†ñ׃M>×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Jones€stated€that€at€theÐ h` Ðmotion€hearing,€the€defense€team€only€had€possession€of€the€appellantððs€schoolÏrecords;€they€had€nothing€of€substance€from€any€of€the€previous€correctional€institutionsÏor€related€parole€reports.ñ†ñ׃ö ×ñ†ññ†ñ׃O@ ×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€admitted€that€he€could€not€recall€what€proof€wasÐ ÌÄ Ðintroduced€at€this€hearing.ñ†ñ׃® ×ñ†ññ†ñ׃QB×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ˜ ÐÌà ` àJones€stated€that€he€had€sent€a€release€to€the€Department€of€Correction€for€theÏappellantððs€records€and€received€eleven€pages€regarding€the€appellantððs€incarcerationÏat€Fort€Pillow.€€His€files€revealed€a€note€that€the€defense€team€had€received€recordsÏfrom€Taft€Youth€Center,€although€the€actual€record€was€not€in€the€file.€€He€stated€thatÏhe€had€no€records€from€Dismas€House€or€the€Board€of€Paroles.€€He€did€not€have€anyÏrecords€from€the€Shelby€County€Juvenile€Court€or€the€Covington€Mental€Health€Center.€Ð ,)$"& ÐHis€files€contained€no€psychological€evaluation€other€than€information€regarding€the€IQÏtest€performed€by€Dr.€Hutson.€€Jones€testified€that€he€was€unaware€of€prior€mentalÏevaluations€conducted€during€the€appellantððs€prior€periods€of€incarceration€by€at€leastÏeight€separate€psychologists.€€Jones€testified€that€the€only€witness€presented€during€theÏsentencing€phase€by€the€defense€was€Dr.€Hutson.€€Jones€stated€that€they€chose€not€toÏintroduce€friends€or€family€members€because€they€were€afraid€these€witnesses€wouldÏrelate€that€the€appellant€was€more€competent€than€they€believed€he€was,€because€theÏappellantððs€family€members€were€hostile€toward€the€appellant€due€to€his€rape€of€hisÏsisterððs€child,€and€because€they€were€afraid€of€the€Stateððs€cross„examination€regardingÏviolent€episodes€in€the€appellantððs€life.€ÌÌà ` àCarolyn€Watkins,€second€chair€counsel€to€Robert€Jones,€testified€that€this€wasÏher€first€capital€case.€€She€stated€that€Dr.€John€Hutson€was€retained€by€their€officeÏbecause€the€defense€team€ð ðfelt€that€the€defendant€had€some€type€of€psychological€orÏmental€problem.ðð€€She€explained€that€Dr.€Hutson€was€instructed€to€interview€theÏappellant,€assess€the€appellant€as€to€the€nature€of€any€problem,€and€ð ðlet€us€know€whatÏhe€thinks,ðð€because€after€their€initial€interview€the€defense€team€thought€the€appellantÏwas€slow.€€Despite€her€assertions€that€the€defense€team€had€requested€that€Dr.€HutsonÏperform€a€competency€evaluation,€her€records€could€not€verify€such€a€request.ÌÌà ` à€Dr.€John€Hutson,€the€psychologist€retained€by€the€Public€Defenderððs€Office,Ïtestified€that€he€was€only€instructed€to€administer€a€Stanford„Binet€I.Q.€test€to€theÏappellant.€€He€testified€that€the€Stanford„Binet€test€usually€scored€lower€than€the€moreÏwidely€used€Wechsler€test.€€He€stated€that€based€upon€the€Stanford„Binet€test,€theÏappellant€achieved€an€IQ€of€54,€which€probably€meant€that€the€appellant€functioned€inÏthe€low€to€mid€60's.€€He€opined€that€he€believed€the€appellant€to€be€mentally€retardedÏas€defined€by€statute.€€He€also€testified€that€the€appellantððs€mental€retardationÏmanifested€itself€during€the€appellantððs€developmental€period€before€age€eighteen.€€HeÏfurther€stated€that€the€defense€team€did€not€ask€him€to€perform€a€competencyÐ X9P28 Ðevaluation€nor€was€he€asked€to€explore€a€possible€insanity€defense.€€In€fact,€Dr.€HutsonÏtestified€that€he€never€reviewed€any€records€regarding€the€appellant€until€the€day€of€theÏpost„conviction€hearing.€€ÌÌà ` àIsaiah€Gant,€testifying€on€behalf€of€the€appellant,€stated€that,€after€reviewingÏcounselððs€files€and€the€record€in€this€case,€in€his€opinion,€the€appellant€had€a€mentalÏstate€defense€at€the€guilt€phase€of€the€trial,€although€his€counsel€did€not€pursue€this.€ÏAdditionally,€he€opined€that,€based€upon€the€reports€he€reviewed,€that€the€proof€offeredÏin€support€of€the€mental€retardation€issue€was€inadequate.€€Ìà ` àÌà ` àGloria€Shettles,€a€private€investigator€with€Inquisitor€Inc.,€was€hired€by€post„¼conviction€counsel€to€inquire€into€the€appellantððs€background.€Her€inquiry€revealed€thatÏthe€appellantððs€father€died€from€an€alcohol€related€illness€when€the€appellant€wasÏsixteen€years€old.€€His€mother€worked€two€full„time€jobs€to€support€the€appellant€and€hisÏfour€siblings€and,€apparently,€drank€heavily€when€she€was€at€home.€€The€appellantÏoften€missed€school€and€had€to€repeat€the€second,€third,€and€seventh€grades.€€TheÏappellant€never€completed€the€seventh€grade.€€€Although€he€had€studied€and€takenÏpreparatory€courses€while€in€prison,€the€appellant€was€never€able€to€pass€a€GEDÏexamination.€€ÌÌà ` àShettles€also€interviewed€the€appellant€on€several€occasions,€at€times€when€heÏwas€taking€anti„psychotic€medication€and€other€times€when€he€was€not€taking€theÏmedication€at€all.€€When€he€had€not€been€taking€his€medication,€he€suffered€fromÏheadaches€and€appeared€agitated.€€After€the€appellant€had€resumed€taking€hisÏmedication€for€a€period€of€two€to€three€days,€Shettles€observed€a€noticeable€differenceÏin€his€demeanor,€òòi.e.óó,€the€appellant€was€much€more€relaxed€and€less€irritated.€€SheÐ ô3ì,2 Ðstated€that€the€parole€board€would€have€had€access€to€all€of€the€appellantððs€recordsÏwhile€reviewing€parole€considerations.€€She€added€that,€although€many€of€theÏappellantððs€relevant€parole€field€records€had€now€been€destroyed,€these€records€wouldÐ \9T28 Ðhave€been€available€at€the€time€of€his€trial.€€Shettles€concluded€that€the€appellantððs€lifeÏhad€been€one€constant€sequence€of€violent€acts€until€he€began€receiving€medication.€ÌÌà ` àMattie€Halley€was€the€appellantððs€seventh€grade€teacher€at€Porter€Junior€HighÏSchool.€€She€explained€that€the€appellant€was€in€a€federally€funded€program€designedÏto€help€students€who€had€an€IQ€less€than€80€and€who€performed€three€to€four€gradeÏlevels€below€the€norm.€€She€recalled€ÌÓÓà8 ` àhaving€worked€with€[the€appellant]€and€witnessed€quite€a€bit€of€frustrationÏon€his€part.€€Especially€when€I€gave€him€a€simple€task€to€perform.€€HeÏwould€attempt€to€do€whatever€I€put€before€him€to€do,€but€he€just€couldnððtÏdo€it.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓ¤Ó€Because€of€his€problems,€Halley€stated€that€she€took€a€particular€interest€in€theÏappellant€and€gave€him€individualized€attention.€She€verified,€through€school€records,Ïthat€the€appellant€had€an€IQ€of€72€in€1957,€and€an€IQ€of€67€in€1960.€€She€also€testifiedÏthat€the€highest€grade€reading€equivalency€the€appellant€ever€reached€was€a€readingÏlevel€of€fourth€grade,€four€months.€€ÌÌà ` àMary€McGlothin€testified€that€she€met€the€appellant,€soon€after€his€release€fromÏincarceration€in€1987,€while€they€were€both€employed€at€S€&€S€Cafeteria.€€Through€thisÏemployment,€the€two€became€friends€and€the€appellant€lived€in€her€home€for€about€fourÏmonths.€€She€explained€that,€at€work,€the€appellant€worked€very€efficiently€but€that€heÏhad€problems€taking€orders.€€He€would€become€frustrated,€ill„€tempered,€and€hostile.€ÏAfter€being€employed€for€about€six€months,€the€appellant€was€asked€to€leave€becauseÏhe€was€caught€stealing€a€battery€at€a€nearby€K„Mart€store.€€Ms.€McGlothin€testified€that,Ïpersonally,€the€appellant€desired€a€boyfriend„girlfriend€relationship€with€her,€which€sheÏrejected.€€She€observed€that€ð ðhe€did€have€mental€problems.ðð€€On€several€occasions,€theÏappellant€claimed€to€hear€voices€from€God€telling€him€to€kill€people.€€While€he€residedÏwith€her€and€her€children,€ð ð[i]t€was€like€having€another€child.€€He€demanded€a€lot€ofÏattention€and€was€desperate€for€somebody€to€care€about€him.ðð€€He€was€very€dominatingÏand€was€jealous€of€Ms.€McGlothinððs€other€friends.€€She€further€testified€that€theÏappellant€was€unable€to€successfully€travel€by€bus,€thus,€he€resorted€to€walking€or€ridingÐ >:639 Ðhis€bicycle€wherever€he€went.€€She€also€stated€that€he€was€very€moody.€€On€oneÏoccasion,€the€appellant€came€in€with€a€sawed„off€shotgun,€to€which€Ms.€McGlothinÏobjected.€€The€incident€resulted€in€Ms.€McGlothin€calling€ð ð911"€and€the€police€havingÏto€restrain€the€appellant.€€As€a€result€of€this€incident,€the€appellant€spent€four€monthsÏin€the€Shelby€County€Jail.ÌÌà ` àDr.€William€Bernet,€Medical€Director€of€the€Psychiatric€Hospital€at€Vanderbilt,Ïtestified€that€he€was€retained€by€post„conviction€counsel€to€interview€and€evaluate€theÏappellant.€€He€stated€that€he€interviewed€the€appellant€for€two€hours€and€reviewed€theÏmedical,€legal,€administrative,€and€educational€records€of€the€appellant.€€As€a€result€ofÏhis€evaluation,€Dr.€Bernet€concluded€that€the€appellant€ð ðhas€multiple€bio„psycho„socialÏhandicaps,€.€.€.[encompassing]€a€number€of€different€areas;€including€his€intelligence.ðð€ÏDr.€Bernet€opined€that€the€appellant€has€a€below€normal€intelligence€and€that€theÏappellant€has€a€serious€psychiatric€illness,€specifically€an€illness€that€is€psychotic.€€HeÏstated€that€the€appellant€ð ðmay€have€some€brain€damage.€€And€that€[the€appellant]€hasÏbeen€in€institutions€so€long,€I€think€he€has€been€affected€by€that.ðð€ÌÌà ` àDr.€Bernet€further€explained€that€the€appellantððs€low€intelligence€is€manifestedÏby€his€school€performance,€his€poor€academic€performance,€his€inability€to€pass€a€GEDÏexamination,€and€his€inability€to€maintain€a€job.€€He€opined€that€the€appellantððsÏpsychiatric€condition€fits€most€closely€to€paranoid€schizophrenia,€manifested€by€€manyÏincidents€of€hallucinations,€auditory€hallucinations,€paranoia,€and€irritability€in€dealingÏwith€other€people.€€Additionally,€Dr.€Bernet€observed€that€the€appellant€had€previouslyÏbeen€treated,€while€in€prison,€for€schizophrenia€with€antipsychotic€medication.€€WhenÏasked€whether€the€appellant€was€competent€at€the€time€of€his€trial€in€October€1991,€Dr.ÏBernet€responded€that€ð ðthe€fact€that€he€wasnððt€on€medication€at€the€time,€that€when€heððsÏnot€on€medication€.€.€.€he€is€hallucinating€and€psychotic€and€disorganized€.€.€.€òòitððs€moreÐ À5¸.4 Ðlikely€than€not€that€he€was€not€competent€at€the€time€of€the€trialóó.ðð€(Emphasis€added).€Ð Œ7„06 ÐHe€continued€to€state€that€ð ðif€you€are€both€psychotic€and€.€.€.€retarded€then€itððs€evenÐ X9P28 Ðmore€of€a€handicap€than€having€either€one€of€them€alone.ðð€€He€opined€that€it€is€ÌÓÓà8 ` àòòvery€probable€that€[the€appellant]€has€had€this€condition€for€a€long€timeóóÐ ÔÌ Ðand€that€he€òòhad€these€conditions€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€offenseóó.€€AndÐ º ² Ðthat€òòthese€conditions€may€have€prevented€him€from€understanding€theÐ   ˜ Ðwrongfulness€of€his€actions€or€conforming€his€actions€to€the€requirementsÏof€the€lawóó.Ðl d` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓí$Ó(Emphasis€added).€€In€conclusion,€Dr.€Bernet€stated€that€the€appellantððs€òòÐ 80 ÐÓÓà8 ` àserious€mental€disorder€would€have€prevented€him€from€forming€an€intentÏto€commit€a€particular€actóó.€€If€you€combine€a€man€who€has€a€psychoticÐ êâ  Ðillness,€who€has€low€intelligence,€who€could€well€have€been€intoxicatedÏat€the€time,€I€think€all€these€things€could€have€prevented€him€from€formingÏan€intent.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÓ 'ÓÌ(Emphasis€added).ÌÌà ` àDr.€Geraldine€Bishop,€a€clinical€psychologist€also€retained€by€post„convictionÏcounsel,€assessed€the€adaptive€behavior€of€the€appellant.€€She€administered€the€testÏtwice,€once€based€upon€the€appellantððs€condition€while€in€a€structured€environment€onÏdeath€row€and€another€while€in€the€community€without€receiving€any€medicationÏimmediately€before€the€time€of€the€murder.€€Using€an€adaptive€behavior€scale€publishedÏfor€the€American€Association€of€Mental€Retardation€and€by€interviewing€the€appellant,Ïhis€prison€case€manager,€and€Mary€McGlothin,€Dr.€Bishop€was€able€to€obtain€aÏcontinuum€of€behavior€that€allowed€her€to€project€what€the€appellantððs€adaptiveÏbehavior€was€like€during€his€developmental€period.€€She€opined€that€the€appellant€hadÏcurrent,€as€well€as€a€history€of,€retarded€adaptive€behavior,€meaning€that€the€appellantÏwas€unable€to€adapt€to€the€surrounding€circumstances.€€She€also€concluded€that€thisÏretarded€adaptive€behavior€developed€well€before€he€was€eighteen€years€old.€ÌÌà ` àGail€Barbee,€with€the€Tennessee€Board€of€Parole,€introduced€severalÏdocuments.€€These€documents€included€ð ðnotices€of€board€actionðð€regarding€theÏappellantððs€eligibility€for€parole.€€Specifically,€on€June€4,€1986,€parole€wasÏrecommended€conditioned€upon€the€appellant€being€sent€to€Dismas€House.€€This€reportÏalso€noted€that€the€appellant€ð ðhas€lost€contact€with€the€outside€world€and€will€needÏsupport€on€the€outside.ðð€€Subsequent€notices€on€September€12,€1986;€May€15,€1987;€Ð >:639 Ðand€June€25,€1987,€stated€that€parole€would€have€to€be€conditioned€on€release€toÏDismas€House.€€ÌÌà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€State€called€no€witnesses€to€contradict€theÏexpert€opinions€of€Drs.€Hutson,€Bernet,€and€Bishop.ÌÌÌà@‹‹(®àò òc.€€Analysisó óˆÐ œ”  ÐÌà ` àAs€the€€issues€involving€the€defendantððs€mental€condition€are€so€intertwined€thatÏthey€cannot€be€neatly€divided€into€separate€areas,€we€begin€our€review€by€consolidatingÏthe€appellantððs€allegations€involving€competency,€sanity,€and€mental€retardation.€€òòSee,Ð ØÐ Ðe.g.óó,€òòStarr€v.€Lockhartóó,€23€F.3d€1280,€1290€n.7€(8th€Cir.€1994),€òòrehððg€deniedóó,€(1994),Ð ¤œ Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€513€U.S.€995,€115€S.Ct.€499€(1994).€€Next,€mindful€that€counselððs€duty€toÐ ph Ðinvestigate€all€reasonable€lines€of€defense€is€most€strictly€observed€in€capital€cases,€weÏmust€determine€whether€trial€counsel€knew€or,€through€reasonable€investigation,€shouldÏhave€known€of€the€appellantððs€pre„existing€mental€history.€€òòSeeóó€€òòColeman€v.€Brownóó,€802Ð Ô#Ì  ÐF.2d€1227,€1233„1234€(10th€Cir.€1986),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€482€U.S.€909,€107€S.Ct.€2491Ð  %˜" Ð(1987).€€€For€counsel€to€be€ineffective€in€failing€to€investigate€an€alleged€mentalÏcondition,€the€appellant€must€show€facts€indicating€a€possible€mental€condition.€ÏSometimes€it€will€be€evident€from€the€evidence€concerning€the€circumstances€of€theÏcrime,€from€conversation€with€the€defendant,€or€from€other€sources€of€information€notÏrequiring€fresh€investigation,€that€the€defendant€has€some€mental€or€other€condition€thatÏwill€require€further€investigation,€and€then€the€failure€to€investigate€will€be€ineffectiveÏassistance.€€òòSeeóó€€€òòAntwine€v.€Deloóó,€54€F.3d€1357,€1365„1368€(8th€Cir.€1995),€òòcert.Ð 42,+0 Ðdeniedóó,€516€U.S.€1067,€116€S.Ct.€753€(1996);€€òòBrewer€v.€Aikenóó,€935€F.2d€850,€857„858Ð 4ø,2 Ð(7th€Cir.€1991).€ÌÌà ` àThe€evidence€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€revealed€that€defenseÐ d9\28 Ðcounsel€possessed€evidence€regarding€the€appellantððs€mental€status€which€theyÏessentially€ignored.€€This€is€not€a€situation€where€trial€counsel€was€completely€unawareÏof€their€clientððs€mental€problems€prior€to€trial.€€Indeed,€defense€counselððs€file€included,Ïin€addition€to€the€results€of€Dr.€Hutsonððs€IQ€test€results€establishing€an€IQ€of€54,€€(1)Ïnotations€that€defense€counsel€knew€or€had€reason€to€know€that€the€appellant€had€beenÏprescribed€antipsychotic€medication€and€had€been€mentally€evaluated€while€in€prison,Ï(2)€notes€indicating€that€the€appellant€ð ðmay€need€examination€Review,ðð€and€(3)€a€memoÏfrom€Parole€Supervisor€Bernard€Bennett€which€reflects€ð ðcan€order€mental€evaluation.ðð€ÏÌà ` àDespite€this€information,€defense€counsel€failed€to€pursue€an€investigation€intoÏthe€appellantððs€mental€history.€€If€they€had€conducted€òòany€type€of€reasonableóó€effort€toÐ ø Ðseek€out€such€information,€they€would€have€discovered€that€the€appellant€has€spentÏmost€of€his€life€institutionalized.ñ†ñ׃×ñ†ññ†ñ׃S×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€In€addition€to€his€behavioral€records,€his€Department€œñ‡ñÐ ˜ ÐñŽññ‡ñÌñ‡ññŽñññÌññññÌññÌÐ È#À  Ðof›€Correction€record€documents€a€continuous€history€of€mental€evaluations,€counseling,Ïand€concerns.ññœ×ƒ×ññññ׃^×ññÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כРÔÌ Їà ` àThe€information€revealed€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€raises€doubt€as€to€theÏappellantððs€competency€to€stand€trial,€his€sanity€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€theÏoffense,€and€his€level€of€mental€retardation.€€We€cannot€arrive€at€any€conclusion€otherÏthan€finding€that€trial€counselððs€abandonment€of€furthering€its€investigation€into€theÏappellantððs€mental€condition,€after€only€a€cursory€investigation€regarding€the€appellantððsÏIQ,€was€not€reasonable€under€the€circumstances.€€Counselððs€duty€to€investigate€derivesÏfrom€counselððs€basic€function€which€is€ð ðto€make€the€adversarial€testing€process€work€inÏthe€particular€case.ðð€€òòKimmelman€v.€Morrisonóó,€477€U.S.€365,€384,€106€S.Ct.€2574,€2066Ð œ”  Ð(1986).€€Because€that€testing€process€generally€will€not€function€properly€unlessÏdefense€counsel€has€done€some€investigation€into€the€prosecutionððs€case€and€intoÏvarious€defense€strategies,€counsel€has€a€duty€to€make€reasonable€investigations€orÏto€make€a€reasonable€decision€that€makes€particular€investigations€unnecessary.€ÏòòKimmelman€v.€Morrisonóó,€477€U.S.€at€384,€106€S.Ct.€at€2066.€€€Ð ˜ ÐÌà ` àA€tactical€choice€not€to€pursue€one€course€or€another€should€not€be€confusedÏwith€the€duty€to€investigate;€€trial€counselððs€decision€not€to€further€investigate€into€theÏappellantððs€mental€health€status€and€background€was€not€strategic.€€Although€trialÏcounsel€is€afforded€tremendous€deference€over€matters€of€trial€strategy,€the€decisionÏto€select€a€trial€strategy€must€be€reasonably€supported€and€within€the€wide€range€ofÏprofessionally€competent€assistance.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€690,€104Ð ,)$"& ÐS.Ct.€at€2066.€€Viewing€the€performance€of€counsel€solely€from€the€perspective€ofÏstrategic€competence,€the€reviewing€court€must€find€that€defense€counsel€made€aÏsignificant€effort,€based€on€reasonable€investigation€and€logical€argument,€to€ablyÏpresent€the€defendantððs€case€to€the€jury.€€An€attorney€is€not€ineffective€merely€becauseÏhe€fails€to€follow€every€evidentiary€lead.€€However,€a€strategic€decision€is€notÏreasonable€when€the€attorney€has€failed€to€investigate€his€options€and€make€aÏreasonable€choice€between€them.ÌœñˆñÌñˆñ›Ð X9P28 Ðà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€Stateððs€evidence€consisted€of€fingerprint€evidence€takenÏat€the€crime€scene€and€the€appellantððs€confessions€to€his€niece€and€Willie€Cox.€€œSufficeñ’ñ€Ïitñ’ñ›€to€say,€the€case€against€the€appellant€€was€strong.€€Faced€with€these€facts,€trialÏcounsel€failed€to€take€advantage€of€information€relative€to€the€appellantððs€mentalÏcondition;€hence,€failing€to€consider€or€pursue€a€defense€of€insanity€or€the€issue€ofÏwhether€the€appellant€was€even€competent€to€stand€trial.€€Rather,€defense€counselÏproceeded€to€trial€apparently€hoping€to€cast,€through€cross„examination,€reasonableÏdoubt€upon€the€Stateððs€proof;€€in€essence,€they€presented€ð ðno€defense.ðð€€The€questionÏis€not€whether€an€alternative€defense€would€have€been€successful,€but,€rather,€whetherÏcounsel€ignored€the€only€viable€trial€strategy€under€the€facts.€€The€evidence€availableÏto€the€defense€team€not€only€triggered€a€duty€to€investigate€further€but€also€a€duty€toÏseek€a€competency€hearing€to€determine€whether€the€appellant€was€mentally€able€toÏconsult€with€the€defense€team€and€aid€in€his€defense€with€a€reasonable€degree€ofÏrational€understanding.€€€€Additionally,€if€defense€counsel€had€presented€such€evidenceÏrelating€to€the€appellantððs€mental€condition,€the€burden€of€proving€insanity€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€would€have€shifted€to€the€State€to€prove€his€sanity€atÏthe€time€of€the€offense€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€€Counselððs€failures€in€this€regardÏconstitute€deficient€performance.€€òòSeeóó€€òòAntwine€v.€Deloóó,€54€F.3d€at€1367„68€(holdingÐ ”%Œ" Ðcounsel€ineffective€in€failing€to€investigate€fully€before€rejecting€strategies€based€onÏclientððs€mental€condition);€òòKenley€v.€€Armontroutóó,€937€F.2d€1298,€1304„1308€(8th€Cir).Ð ,)$"& Ð(same),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€502€U.S.€964,€112€S.Ct.€431€(1991).Ð ø*ð#( ÐÌà ` àReasonable€performance€of€counsel€includes€an€adequate€investigation€of€facts,Ïconsideration€of€viable€theories,€and€development€of€evidence€to€support€thoseÏtheories.€€òòSeeóó€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€28€F.3d€832€(8th€Cir.€1994),€òòrehððg€deniedóó,€(1995),€òòcert.Ð (2 +0 Ðdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€1102,€115€S.Ct.€778€(1995).€€Clearly,€counselððs€performance€in€theÐ ô3ì,2 Ðpresent€case€was€not€reasonable€and€fell€below€the€range€of€sound€professionalÏassistance.€€To€do€little€or€no€investigation€at€all€on€an€issue€that€not€only€implicates€theÏaccusedððs€òòonlyóó€viable€defense,€but€also€his€present€competency,€is€not€a€tactical€Ð X9P28 ЇÌdecision.׃,×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€It€is€only€in€very€rare€circumstances€where€a€decision€òònotóó€to€investigate€aÐ ÔÌ Ðclientððs€mental€condition€would€be€reasonable€after€counsel€has€notice€of€the€clientððsÏhistory€of€mental€problems.€€Where€counsel€(1)€makes€some€exploration€of€the€mentalÏhistory€of€the€appellant€but€òòfails€to€take€an€obvious€and€easily€available€stepóó€whichÐ 80 Ðwould€have€made€such€a€defense€viable,€(2)€òòdoes€not€produce€reasonable€tacticalÐ ü  Ðreasonsóó€for€not€pursuing€further€investigation,€and€(3)€òòraises€no€other€plausible€defenseóó,Ð ÐÈ  Ðcourts€may€find€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€€òòWalker€v.€Mitchellóó,€587€F.€Supp.Ð œ”  Ð1432€(E.D.€Va.€1984)€(emphasis€added);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòLoe€v.€United€Statesóó,€545€F.€Supp.Ð h` Ð662€(E.D.€Va.€1982),€òòaffððd€memóó.,€701€F.2d€149€(4th€Cir.€1983).€€€€€Ð 4, ÐÌà ` àGiven€the€severity€of€the€charges€and€potential€penalty€facing€the€appellant,€weÏbelieve€that€it€was€the€duty€of€the€appellantððs€attorneys€to€collect€as€much€informationÏas€possible€about€the€appellantððs€mental€history.€€The€failure€to€obtain€the€recordsÏverifying€the€appellantððs€treatment€with€antipsychotic€medication€was€not€a€tacticalÏdecision€but,€rather,€the€result€of€counselððs€inadequate€preparation€resulting€in€theirÏfailure€to€discover€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€€òòLaws€v.€Armontroutóó,€863€F.2d€1377,€1385€(8thÐ Ì#Ä  ÐCir.€1988)€(òòen€bancóó),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€490€U.S.€1040,€109€S.Ct.€1944€(1989).€€We€furtherÐ ˜%" Ðfind€it€impossible€to€fathom€that€the€appellant€was€not€prejudiced€by€trial€counselððsÏfailure€to€explore€the€appellantððs€mental€history€for€possible€defenses,€proof,€andÏmitigating€evidence.€€The€psychiatric€evidence,€if€properly€investigated€and€presentedÏcould€have€totally€changed€the€evidentiary€picture€in€the€present€case.€€ð ðWhen€defenseÏcounsel€ððentirely€fails€to€subject€the€prosecutionððs€case€to€meaningful€adversarialÏtesting,€there€has€been€a€denial€of€Sixth€Amendment€rights€that€makes€the€adversaryÐ d0\). Ðprocess€itself€presumptively€unreliable.ðððð€€òòBrimmeróó,€No.€03C01„9703„CC„00083€(citingÐ  ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Cronicóó,€466€U.S.€648,€659,€104€S.Ct.€2039,€2045€(1984)).€€Thus,€weÐ ÔÌ Ðfind€counselððs€failure€to€investigate€the€appellantððs€mental€condition€both€deficient€andÏprejudicial€requiring€a€new€trial.ÌÌà@4 4 ®àò òb.€€Mitigating€Evidence€at€Sentencing€Hearingó óˆÐ ü  Ðà ` àAlthough€our€supreme€court€has€observed€that€there€is€no€legal€requirement€andÏno€established€practice€that€the€accused€must€offer€evidence€at€the€penalty€phase€ofÏa€capital€trial,€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989),€òòcert.Ð tl Ðdeniedóó,€493€U.S.€874,€110€S.Ct.€211€(1989),€we€remain€cognizant€of€the€fact€that€theÐ @8 Ðbasic€concerns€of€counsel€during€a€capital€sentencing€proceeding€are€to€neutralize€theÏaggravating€circumstances€advanced€by€the€State€and€to€present€mitigating€evidenceÏon€behalf€of€the€defendant.€Thus,€although€there€is€no€requirement€that€defenseÏcounsel€present€mitigating€evidence€in€the€sentencing€phase€of€a€capital€trial,€counselððsÏduty€to€investigate€and€prepare€for€a€capital€trial€encompasses€both€the€guilt€and€theÏsentencing€phases,€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369„370€(Tenn.€1996)€(citationsÐ " Ðomitted),€and,€before€selecting€a€strategy€at€sentencing,€counsel€must€conduct€aÏreasonable€investigation€into€the€appellantððs€background€for€mitigation€evidence€to€useÏat€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€€òòBaxter€v.€Thomasóó,€45€F.3d€1501,€1513€(11th€Cir.€1995),€òòrehððgÐ l'd $ Ðdeniedóó,€(1995)€(òòen€bancóó),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€516€U.S.€946,€116€S.Ct.€385€(1995).Ð 8)0"& ÐÌà ` àIn€determining€whether€or€not€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€presentÏmitigating€evidence,€our€supreme€court€has€outlined€several€factors€to€consider€inÏmaking€such€an€evaluation.€€First,€the€reviewing€court€must€analyze€the€nature€andÏextent€of€the€mitigating€evidence€that€was€available€but€not€presented.€€òòGoadóó,€938Ð 820+0 ÐS.W.2d€at€371€(citing€òòDeutscher€v.€Whitleyóó,€946€F.2d€1443€(9th€Cir.€1991);€òòStephensÐ 4ü,2 Ðv.€Kempóó,€846€F.2d€€642€(11th€Cir.€1988);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€532€(Tenn.Ð Ð5È.4 ÐCrim.€App.€1992);€òòState€v.€Adkinsóó,€911€S.W.2d€334€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)).€€Second,Ð œ7”06 Ðthe€court€must€determine€whether€substantially€similar€mitigating€evidence€wasÐ h9`28 Ðpresented€to€the€jury€in€either€the€guilt€or€penalty€phase€of€the€proceedings.€€òòId.óó€€(citingÐ  ÐòòAtkins€v.€Singletaryóó,€965€F.2d€952€(11th€Cir.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€515€U.S.€1165,€115Ð ÔÌ ÐS.Ct.€2624€(1995);€òòClozza€v.€Murrayóó,€913€F.2d€1092€(4th€Cir.€1990),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€499Ð   ˜ ÐU.S.€913,€111€S.Ct.€1123€(1991);€òòMelsonóó,€722€S.W.2d€at€421.€€Third,€the€court€mustÐ l d Ðconsider€whether€there€was€such€strong€evidence€of€€applicable€aggravating€factor(s)Ïthat€the€mitigating€evidence€would€not€have€affected€the€juryððs€determination.€€òòId.óó€€(citingÐ ü  ÐòòFitzgerald€v.€Thompsonóó,€943€F.2d€463,€470€(4th€Cir.€1991),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€502€U.S.Ð ÐÈ  Ð1112,€112€S.Ct.€1219€(1992);€òòElledge€v.€Duggeróó,€823€F.2d€1439€(11th€Cir.€1987),€òòcert.Ð œ”  Ðdeniedóó,€485€U.S.€1014,€108€S.Ct.€1487€(1988)).Ð h` ÐÌà ` àBy€failing€to€investigate€the€appellantððs€mental€history,€defense€counselÏeffectively€precluded€the€jury€from€considering€the€combination€of€his€troubled€andÏdysfunctional€home€life,€evidence€of€his€mental€retardation,€evidence€of€deficits€in€hisÏadaptive€behavior,€evidence€of€€his€history€of€ð ðmental€confusion,€impaired€memory,Ïparanoid€ideation,€[and]€auditory€hallucinations,ðð€€his€prolonged€period€ofÏinstitutionalization,€and€his€current€and€prior€treatment€with€antipsychotic€andÏantidepressant€medication.€€Even€if€the€jury€had€rejected€the€defense€of€insanity,Ïevidence€of€the€appellantððs€failure€to€take€antipsychotic€medication€would€have€beenÏcritical€in€attempting€to€show€mitigating€circumstances.€€The€evidence€with€respect€toÏthe€appellantððs€history€of€successful€treatment€€with€anti„psychotic€drugs€and€of€hisÏregression€when€he€discontinued€those€drugs€indicated€a€likelihood€that€he€wasÏsuffering€from€long„standing€and€extensive€mental€problems.€Yet,€the€jury€had€noÏopportunity€to€consider€that€evidence.€€ÌÌà ` àGiven€the€significant€evidence€of€the€appellantððs€history€of€mental€conditions€andÏdisorders,€we€can€hardly€imagine€that€the€appellant€was€not€prejudiced€by€his€lawyersÏdefault.€€òòSee€generallyóó€€òòStephens€v.€Kempóó,€846€F.2d€at€653€(ð ðprejudice€is€clearðð€whereÐ À5¸.4 Ðattorneys€failed€to€investigate€adequately€clientððs€mental€health€and€present€evidenceÏof€clientððs€mental€problems€in€sentencing€phase);€òòZant€v.€Pittsóó,€436€S.E.2d€4€(Ga.Ð X9P28 Ð1993),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€byóó,€òòTurpin€v.€Hillóó,€498€S.E.2d€52€(Ga.€1998)€(trialÐ  Ðcounsel€ineffective€for€failing€to€present€defense€of€mental€retardation€where€mentalÏexaminations€showed€that€defendant€mildly€mentally€retarded).€€We€conclude€that€aÏreasonable€probability€does€exist€that€the€jury€would€not€have€found€that€the€statutoryÏaggravating€factors€outweighed€mitigating€factors€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ÌÌà ` àIn€short,€we€find€that€because€the€appellantððs€attorneys€failed€to€investigate€andÏpresent€evidence€with€respect€to€his€mental€condition,€both€the€guilt€and€the€sentencingÏphases€of€the€appellantððs€trial€were€rendered€fundamentally€unfair.€€The€appellant€hasÏmet€both€prongs€of€the€òòStricklandóó€test.ñ†ñ׃×ñ†ññ†ñ׃Z×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 4, ÐÌÑ7€,XXdðXXdæ7ÑÌà@//®àò òVI.€€Cumulative€Erroró ó€ò ò&€Conclusionó óˆÐ ˜ ÐÌà ` àLastly,€the€appellant€complains€that€the€cumulative€effect€of€errors€committed€byÏhis€attorneys,€the€trial€court,€and€the€prosecution€throughout€the€investigation,Ïpreparation,€trial,€and€appeal€of€his€case€violated€his€rights€under€the€Sixth,€Eighth€andÏFourteenth€Amendments,€and€Article€I,€Sections€6,€7,€8€,9,€10,€16,€17,€19,€and€20€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€When€an€attorney€has€made€a€series€of€errors€that€preventsÏthe€proper€presentation€of€a€defense,€it€is€appropriate€to€consider€the€cumulative€impactÏof€the€errors€in€assessing€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarris€by€and€through€Ramseyer€v.€Woodóó,€64Ð +ü#( ÐF.3d€1432,€1438€(9th€Cir.€1995),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€490€U.S.€1075,€109€S.Ct.€2088€(1989)Ð Ð,È%* Ð(citing€òòCrisp€v.€Duckworthóó,€743€F.2d€580,€583€(7th€Cir.€1984),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€469€U.S.Ð œ.”', Ð1226,€105€S.Ct.€1221€(1985);€òòCooper€v.€Fitzharrisóó,€586€F.2d€1325,€1333€(9th€Cir.€1978)Ð h0`). Ð(òòen€bancóó),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€440€U.S.€974,€99€S.Ct.€1542€(1979);€òòUnited€States€v.€Merritóó,Ð 42,+0 Ð528€F.2d€650,€651€(7th€Cir.€1976)€(òòper€curiumóó)).€Counselððs€failure€to€conduct€adequateÐ 4ü,2 Ðpretrial€preparation€and€investigation€suffices€for€a€showing€of€prejudice.€€CounselððsÏconstitutionally€deficient€actions,€numerous€throughout€their€representation€of€theÏappellant,€collectively€establish€a€prejudice€of€such€magnitude€that€we€can€reach€noÏconclusion€other€than€the€errors€cumulatively€prejudiced€the€appellantððs€right€to€a€fairÏproceeding.€€There€is€no€hesitation€in€reaching€our€conclusion€that€there€is€a€reasonableÏprobability€that,€absent€the€deficiencies,€the€outcome€of€the€trial€might€well€have€beenÏdifferent.€€Indeed,€the€plethora€and€gravity€of€counselððs€deficiencies€rendered€the€entireÏproceeding€fundamentally€unfair.ÌÌà ` àUpon€review€of€the€entire€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€findings€of€the€post„conviction€court.€€òòButleróó,€789€S.W.2d€at€899.€€InÐ ø Ðconsideration€of€the€prejudice€caused€the€appellant€by€trial€counselððs€failure€toÏadequately€investigate€his€mental€condition€and€the€prejudice€resulting€from€theÏcumulative€effect€of€counselððs€numerous€constitutional€deficiencies€in€both€theÏpreparation€and€trial€of€this€case,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€post„convictionÏrelief€for€the€offense€of€first€degree€murder€is€reversed.ñ†ñ׃ ×ñ†ññ†ñ׃\×ñ†ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€new€trial€is€granted€due€toÐ ü!ô Ðthe€glaring€nature€of€counselððs€ineffectiveness€throughout€all€phases€of€this€trial.ÓÓÌÌÌœñ‰ñÌñ‰ñ›ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌ________________________________Ìñ„ññƒñjoeñƒññ„ññ…ñJOE€G.€RILEY,€Judgeñ…ñÌÌ