ÿWPC 4# èU:ó %- 0434g{bŠ 0³’ 0DE‰ 0D‘w@Õ 0J 0T_ 0^³ 0h 0ry 0|ë 0†g 0í 1u} 0dò AQV Ƨ 0Dm 0@± Bñ D/ B= D3Z U * B)· DCà AM# !p ¶‘vGv~½vÓ;˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Óê‚_#tÔôÔô3|x'- ù-(c(2 $¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÔ€ôHõôXXÔà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó ô&õ&{ö&÷& ø&Pù&Pú&û&Ó€''2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"# &Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd!#-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€+XÔÌÌDecember€15,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ¬Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOral€arguments€were€heard€in€this€case€on€October€8,€1997€in€Columbia,€Maury€County,€asÏpart€of€this€Courtððs€S.C.A.L.E.S.›€(ò òSó óupreme€ò òCó óourtò ò€Aó ódvancingò ò€Ló óegal€ò òEó óducation€for€ò òSó ótudents)Ïproject.€Ì lÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÔ€+ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Sixth€Amendment€is€applicable€to€the€states€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€ÏòòSee€Pointer€v.€Texasóó,€380€U.S.€400,€85€S.Ct.€1065,€13€L.Ed.2d€923€(1965).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ , ÑÑ ` ÑÑ7€·ÀXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€Ñò òØ ØÓ&€XÐd&Ó›Þ ÞÌà@ àÔ€+¼ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€!ÙœßR€./-A1-j| b` ç `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€NASHVILLE€Ô€+XÔó óÌà@ à(HEARD€AT€COLUMBIA)ÌÌœà àà àà àà àà àà à›Ìœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóó›ÌSTEVE€HENLEY,à àà àà àà à)à àœ›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àò òFiled:ó ó€œò òDecember€15,€1997ó ó›Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJACKSON€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àHon.€œJ.O.›€BOND,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€œ01S01›„9703„CC„00056à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌJohn€Knox€Walkupà àà àà àà àJack€E.€SeamanÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àœLyell›,€Seaman€&€œShelton›€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌMichael€E.€Mooreà àà àà àà àÌSolicitor€Generalà àà àà àà àPaul€S.€DavidsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àStokes€&€BartholomewÌJohn€H.€Baker,€IIIÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€Tennesseeà@ àÌà àà àà àÌTom€P.€ThompsonÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌJohn€œWooten›ÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌœHartsville›,€TennesseeÌà@ àÌÌÌÔ€+„Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÔ€+XÔCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌREVERSED;€TRIAL€COURT€JUDGMENTÌREINSTATED;€PETITION€DENIED.à àà àà àà àà àœDROWOTA›,€J.ÇÓÓ€à àIn€this€post€conviction€proceeding,€the€trial€court€denied€relief€on€allÏgrounds€alleged,€and€specifically€found€that€the€petitioner,€Steve€Henley,€hadÏbeen€afforded€his€constitutional€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€theÏsentencing€phase€of€his€capital€trial.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€found€thatÏthe€evidence€preponderated€against€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€relief€with€respectÏto€the€sentencing€phase,€and€concluded€that€Henley€had€been€denied€his€right€toÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€trial€counsel€had€failed€to€adequatelyÏinvestigate€and€prepare€witnesses€to€testify€on€Henleyððs€behalf€and€had€failed€toÏadequately€investigate€Henleyððs€mental€condition€and€request€that€he€undergo€aÏmental€evaluation.€€Accordingly,€€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversedÏHenleyððs€sentence€of€death€and€ordered€a€new€sentencing€hearing.€€Thereafter,Ïwe€granted€the€State€permission€to€appeal€to€determine€whether€the€intermediateÏcourt€erred€in€concluding€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððsÏfinding€that€Henley€was€afforded€his€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€atÏsentencing.€€After€carefully€reviewing€the€record,€we€have€determined€that€theÏevidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding.€€Accordingly€the€judgment€of€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals€ordering€a€new€sentencing€hearing€is€reversed,€and€the€trialÍcourtððs€decision€denying€the€petition€for€post€conviction€relief€on€all€groundsÏalleged€is€reinstated.× ƒ0 ××  ×ÌÌà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDó óóóÌà àIn€1986,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€aggravated€arson€and€two€countsÏof€first€degree€premeditated€murder€for€the€killings€of€Fred€and€Edna€Stafford,€anÏelderly€couple€who€were€close€neighbors€to€Henleyððs€grandmother.€€According€toÏthe€testimony€of€his€co„defendant,€Terry€Flatt,€the€petitioner€ordered€both€victimsÏinside€their€home,€shot€them€multiple€times,€and€set€their€house€on€fire.€à àTheÏproof€introduced€at€trial€to€establish€the€defendantððs€guilt€was€summarized€by€thisÏCourt€on€direct€appeal€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà à[œT]he›€evidence€showed€that€Fred€and€Edna€Stafford€lived€onÏPine€Lick€Creek€Road€in€Jackson€County,€just€a€short€distance€fromÏthe€farm,€owned€by€Henleyððs€family,€where€his€grandmother€lived.€ÏOn€the€day€of€the€œStaffords›ðð€death€Henley€had€visited€hisÏgrandmother€and€obtained€some€mechanical€parts€for€some€workÏhe€was€doing.€€Flatt€was€with€him.€€Earlier€in€the€day€they€had€beenÏdriving€about,€tending€to€business€affairs€of€Henleyððs.€€During€thatÍtime€they€had€consumed€some€beer€and€also€had€taken€someÏdrugs,€referred€to€in€the€record€as€œDilaudids›.€€According€to€Flatt,€asÏthey€passed€the€Staffordsðð€residence€Henley€commented,€ððthereÏwas€some€people€that€lived€on€that€road€that€owed€his€grandmotherÏor€grandfather€some€money,€and€they€done€him€wrong,€hisÏgrandparents€wrong€years€before,€and€he€was€going€to€stop€andÏsee€about€collecting€some€money€off€them.ðð€€Henley€let€Flatt€out€ofÏthe€truck€just€before€he€reached€his€grandmotherððs€house.€€When€heÏreturned€five€or€ten€minutes€later€he€had€a€.22€rifle€with€him.€€TheyÏstopped€fifty€or€seventy„five€yards€up€the€road€where€Henley€loadedÏsome€more€shells€into€the€rifle.€€He€also€filled€a€plastic€jug€withÏgasoline€from€a€five„gallon€can€he€had€in€the€back€of€the€truck.€ÏThey€proceeded€on€toward€the€Stafford€residence.€€When€theyÏreached€there€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Stafford€were€standing€on€the€left„handÏside€of€the€road€looking€at€a€small€bridge€where€some€constructionÏwork€had€recently€been€done,€€Henley€stopped€the€truck,€jumpedÏout€and€told€them,€ððI€want€your€money,€if€you€donððt€give€it€to€me€thisÏman€in€the€truck€here,€heððs€going€to€kill€me.ðð€€He€then€directed€themÏto€go€to€the€house.€€Mr.€Stafford€said,€ððSteve,€if€you€want€money€orÏsomething,€I€got€€$80,€maybe€$100,€you€can€have€it.ðð€€He€forcedÏthem€on€to€the€house€at€gunpoint€and€told€Flatt€to€bring€the€.22€rifleÏas€he€followed€behind€them.€€When€they€got€within€20€or€30€feet€ofÏthe€house€he€told€Flatt€to€give€him€the€rifle€and€go€back€to€the€truckÏand€get€the€plastic€jug€of€gasoline.€€Flatt€did€as€directed.€€As€heÏreached€the€porch€he€saw€Henley€begin€to€shoot.€€He€first€shot€Mr.ÏStafford€then€turned€and€shot€Mrs.€Stafford€a€time€or€two.€€While€sheÏwas€laying€on€the€floor€moaning€and€groaning€he€threw€the€rifle€toÏFlatt,€took€out€his€pistol€and€shot€her€again€with€the€pistol.€€He€toldÏFlatt€to€pour€out€some€of€the€gas.€€Flat€endeavored€to€do€as€he€wasÏtold€and€poured€out€a€small€amount.€€When€he€could€not€finishÏHenley€took€the€container€of€gas€from€him€and€finished€pouring€itÏout.€€He€then€directed€Flatt€to€light€it.€€When€Flatt€said€he€could€notÍhe€struck€the€match€and€as€the€flames€went€up€they€ran€to€the€truck.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€house€burned€to€the€ground.€€The€bodies€of€the€StaffordsÏwere€found€in€the€ashes.€€All€that€remained€of€Mr.€Staffordððs€bodyÏwas€part€of€the€right€leg€and€the€trunk€area.€€The€body€of€Mrs.ÏStafford€was€similarly€burned.€€It€was€determined€that€Mr.€StaffordÏdied€from€a€gunshot€wound€to€the€chest€with€the€bullet€passingÏthrough€his€heart.€€Mrs.€Staffordððs€death€was€caused€by€burns€andÏinhalation€of€noxious€gases€from€the€fire.€€It€was€the€opinion€of€theÏmedical€examiner€that€Mrs.€Stafford€lived€a€minute€or€longer€afterÏthe€fire€began.ÌÓÓÌòòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908,€912€(Tenn.€1989).ÌÌà àAt€trial€Henley€maintained€his€innocence€and€attempted€to€discredit€theÏprosecutionððs€evidence,€particularly€the€testimony€of€co„defendant€œFlatt›€whichÏwas€crucial€to€the€Stateððs€case.€€The€defense€showed€that€by€testifying,€œFlatt›€hadÏgained€the€benefit€of€a€plea€bargain€agreement,€pursuant€to€which,€Flatt€hadÏbeen€allowed€to€plead€guilty€to€two€counts€of€second€degree€murder,€two€countsÏof€armed€robbery€and€one€count€of€aggravated€arson.€€Flatt€was€sentenced€as€aÏRange€I€offender€to€twenty„five€years€for€each€of€the€murders,€ten€years€for€eachÏof€the€robberies,€and€ten€years€for€the€arson,€all€to€run€concurrently,€for€anÍeffective€sentence€of€twenty„five€years.€ÌÌà àTestifying€in€his€own€defense,€Henley€adamantly€denied€all€knowledge€ofÏand€involvement€in€the€murders€and€arson.€€Henley€acknowledged€that€he€hadÏspent€the€day€in€the€company€of€Flatt,€and€he€admitted€that€he€had€drank€someÏbeer.€€However,€Henley€flatly€denied€that€he€was€intoxicated€or€under€theÏinfluence€of€drugs.€€Henley€said€he€did€not€like€to€drink€beer€and€had€neverÏabused€drugs.€€Henley€testified€that€it€was€Flatt€who€was€intoxicated€and€underÏthe€influence€of€the€drug€referred€to€in€the€record€as€œDilaudid›.€€Henley€said€thatÏhe€dropped€Flatt€off€before€arriving€at€his€grandmotherððs€house€because€of€FlattððsÏintoxicated€condition.€€Flatt€left€the€truck€with€Henleyððs€.22€gauge€rifle€planning€toÏhunt€rabbits.€€Henley€said€he€proceeded€to€his€grandmotherððs€house€andÏremained€there€for€about€forty„five€minutes€to€an€hour.€€Henley€picked€Flatt€upÏwhen€he€left,€but€had€no€knowledge€of€Flattððs€activities€during€the€intervening€timeÏframe.€€Henley€claimed€that€he€did€not€see€the€fire€at€the€Staffordsðð€home€and€wasÏnot€aware€of€their€deaths€until€the€next€day.€€On€cross„examination,€HenleyÏadmitted€that€he€previously€had€pleaded€guilty€to€transporting€stolen€goods€inÍinterstate€commerce.€€In€addition,€Henley€admitted€that€he€owed€a€substantialÏfarming€debt€near€the€time€of€the€killings€and€had€filed€for€bankruptcy.€€ÌÌà àThe€defense€called€other€witnesses€during€the€guilt€phase€to€corroborateÏHenleyððs€testimony€about€his€activities€on€the€day€of€the€murders€and€to€provideÏbackground€information€about€Henleyððs€life.€€Henleyððs€grandmother€testified€thatÏaround€the€time€of€the€murders,€Henley€arrived€at€her€home€alone€and€stayedÏthere€for€forty€to€forty„five€minutes.€€On€cross„examination,€she€admitted€that€sheÏhad€seen€Henley€with€the€.22€rifle€on€Saturday€before€the€Staffords€wereÏmurdered€on€Wednesday.ÌÌà àAfter€the€jury€convicted€Henley€of€two€counts€of€premeditated€murder€andÏarson,€the€case€proceeded€to€sentencing.€€The€State€relied€upon€the€proof€it€hadÏpresented€at€the€guilt€phase.ÌÌà àThe€defense€offered€further€proof,€first€calling€Henleyððs€mother,€who,€in€theÏpresence€of€the€jury€said,€ð ðI€want€to€talk€to€you€Mr.€Reneau.ðð€€Defense€counsel,ÍJ.H.€Reneau,€III,€requested€and€was€granted€a€short€recess.€€He€exited€theÏcourtroom€with€Dorothy€Henley.€€When€the€sentencing€hearing€resumed,€she€didÏnot€take€the€stand,€and€the€jury€was€not€given€an€explanation€for€her€failure€toÏtestify.€€Instead,€the€defense€recalled€Bertha€Henley,€the€petitionerððs€seventy„five„year„old€grandmother€who€testified€that€Henley,€along€with€his€parents,€had€livedÏin€her€household€from€the€time€he€was€born€until€he€was€two€years€old.€€InÏaddition,€Henley€had€spent€every€weekend€and€summer€vacation€thereafter€inÏher€home€until€he€completed€high€school.€€She€said€that€Henley€had€a€very€closeÏrelationship€with€his€grandfather,€and€that,€from€a€very€young€age,€Henley€hadÏhelped€his€grandfather€with€farm€work.€€She€described€Henley€as€a€ð ðgood€childððÏwho€ð ðmindedðð€her€well€and€who€ð ðalways€lovedðð€her.€€Henley€married€when€heÏwas€eighteen„years„old,€and€had€two€children,€Gregg€and€Leanne.€€€Even€afterÏhis€marriage,€however,€Henleyððs€close€relationship€with€his€grandparentsÏcontinued.€€Though€he€and€his€family€moved€from€Tennessee€to€Maryland,ÏHenley€returned€to€Tennessee€when€his€grandfather€was€diagnosed€with€cancerÏin€May€of€1976€and€lived€with€his€family€in€a€trailer€across€from€his€grandparentsððÏhome€so€that€he€could€help€his€grandfather€with€the€farm€work.€€After€hisÍgrandfather€died€of€cancer€in€July€of€1976,€Henley€began€working€on€the€familyÏfarm€full€time€and€continued€in€that€occupation€from€1977€to€1983.€€During€thatÏtime,€Henley€visited€his€grandmother€almost€everyday,€and€continued€to€check€onÏher€regularly€thereafter.€€She€could€not€drive€because€she€had€suffered€a€heartÏattack,€so€Henley€would€drive€her€to€the€doctor€and€into€town€once€a€week€to€payÏbills€and€buy€groceries.€€Henleyððs€grandmother€described€him€as€a€ð ðtenderÏheartedðð€person€who€would€cry€when€his€feelings€were€hurt.€€She€said€he€hadÏalways€been€kind€and€good€to€her,€ever€willing€to€provide€her€with€neededÏassistance.€€She€told€the€jury€that€she€loved€Henley,€the€eldest€of€her€fourÏgrandchildren,€and€did€not€want€to€see€anything€happen€to€him.€€The€State€didÏnot€cross€examine€Bertha€Henley€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà àHenley€also€testified€about€his€relationship€with€his€grandparents€and€howÏhe€had€played€and€worked€on€the€farm€from€a€very€young€age.€€When€asked€whyÏhe€stayed€with€his€grandparents,€rather€than€his€parents,€on€the€weekends€andÏduring€his€summer€vacations,€Henley€replied,€ð ðIððd€just€love€them€more€thanÏanything€in€the€world.€€Thereððs€no€way€to€explain€my€grandaddy,€I€donððt€guess.€HeÍwas€just€the€best€person€in€the€world.ðð€€Henley€recounted€how€he€had€given€upÏhis€job€in€Maryland€as€a€certified€marine€mechanic€to€return€to€Tennessee€andÏassist€his€grandfather€when€he€was€diagnosed€with€cancer.€€Henley€said€heÏworked€full€time€on€the€family€farm€from€1977€to€1983,€and€was€successful€for€aÏtime.€€His€farming€difficulties€began€with€a€drought€in€1980€or€1981.€€ToÏcompensate€for€€losses€during€the€drought,€he€planted€nearly€seven€hundredÏacres€of€wheat.€€Because€of€severe€flooding,€Henley€was€unable€to€harvest€theÏwheat€and€lost€his€entire€crop€and€ultimately€was€forced€to€file€for€bankruptcyÏprotection.€€When€trial€counsel€gave€Henley€the€opportunity€to€make€a€finalÏcomment€to€the€jury,€Henley€told€the€jurors,€ð ðI€think€each€and€everyone€of€you€hasÏmade€a€mistake,€and€itððs€a€mistake€you€all€will€have€to€live€with.€€And€one€day€andÏtime€when€weððre€all,€wherever€we€go,€weððll€all€have€to€face€that.ðð€€The€State€didÏnot€cross€examine€Henley€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà àAfter€hearing€the€proof,€the€jury€sentenced€Henley€to€death€for€bothÏmurders,€finding€that€each€murder€was€ð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€inÏthat€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€of€mind.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(I)(5)Í(1982).€€This€Court€affirmed€the€convictions€and€sentences€on€direct€appeal.€ÏòòState€v.€Henleyóó,€774€S.W.2d€908€(Tenn.€1989).ÌÌà àThereafter,€Henley€instituted€this€action€seeking€post€conviction€relief.€ÏAmong€other€things,€Henley€alleged€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€toÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€capital€trial.€ÏHenley€alleged€that€trial€counselððs€failure€to€investigate€and€prepare€familyÏmembers€to€testify€on€his€behalf€deprived€the€jury€of€hearing€proof€of€his€goodÏcharacter€and€non„violent€nature.€€In€addition,€Henley€alleged€that€trial€counselððsÏfailure€to€completely€investigate€his€mental€condition€and€request€a€mentalÏevaluation€constituted€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€At€the€time€of€theÏevidentiary€hearing€on€the€petition,€both€the€original€trial€judge,€Robert€H.ÏBradshaw,€and€the€sole€trial€defense€attorney,€J.H.€Reneau,€III,€were€deceased.ÌÌà àIn€support€of€his€first€claim,€Henley€offered€the€testimony€of€his€mother,€hisÏtwo€sisters,€his€two€children,€and€his€second€wife.€€Dorothy€Henley,€theÏpetitionerððs€mother,€said€that€trial€counsel€had€not€contacted€her€prior€to€trial€andÍthat€the€only€time€he€had€spoken€to€her€about€testifying€was€during€the€recessÏshe€requested€after€he€had€called€her€to€the€witness€stand€at€the€sentencingÏhearing€in€the€presence€of€the€jury.€€Mrs.€Henley€admitted€that€she€told€trialÏcounsel€during€the€recess€that€she€did€not€want€to€testify,€but€said€she€hadÏrefused€to€testify€only€because€she€had€not€understood€the€purpose€of€herÏtestimony€nor€what€she€would€have€been€expected€to€say€on€the€witness€stand.€ÏHad€trial€counsel€explained€to€her€the€purpose€of€her€testimony€before€theÏsentencing€hearing,€Mrs.€Henley€claimed€she€would€have€testified€on€behalf€ofÏher€son.ÌÌà àHad€she€been€properly€prepared,€Mrs.€Henley€said€that€she€would€haveÏgiven€testimony€about€her€sonððs€life,€her€love€for€him,€and€her€belief€that€he€wouldÏnot€have€committed€the€crimes€ð ðif€he€was€at€his€right€mind.ðð€€She€would€have€toldÏthe€jury€that€Henley€was€a€good€son€who€had€a€close€relationship€with€hisÏgrandparents€and€who€had€suffered€financial€losses€because€of€the€failure€of€hisÏfarming€operation.€On€cross„examination,€Mrs.€Henley€acknowledged€that€sheÏhad€lived€in€Davidson€county€at€the€time€of€the€murders€and€that€she€had€littleÍcontact€with€her€son€during€the€year€preceding€the€homicides.€€She€concededÏthat€she€had€no€more€information€about€Henleyððs€background€than€what€hisÏgrandmother€had€testified€about€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà àThe€petitionerððs€children,€Greg€and€Leanne€Henley,€testified€that€they€wereÏnot€told€about€the€petitionerððs€trial€until€it€had€concluded.€€These€witnesses€saidÏthat,€had€they€been€contacted€by€trial€counsel,€they€would€have€given€evidenceÏthat€Henley€was€a€good€father.€€Greg€was€twelve€or€thirteen€years€old€at€the€timeÏof€the€trial€and€Leanne€was€ten€or€eleven€years€old.€€At€the€time€of€Henleyððs€trial,Ïboth€children€lived€with€their€mother,€Henleyððs€first€wife.€€In€an€affidavit€offered€byÏthe€petitioner€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€their€mother€stated€that€she€would€haveÏallowed€the€children€to€testify€if€she€had€been€contacted€by€trial€counsel.ÌÌà àStefanie€Robinson,€the€petitionerððs€younger€sister€testified€that€she€had€notÏbeen€contacted€by€trial€counsel,€but€said,€had€she€been€afforded€the€opportunity,Ïshe€would€have€told€the€sentencing€jury€that€Henley€was€a€good€brother€and€thatÏhe€had€been€very€upset€when€he€could€not€pay€the€money€he€had€borrowedÍagainst€the€family€farm.€€According€to€Robinson,€Henley€was€not€a€violent€person.€ÏOn€cross„examination,€Robinson€admitted€that€she€had€seen€the€petitioner€drinkÏbeer€and€smoke€marijuana.ÌÌà àPatricia€Woodard,€the€petitionerððs€older€sister,€said€that€she€would€haveÏbeen€willing€to€testify€on€Henleyððs€behalf€had€she€been€contacted€by€trialÏcounsel.€€Woodard€would€have€told€the€jury€that€the€petitioner€had€taught€her€toÏride€a€bicycle€when€they€were€young,€and€that€she€had€never€seen€the€petitionerÏbecome€violent.€€On€cross„examination,€Woodard€admitted€that€she€had€lived€inÏCarthage,€Tennessee,€for€five€years€prior€to€the€murders€and€had€not€spent€aÏgreat€deal€of€time€with€the€petitioner€in€the€years€preceding€his€arrest€and€trial.ÌÌà àCynthia€Brown,€the€petitionerððs€second€wife€testified€that,€had€she€beenÏcontacted€by€trial€counsel,€she€would€have€testified€in€Henleyððs€behalf€and€toldÏthe€jury€that€she€had€never€seen€Henley€exhibit€violent€behavior€and€that€he€hadÏbeen€very€kind€to€her€son€by€a€previous€marriage€and€had€intended€to€adopt€theÏboy.€€On€cross„examination,€Brown€admitted€that€Henley€drank€alcohol€and€usedÍmarijuana€during€their€marriage.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€petitionerððs€second€claim€that€trial€counsel€should€haveÏfurther€investigated€his€mental€condition,€Henley€offered€the€testimony€of€attorneyÏRobert€Massey€who€said€that€trial€counsel€should€have€engaged€an€independentÏpsychologist€to€assist€in€the€document€gathering€process€and€to€do€anÏexamination€of€those€documents€to€determine€whether€or€not€there€would€be€anyÏmitigation€evidence€that€might€be€presented€from€those€documents€to€the€jury€atÏthe€penalty€phase.€€Mr.€Massey€had€tried€one€death€penalty€case€at€the€time€ofÏoffering€this€testimony€and€had€settled€six€others.€€He€had€never€tried€a€case€inÏJackson€county,€nor€had€he€been€acquainted€with€the€petitionerððs€original€trialÏcounsel.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€also€offered€the€testimony€of€Dr.€William€D.€Kenner,€aÏpsychiatrist€who€had€interviewed€Henley€once€for€two€hours€in€August€of€1992,Ïreviewed€the€results€of€tests€administered€by€a€licensed€clinical€psychologist,Ïreviewed€the€interviews€of€family€members€conducted€by€post€conviction€counsel,Íand€reviewed€the€trial€testimony€of€Henley€and€co„defendant€€Flatt.€€Dr.€KennerÏhad€not€spoken€directly€with€Henleyððs€family,€€nor€reviewed€the€entire€trialÏtranscript,€nor€asked€Henley€to€recount€what€trial€counsel€had€talked€about€withÏhim.€€Dr.€Kenner€did€not€question€Henleyððs€competency€to€stand€trial,€but€said€thatÏHenley€had€been€depressed€at€the€time€of€the€homicides€because€of€his€farmingÏfailures€and€may€have€been€ð ðself„medicatingðð€by€using€alcohol€and€drugs.€€On€IQÏtests€given,€Dr.€Kenner€said€that€Henley€had€scored€in€the€average€range€with€aÏperformance€score€of€109,€a€verbal€score€of€94,€and€a€full€scale€score€of€99.€€ÏAccording€to€Dr.€Kenner,€such€a€divergence€between€the€performance€score€andÏthe€verbal€score€is€often€indicative€of€a€learning€disability.€According€to€Dr.ÏKenner,€a€learning€disability€could€have€caused€Henley€to€have€difficultyÏmanaging€his€finances€and€could€have€been€the€actual€cause€of€HenleyððsÏfarming€failures.€€Dr.€Kenner€also€said€that€because€of€Henleyððs€closeÏrelationship€with€his€grandfather,€losing€the€family€farm€was€the€equivalent€toÏHenley€of€his€grandfather€dying€a€second€time.Ì€Ìà àFinally,€Henley€testified€at€the€post€conviction€hearing.€€On€directÍexamination,€Henley€denied€having€any€meaningful€consultation€with€Reneau.€ÏHenley€said€that€Reneau€never€asked€him€for€a€history€of€his€life€or€for€anyÏpersonal€records€such€as€school€or€medical€records.€€Henley€also€said€thatÏReneau€had€not€spoken€with€any€of€his€family€members€about€testifying€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.€€The€petitioner€€admitted€that€he€had€never€asked€his€familyÏmembers€to€testify€in€his€behalf.€€Finally,€Henley€continued€to€maintain€that€heÏwas€innocent€of€the€crimes€for€which€he€had€been€convicted€and€sentenced€toÏdeath.ÌÌà àUpon€hearing€the€proof,€the€trial€judge€denied€the€petition€for€postÏconviction€relief€on€all€grounds€alleged.€€Though€the€trial€court€made€no€explicitÏfinding€with€respect€to€the€claim€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€because€heÏfailed€to€investigate€Henleyððs€mental€condition€and€request€an€evaluation,€withÏrespect€to€Henleyððs€claim€that€trial€counsel€should€have€prepared€more€witnessesÏfor€the€sentencing€phase,€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà àHeard€a€lot€of€witnesses€about€the€sentencing€phase.€€IfÏthereððs€any€part€of€it€that€really€„„€kind€of€bothers€me€a€little€bit,€itððsÏthe€sentencing€phase,€and€Iððll€have€to€state€that.€€I€would€have€like€toÍhave€had€another€witness€maybe€to€have€been€put€on.€€I€would€likeÏfor€the€mother€to€have€testified€when€she€refused.€€Now€whether€heÏhad€talked€to€her€two€days€ahead€of€time€or€that€day€it€really€doesnððtÏmake€much€difference.€€If€they€went€in€the€back€room€and€he€talkedÏto€her€and€she€still€didnððt€want€to€testify,€maybe€she€had€a€reason.€ÏMaybe€she€had€a€reason€then€that€she€doesnððt€have€now,€I€donððtÏknow.€€I€do€know€this,€the€attorney€asked€her.€€So€he€come€back€andÏgot€the€grandmother€and€she€testified,€and€I€thought€did€a€beautifulÏjob€as€far€as€words,€the€way€they€read.€€She€answered€theÏquestions,€she€took€him€through€his€life,€she€told€it.€€And€the€jury€hadÏbasically€everything€that€these€witnesses€the€last€two€days€haveÏtalked€about€in€that€record€€before€them.€€They€didnððt€have€theÏnumbers€of€people€saying€this,€but€they€all€knew€about€his€family.€ÏThey€all€knew€about€his€grandmother,€his€granddaddy,€they€knewÏall€about€these€things,€it€was€all€there.€€It€wasnððt€repeated€over€andÏover€by€several€people,€but€they€did€have€that€in€the€case€when€theyÏlooked€at€it.€€But€again,€I€would€have€like€to€have€seen€anotherÏwitness€or€two,€but€thatððs€trial€strategy.€€He€may€have€thought€thatððsÏenough.€€She€may€have€done€such€a€good€job€that€he€thought€thisÏis€the€best€Iððm€going€to€get.€€That€was€the€choice€to€make.Ìà àÌÌÓÓà àThe€petitioner€appealed€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€theÏevidence€preponderated€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Henley€had€beenÏafforded€his€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€theÏtrial.€€Specifically,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€found€that€counselððs€failure€toÏadequately€investigate€and€prepare€witnesses€to€testify€on€Henleyððs€behalf€and€toÏadequately€investigate€Henleyððs€mental€condition€resulted€in€a€denial€of€HenleyððsÍright€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€sentencing.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appealððs€reversed€Henleyððs€death€sentence€and€remanded€for€a€newÏsentencing€hearing.ÌÌà àThereafter,€we€granted€the€Stateððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal€toÏdetermine€whether€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€concluding€that€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Henley€was€affordedÏhis€constitutional€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencingÏhearing.€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€and€reinstate€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€postÏconviction€relief.ÌÌà@ àòòò òSTANDARD€OF€APPELLATE€REVIEWÌóóó óà àIn€resolving€the€issues€in€this€appeal,€we€are€guided€by€certain€well„settledÏrules.€€The€burden€was€on€the€petitioner€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€to€prove€hisÏcase€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòTidwell€v.€Stateóó,€922€S.W.2d€497,€500Ï(Tenn.€1996);€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€847€S.W.2d€521,€527€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€ÍThe€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€judge€on€a€petition€for€post€conviction€relief€areÏafforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict€and€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏevidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòTidwellóó,€922ÏS.W.2d€at€500;€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744,€746€(Tenn.€1993);€òòButler€v.ÏStateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€In€evaluating€whether€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€we€are€guided€by€longstandingÏrules€of€appellate€procedure.€Appellate€courts€in€this€State€do€not€reweigh€orÏreevaluate€the€evidence.€€We€can€not€substitute€our€inferences€for€those€drawnÏby€the€trial€judge.€€Moreover,€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses,€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony,€and€the€factualÏissues€raised€by€the€evidence€are€to€be€resolved€by€the€trial€judge.€€Finally,€theÏparty€seeking€to€overturn€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge€bears€the€burden€onÏappeal€of€demonstrating€why€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€the€findings€of€the€trial€judge.€€òòBolin€v.€Stateóó,€219€Tenn.€4,Ï11,€405€S.W.2d€768,€771€(1966);€òòCooperóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€527;€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794ÏS.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€It€is€with€these€principles€in€mind€thatÏwe€evaluate€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€withÍrespect€to€the€petitionerððs€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€sentencing.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELóóó óÌà@ àò òA.€Legal€Standardsó óÌà àArticle€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€ð ðthat€in€allÏcriminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€hath€the€right€to€be€heard€by€himself€and€hisÏcounsel...€.ðð€€Similarly,€the€Sixth€Amendment× ƒ1 ××  ×€to€the€Constitution€of€the€UnitedÏStates€guarantees€that€in€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€shall€enjoy€theÏright€.€.€.€to€have€the€assistance€of€counsel€for€his€defense.ðð€€€These€constitutionalÏprovisions€afford€to€the€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution€the€right€to€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975)€andÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€S.Ct.€2052,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984).€ÏTo€establish€a€denial€of€the€right,€a€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€bothÏthat€counselððs€performance€was€deficient€and€that€the€deficiency€prejudiced€theÍdefense.€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996);€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.Ïat€687,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064.ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€first€prong€of€the€claim,€we€recognized€early€on€thatÏcounselððs€performance€is€effective€if€the€advice€given€or€the€services€renderedÏare€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€ÏòòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€at€936;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó,€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€369.€€To€prove€aÏdeficiency,€therefore,€the€petitioner€must€show€that€counselððs€acts€or€omissionsÏwere€so€serious€as€to€fall€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€underÏprevailing€professional€norms.€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€369;€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€atÏ688,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065.€€€When€assessing€an€attorneyððs€performance€it€is€not€ourÏfunction€to€ð ðsecond€guessðð€tactical€and€strategic€choices€pertaining€to€defenseÏmatters€or€to€measure€a€defense€attorneyððs€representation€by€ð ð20„20€hindsight.ðð€ÏòòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€As€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€has€recognized,€ÌÓÓà8 àJudicial€scrutiny€of€counselððs€performance€must€be€highlyÏdeferential.€€It€is€all€too€tempting€for€a€defendant€to€second„guessÏcounselððs€assistance€after€conviction€or€adverse€sentence,€and€it€isÍall€too€easy€for€a€court,€examining€counselððs€defense€after€it€hasÏproved€unsuccessful,€to€conclude€that€a€particular€act€or€omission€ofÏcounsel€was€unreasonable.ÌÌÓÓòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBurger€v.€Kempóó,€483ÏU.S.€776,€789,€107€S.Ct.€3114,€3123,€97€L.Ed.2d€638€(1987).€€When€reviewingÏthe€facts€and€circumstances€of€a€case,€therefore,€a€ð ðfair€assessment.€.€.€requiresÏthat€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€toÏreconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counselððs€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluateÏthe€conduct€from€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,Ï104€S.Ct.€at€2065;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€369.€€ÌÌà àTo€establish€the€second€prong€of€the€claim€„„€that€counselððs€deficiencyÏresulted€in€prejudice€to€the€defense€„„€a€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€there€is€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€ofÏthe€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€aÏprobability€sufficient€to€undermine€confidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466ÏU.S.€at€694,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€370.€€WhenÏchallenging€a€death€sentence,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonableÍprobability€that,€absent€the€errors,€the€sentencer€.€.€.€would€have€concluded€thatÏthe€balance€of€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances€did€not€warrant€death.ðð€ÏòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695,€104€S.Ct.€at€2069.€€ÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€a€petitioner€has€discharged€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€prejudice,€a€court€ÌÓÓà8 àmust€consider€the€totality€of€the€evidence€before€the€judge€or€jury.€ÏSome€of€the€factual€findings€will€have€been€unaffected€by€the€errors,Ïand€factual€findings€that€were€affected€will€have€been€affected€inÏdifferent€ways.€€Some€errors€will€have€had€a€pervasive€effect€on€theÏinferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€evidence,€altering€the€entireÏevidentiary€picture,€and€some€will€have€had€an€isolated€trivial€effect.Ï.€.€.€€ÌÌÓÓòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€696„97,€104€S.Ct.€at€2069;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2dÏ371.€€Where,€as€here,€the€alleged€deficiency€involves€counselððs€failure€to€presentÏmitigating€€evidence€in€the€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€trial,€in€assessing€prejudiceÏunder€òòStricklandóó,€several€factors€are€significant,€including€whether€substantiallyÏsimilar€mitigating€evidence€was€presented€to€the€jury€in€either€the€guilt€or€penaltyÏphase€of€the€proceedings;€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€mitigating€evidence€thatÏwas€available€but€not€presented;€and€whether€there€was€such€strong€evidence€ofÍaggravating€factors€that€the€mitigating€evidence€would€not€have€affected€theÏjuryððs€determination.€€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€371€(citing€cases).ÌÌà àBecause€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test€to€prevail€on€aÏclaim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€failure€to€prove€either€deficientÏperformance€or€resulting€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€onÏthe€claim.€€Indeed,€a€court€need€not€address€the€components€in€any€particularÏorder€or€even€address€both€if€the€defendant€makes€an€insufficient€showing€of€oneÏcomponent.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.Ct.€at€2069;€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€atÏ370.ÌÌà àApplying€the€principles€outlined€above,€we€must€now€determine€whetherÏthe€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€theÏpetitioner€failed€to€establish€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€ÌÌà@ àò òB.€Failure€to€Prepare/Call€Other€Witnessesó óÌà àThough€the€trial€court€did€not€use€the€term,€it€is€evident€from€its€finding€thatÏthe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€establish€prejudiceÏresulting€from€counselððs€alleged€failure€to€prepare€and€call€witnesses.€€In€denyingÏpost€conviction€relief,€the€trial€judge€observed€that€the€sentencing€jury€ð ðhadÏbasically€everything€that€these€witnesses€the€last€two€days€have€talked€about€inÏthat€record€before€them.ððÌÌà àIn€reversing€the€decision€of€the€trial€court,€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏstated,€ð ð[w]e€do€not€think€it€is€assuming€too€much€to€conclude€that€a€jury€is€goingÏto€be€prejudiced€against€a€defendant€upon€that€personððs€own€mother€refusing€toÏtestify€on€his€or€her€behalf.ðð€€As€evidence€of€prejudice,€the€intermediate€courtÏquoted€from€the€affidavit€of€a€juror€which€was€submitted€as€part€of€the€petitionerððsÏoffer€of€proof€at€the€post€conviction€hearing€in€which€the€juror€said,€ð ðIf€a€manððsÏown€mother€wonððt€testify€on€his€behalf€then€we€know€what€weððve€got€to€do.ðð€€InÏaddition,€the€intermediate€court€stated€that,€ð ð[e]ven€without€this€offer€of€proof,€weÏhold€that€the€dearth€of€favorable€testimony€offered€at€the€sentencing€hearing,Ïwhen€significant€amounts€of€favorable€testimony€were€available€establishes€aÍreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€Mr.€Reneauððs€deficient€performance€withÏrespect€to€the€sentencing€hearing€of€Henleyððs€trial,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÏwould€have€been€different.ðð€ÌÌà àInitially€we€note€that€the€jurorððs€affidavit€statement€regarding€the€effect€onÏthe€sentencing€jury€of€Dorothy€Henleyððs€failure€to€testify€should€not€have€beenÏconsidered€by€the€intermediate€appellate€court€as€proof€of€prejudice.€€Indeed,€theÏaffidavit€should€not€have€been€considered€for€any€purpose.€€Rule€606(b)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€expressly€prohibits€a€juror€from€testifying€orÏoffering€an€affidavit€ð ðas€to€any€matter€or€statement€occurring€during€the€course€ofÏthe€juryððs€deliberations€òòor€to€the€effect€of€anything€upon€any€jurorððs€mind€orÏemotion€as€influencing€that€juror€to€assent€to€or€dissent€from€the€verdict€.€.€.óóððÏ(Emphasis€added.)€€In€this€case,€the€jurorððs€affidavit€related€to€the€precise€subjectÏmatter€about€which€a€juror€is€strictly€forbidden€from€testifying€by€Rule€606(b)€„„€theÏeffect€of€the€motherððs€failure€to€testify€on€the€jury€verdict.€€The€affidavit€violates€theÏexpress€terms€of€Rule€606(b)€and€should€not€have€been€considered€by€theÏintermediate€court€as€evidence€of€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878ÍS.W.2d€530,€554€(Tenn.€1994)ÌÌà àMoreover,€Henleyððs€mother€did€not€refuse€to€testify€in€the€presence€of€theÏjury.€€Instead,€she€asked€to€first€speak€with€trial€counsel.€€Although€the€recordÏreflects€that€she€thereafter€did€not€testify,€at€no€time€did€she€openly€refuse€toÏtestify€on€Henleyððs€behalf€in€the€presence€of€the€jury€as€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€decision€indicates.€€In€addition,€the€fact€that€the€jury€was€not€providedÏwith€an€explanation€as€to€why€Dorothy€Henley€did€not€testify€does€not€justify€aÏfinding€of€prejudice.€€The€jury€was€instructed€to€base€its€sentencing€decision€onÏthe€evidence€presented€at€trial,€not€upon€speculation€about€why€a€particularÏwitness€did€not€testify.€€Jurors€are€presumed€to€follow€the€instructions€given€themÏin€arriving€at€a€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Laneyóó,€654€S.W.2d€383,€389€(Tenn.€1983);€òòStateÏv.€Blackmonóó,€701€S.W.2d€228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).€Therefore,€it€is€notÏappropriate€€to€ð ðassumeðð€the€defense€was€prejudiced€because€Henleyððs€motherÏwas€not€called€as€a€witness€in€his€behalf€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€The€fact€thatÏDorothy€Henley€asked€to€speak€with€counsel€when€called€as€a€witness€andÏthereafter€did€not€testify€does€not€constitute€a€reasonable€probability€sufficient€€toÍundermine€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€the€proceedingÌÌà àFinally,€the€record€does€not€support€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsððÏstatement€that€prejudice€was€established€because€there€was€a€ð ðdearth€ofÏfavorable€testimony€offered€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€when€significant€amountsÏof€favorable€testimony€were€available.ðð€€As€was€previously€stated,€whenÏassessing€the€existence€of€prejudice€in€the€face€of€an€alleged€deficiencyÏinvolving€counselððs€failure€to€present€mitigating€€evidence€in€the€penalty€phase€ofÏa€capital€trial,€we€consider€whether€substantially€similar€mitigating€evidence€wasÏpresented€to€the€jury€in€either€the€guilt€or€penalty€phase€of€the€proceedings;€theÏnature€and€extent€of€the€mitigating€evidence€that€was€available€but€not€presented;Ïand€whether€there€was€such€strong€evidence€of€aggravating€factors€that€theÏmitigating€evidence€would€not€have€affected€the€juryððs€determination.€€òòGoadóó,€938ÏS.W.2d€at€371€(citing€cases).ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€record€fully€supports€the€trial€courtððs€statement€that,Ïthrough€the€testimony€of€Bertha€Henley€and€the€petitioner,€the€original€sentencingÍjury€had€before€it€basically€the€same€favorable€mitigation€evidence€that€wasÏoffered€by€the€many€witnesses€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€post€convictionÏpetition.€As€previously€summarized€herein,€the€jury€heard€extensive€testimonyÏabout€Henleyððs€relationship€with€his€grandparents,€including€his€own€testimonyÏthat€he€loved€them€more€than€anyone€else€in€the€world.€€It€is€difficult€to€imagine€aÏmore€favorable€and€detailed€description€of€the€petitionerððs€character€than€thatÏgiven€by€Bertha€Henley.€€It€is€clear€from€the€proof€at€trial€and€the€evidentiaryÏhearing€in€this€case€that€the€petitioner€had€a€closer€relationship€with€hisÏgrandmother,€Bertha€Henley,€than€with€any€other€living€family€member.€Indeed,Ïthe€petitionerððs€own€mother€acknowledged€that€she€could€have€offered€no€furtherÏinformation€about€Henley€and€his€life€than€that€given€by€Bertha€Henley€at€theÏsentencing€hearing.ÌÌà àDorothy€Henley€admitted€that€in€the€years€preceding€the€murders€she€hadÏresided€in€Davidson€County€and€had€little€contact€with€her€son.€€€On€cross„examination,€Dorothy€Henley€also€admitted€that€she€visited€her€son€only€a€fewÏtimes€in€jail€before€his€trial.€€Overall,€Dorothy€Henley€used€very€general€terms€toÍdescribe€her€relationship€with€her€son.€€Similarly,€Henleyððs€older€sister€gave€onlyÏgeneral€information€about€the€petitioner,€and€conceded€that€she€had€little€contactÏwith€her€brother€during€the€five€years€preceding€the€homicides.ÌÌà àWhile€Henleyððs€younger€sister€and€second€wife€had€closer€associationsÏwith€him€near€the€time€of€the€murders,€both€also€had€personal€knowledge€aboutÏhis€use€of€drugs,€specifically€marijuana,€which€was€brought€out€during€cross„examination€at€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€Had€these€two€witnesses€testified€at€theÏsentencing€hearing,€that€same€information,€no€doubt,€would€have€been€broughtÏto€light.€€In€view€of€Henleyððs€testimony€throughout€the€trial€that€he€had€neverÏabused€drugs,€the€testimony€of€two€family€members€to€the€contrary€would€haveÏbeen€extremely€detrimental€to€the€defense.ÌÌà àThe€only€other€testimony€offered€at€the€evidentiary€hearing€was€that€ofÏHenleyððs€children€who€claimed€they€would€have€testified€had€trial€counselÏcontacted€their€mother€with€whom€they€were€residing.€€However€the€children,Ïeleven€and€thirteen€years€old€at€the€time€of€the€trial,€admittedly€were€not€informedÍabout€the€trial€until€its€conclusion.€€ÌÌà àTherefore,€the€witnesses€which€were€available€but€not€called€as€witnessesÏat€the€original€trial,€would€have€offered€general,€vague€testimony€about€theÏpetitionerððs€character,€and€the€evidence€regarding€the€petitionerððs€use€of€drugsÏand€alcohol€was€unfavorable.€€Moreover,€none€of€these€witnesses€had€aÏparticularly€close€relationship€with€the€petitioner€near€the€time€of€the€killings.€€InÏcontrast,€the€mitigating€proof€actually€presented€was€detailed,€poignant,€andÏfavorable€and€was€provided€by€the€petitioner€and€his€grandmother,€with€whom€heÏhad€a€close€relationship.€€It€is€significant€that€the€State€did€not€cross€examineÏeither€the€petitioner€or€his€grandmother€at€the€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà àClearly,€trial€counsel€has€a€duty€to€investigate€and€prepare€for€the€penaltyÏphase€of€a€capital€trial€since€ð ðevidence€about€the€defendantððs€background€andÏcharacter€is€relevant€because€of€the€belief€.€.€.€that€defendants€who€commitÏcriminal€acts€that€are€attributable€to€a€disadvantaged€background,€or€to€emotionalÏand€mental€problems€may€be€less€culpable€than€defendants€who€have€no€suchÍexcuse.ðð€€òòCalifornia€v.€Brownóó,€479€U.S.€538,€544,€107€S.Ct.€837,€841,€93€L.Ed.2dÏ934€(1987).€€However,€in€this€case,€the€proof€does€not€preponderate€against€theÏtrial€courtððs€finding€that€the€petitioner€suffered€no€prejudice€even€assuming€trialÏcounsel€failed€to€competently€fulfill€that€duty.€€Nothing€was€adduced€at€the€postÏconviction€hearing€which€could€possibly€have€added€anything€favorable€to€theÏmitigation€proof€that€was€offered€at€the€original€trial€by€the€petitioner€and€hisÏgrandmother.€€Though€the€petitioner€offered€a€large€number€of€€witnesses€whoÏclaimed€they€would€have€testified€on€his€behalf€at€the€sentencing€hearing€but€forÏcounselððs€incompetence,€the€quality€of€their€testimony€was€weakened€either€byÏtheir€limited€relationship€with€Henley€at€the€time€of€the€murders€or€by€theirÏpersonal€knowledge€of€his€drug€use€at€the€time€of€the€murders.€€As€the€trial€judgeÏimplicitly€found,€the€testimony€offered€at€the€post€conviction€hearing€was,€at€most,Ïcumulative.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€419€(Tenn.€1989).€€AppellateÏcourts€must€consider€the€quality€of€the€proposed€testimony€rather€than€theÏquantity€of€witnesses€when€determining€whether€prejudice€has€been€established.€ÏFinally,€proof€of€the€aggravating€circumstance€in€this€case,€that€the€murders€wereÏð ðespecially€heinous,€atrocious,€or€cruel€in€that€it€involved€torture€or€depravity€ofÍmind,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„203(I)(5)€(1982),€was€strong.€€The€victims€wereÏforced€at€gunpoint€from€the€road€to€their€home.€€The€wife€watched€as€her€husbandÏwas€shot.€€She€was€then€shot€several€times,€but,€according€to€the€testimony€atÏtrial,€she€remained€alive€and€conscious€for€a€time€after€the€fire€had€begun,€andÏactually€died€of€smoke€inhalation.€€In€our€view,€the€petitioner€has€not€establishedÏthe€existence€of€a€ð ðreasonable€probability€that,€absent€the€errors,€the€sentencer€.€.Ï.€would€have€concluded€that€the€balance€of€aggravating€and€mitigatingÏcircumstances€did€not€warrant€€death.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695,€104€S.Ct.€atÏ2069.ÌÌà@ àò òC.€€Failure€to€Investigate€Mental€Condition€and€Request€Evaluationó óÌà àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€also€found€that€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€Henleyððs€claim€that€counsel€inadequatelyÏinvestigated€the€petitionerððs€mental€condition€and€failed€to€request€a€mentalÏevaluation.ÌÌà àAt€the€evidentiary€hearing,€Henley€offered€the€testimony€of€Dr.€œKenner›€who€Ísaid€that€Henley€lost€the€family€farm€because€he€had€a€learning€disability€andÏwas€a€bad€manager€and€that€Henley€was€depressed€about€the€loss€of€the€familyÏfarm€and€was€ð ðself„medicatingðð€with€alcohol€and€drugs€near€the€time€of€theÏhomicides.€€€Based€upon€Dr.€Kennerððs€testimony,€Henley€claimed€that€had€trialÏcounsel€properly€investigated€his€mental€condition€and€requested€that€heÏundergo€a€mental€evaluation,€Reneau€would€have€learned€of€this€mitigating€proofÏand€presented€it€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€In€reversing€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÏrelief,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€implicitly€found€that€trial€counsel€had€beenÏdeficient€in€failing€to€investigate€and€offer€this€proof€and€that€the€deficiency€hasÏresulted€in€prejudice€to€Henley.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àWhile€it€is€true€that€often€a€greater€duty€of€inquiry€into€a€clientððs€mentalÏhealth€is€imposed€for€the€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€trial,€òòGoadóó,€938€S.W.2d€atÏ370,€it€is€also€well„established€thatÌÓÓà8 àthe€reasonableness€of€counselððs€actions€may€be€determined€orÏsubstantially€influenced€by€the€defendantððs€own€statements€orÏactions...€€And€when€a€defendant€has€given€counsel€reason€toÏbelieve€that€pursuing€certain€investigations€would€be€fruitless€orÏeven€harmful,€counselððs€failure€to€pursue€those€investigations€mayÍnot€later€be€challenged€as€unreasonable.€ÌÓÓÌòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€691,€104€S.Ct.€at€2066.ÌÌà àAt€the€trial€of€this€case,€the€defendant€maintained€his€innocence,€flatlyÏdenied€that€he€had€been€intoxicated€on€the€day€of€the€murders,€and€also€deniedÏever€abusing€drugs.€€Moreover,€Henley€said€his€farming€operation€had€failedÏbecause€of€unpredictable€weather,€a€drought€followed€the€next€year€by€floods.€ÏClearly€then,€the€evidence€for€which€trial€counsel€is€now€faulted€for€notÏdiscovering€and€introducing€would€have€been€inconsistent€with€the€defendantððsÏown€testimony€and€harmful€to€the€defense€theory€throughout€the€trial.€€WhenÏassessing€the€performance€of€trial€counsel,€courts€must€eliminate€the€ð ðdistortingÏeffects€of€hindsightðð€and€evaluate€the€challenged€conduct€from€òòcounselððsóóÏperspective€at€the€time,€rather€than€from€the€perspective€of€a€mental€health€expertÏoffering€testimony€in€a€post€conviction€proceeding.€€Applying€that€standard,€it€isÏclear€that€trial€counselððs€performance€and€investigation€of€Henleyððs€mentalÏcondition€was€not€deficient.€€Accordingly,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post€conviction€relief.ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONó óóóÌà àAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€record,€we€have€determined€that€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€erred€in€concluding€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post€conviction€relief.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversing€Henleyððs€death€sentence€and€ordering€aÏnew€sentencing€hearing€is€reversed,€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denyingÏthe€petition€for€post€conviction€relief€is€reinstated.€€The€sentence€of€death€shall€beÏcarried€out€as€provided€by€law€on€the€œ27th›€day€of€April,€1998,€unless€stayed€byÏthis€Court€or€other€appropriate€authority.€€€ÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€œDROWOTA›,€III,Ìà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÌò òConcur:ó óÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌœHolder,›€œJ.›ÌÓÓÌœReid›,€œJ.€and€Birch,€J.€dissent›€„€œSee€Separate›€Dissenting€Opinion.Ì