ÿWPC6 mß00ìâ® h"¥ÂM–Û€›!б柚©µ¯\è†N€ßÙ NÐgxLkuO#Pó©³Ô}™ÓÆI”ð,ùÓsüØ€¯öë40á6¢hzg3dü6¤Ú3# n8aÿĈ?>Û[–?¦»Ñ’õ*õ7&!—¾U¸Ü™iŽx9W¨Ã0„ɽ¾¶Ðy'[d­LJÓ¤UӴݼØÄS˜&Óæ?G«üˆî Ó-ê±™~?÷ ‡‰¿Â>¼Û秡ÜbÃóÝ#Àa„Êç×5><<¢)b»:ÈWÉéa©‚Î;/Ç;)M ض9í7É›8þ/®Ýxõçõ·KYMl 9 ÏM´ºŠM_h6Sã¸ZkÂ!캣ƒf/)ƒ8œ^íÞIO›.ï_uN…e%rõ~3©Õ¼ƒc<¨æõè’¶ç#"á$[©ïé0­ C”°=e¦Ìô?®Jœ¨æ\l¼’2$Xy“,¡ò ±e±ð³yó8`ªœ€YE (Ìhið<›{äO\•«é'.¾f›‚Œ˜×k¥ÎAãCz„•We÷„=¯àÁJç&* ÖqHÏ0bMÓ›¡ÏóØÞâc!œ©!ZžR—´Äí× ‹€Ú‘WΘTÝÜLÒgO ìväb %\^ b 0ˆnU3NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ ¹ #ÁÐ Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã 1©N6 728 1ujEß 72á 0c 0wv 1í 72z 1¬ 729 1‡k 72ò 1$ 72±Aã 0 D$ 1‡h 1‡ï4vU:ª 72ääU@ 1‡V 72Ý 1‡b– 72ž 1‡Ð 72W 1‡‰ 72 0ŠBUNÌãý !¹!æÔ!¢º%t\' 72Ð*è+|ê-ªf/f/f/f/f/f/f/f/f/f/f/f/f/f/f/f/f/f/ 0 ë1111 Bû1û1 0¤2 D3¼2 D-ï2 0K33 ASg3ƺ3 0¤€4 0D$5 A«h5»ômG-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularš‚,-ÄSQ)L¦  0¦3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 50¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(¶ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(ÆÙCEMU]emu}AutoList3(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(æÙCEMU]emu}AutoList5(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) (1) 7Ý ƒRõÞ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€Court€concluded€that€the€juryððs€reliance€upon€the€felony€murder€circumstance€to€impose€the€deathÐ ° Ðsentence€for€felony€murder€violated€article€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€for€the€reasons€explained€in€òòState€v.Ð tÄ ÐMiddlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.€1992),€but€that€the€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóóòòNicholsóó,Ð 8ˆ Ð877€S.W.2d€at€739.€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(å£EGMSY_ekqAutoList111.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0…HCEKQW]cioAutoList6I.A.I.I.I.I.I.I. *Ý ƒRõÞ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€However,€Pamela€Taylor,€a€part„time€investigator,€testified€that€she€visited€the€childrenððs€home,€conductedÐ ° Ðinterviews,€and€gathered€information€about€its€operation.€€She€learned€that€the€homeððs€policy€was€to€keep€childrenÐ tÄ Ðseparate€from€those€outside€the€church€and€that€the€home€had€guidelines€as€to€how€corporal€punishment€with€a€paddleÐ 8ˆ Ðwas€to€be€carried€out.,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular%I.(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman (ê½CEKQW]cioAutoList7A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.+A.0ú¼CEKQW]cioAutoList8A.A.1.A.A.A.A.A.- ù--A.0 ~CEKQW]cioAutoList9A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.0A.(*ùEGMSY_ekqAutoList10A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.2A.(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ÙÝ ƒRõÞ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€sentences€for€the€convictions€involving€T.R.,€S.T.,€P.G.,€and€P.R.€originally€amounted€to€an€effective€termÐ ° Ðof€647€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€sentencing€in€these€cases€did€notÐ tÄ Ðcomply€with€the€procedures€in€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879€(Tenn.€1993),€and€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBlouvettÔ_Ôóó,€904€S.W.2d€111Ð 8ˆ Ð(Tenn.€1995).€€This€part€of€the€post„conviction€ruling€was€not€appealed€by€the€State€and€therefore€is€not€at€issue€in€thisÐ üL Ðappeal.  Ñ ° Ñ ¯Ý ƒRõÞ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€We€will€refer€to€these€victims€by€initials€only. ÜÝ ƒRõÞ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€We€note€that€both€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€and€the€State€rely€upon€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„13„Ð ° Ð204(c),€which€presently€states€in€part:€€ð ðIn€all€cases€where€the€state€relies€upon€the€aggravating€factor€that€the€defendantÐ tÄ Ðwas€previously€convicted€of€one€(1)€or€more€felonies,€other€than€the€present€charge,€whose€statutory€elements€involveÐ 8ˆ Ðthe€use€of€violence€to€the€person,€either€party€shall€be€permitted€to€introduce€evidence€concerning€the€facts€andÐ üL Ðcircumstances€of€the€prior€conviction.ðð€€Neither€the€intermediate€court€nor€the€State€acknowledge€that€this€statute€wasÐ À Ðnot€in€effect€until€1998,€well€after€the€offenses€and€trial€in€this€case,€nor€do€they€otherwise€cite€reasons€for€applying€theÐ „Ô Ðstatute€in€this€case.€€ ˜Ý ƒRõÞ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€DNA€analysis€ð ðmeans€the€process€through€which€deoxyribonucleic€acid€(DNA)€in€a€human€biologicalÐ ° Ðspecimen€is€analyzed€and€compared€with€DNA€from€another€biological€specimen€for€identification€purposes.ðð€€Tenn.Ð tÄ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„402.€ jÝ ƒRõÞ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€An€appellate€court€ð ðon€its€own€motion€or€on€motion€of€a€party€may€consider€facts€concerning€the€action€thatÐ ° Ðoccurred€after€judgment.€€Consideration€of€such€facts€lies€in€the€discretion€of€the€appellate€court.€€While€neitherÐ tÄ Ðcontrolling€nor€fully€measuring€the€courtððs€discretion,€consideration€generally€will€extend€only€to€those€facts,€capableÐ 8ˆ Ðof€ready€demonstration,€affecting€the€positions€of€the€parties€or€the€subject€matter€of€the€action€such€as€mootness,Ð üL Ðbankruptcy,€divorce,€death,€other€judgments€or€proceedings,€relief€from€the€judgment€requested€or€granted€in€the€trialÐ À Ðcourt,€and€other€similar€matters.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€14.$1. ÞÝ ƒRõÞ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€petitioner€vigorously€asserts€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€applied€the€incorrect€standard€byÐ ° Ðrequiring€him€to€show€ð ðactual€innocenseðð€to€establish€prejudice.€€We€disagree.€€The€appellate€court€first€noted€that€theÐ tÄ Ðevidence€presented€at€the€post„conviction€was€inconclusive€and€therefore€failed€to€show€that€counselððs€representationÐ 8ˆ Ðwas€deficient.€€The€appellate€court€then€determined€that€any€deficiency€was€not€prejudicial€by€properly€finding€that€thereÐ üL Ðwas€no€reasonable€probability€of€a€different€outcome. rÝ ƒRõÞ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€On€direct€appeal,€this€Court€found€no€procedural€or€constitutional€error€with€respect€to€the€prosecutorððsÐ ° Ðexercise€of€discretion€in€this€regard.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôóó,€877€S.W.2d€735„36.  Ý ƒRõÞ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€convictions€for€the€offenses€against€P.G.€and€P.R.€were€affirmed€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€òòStateÐ ° Ðv.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôóó,€No.€03C01„9108„CR„00236,€1995€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€998€(December€19,€1995).(|G2õÞ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨¥ò»»Ô d(|3~$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3~$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€í»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼í»»»ÔÑ8€L1XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€8Oa3Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡îíÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼í»îî#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓMay€2,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XL1X»¼íÔÌò òÔ#†¼í»XXL1þ#ÔHAROLD€WAYNE€Ô_ÔNICHOLSÔ_Ôòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XL1X»¼íÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ÐCriminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNos.€205863,€213883„213896€€€€€€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€Judge,€by€DesignationÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1998„00562„SC„R11„Ô_ÔPDÔ_Ô€„€Filed€October€7,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÌÔ#†¼í»XXL1”#ÔÔ€XL1X»¼íÔThe€petitioner,€Harold€Wayne€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€filed€post„conviction€petitions€seeking€relief€from€hisÐ P  Ðconviction€for€felony€murder,€his€sentence€of€death,€and€his€numerous€convictions€for€aggravatedÐ <Œ Ðrape,€first€degree€burglary,€and€larceny€upon€the€basis€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€as€wellÐ (x Ðas€other€legal€grounds.€€After€conducting€several€evidentiary€hearings,€the€trial€court€denied€reliefÐ d Ðas€to€the€felony€murder€conviction€and€sentence€of€death,€but€granted€partial€relief€by€ordering€newÐ P Ðsentencing€hearings€as€to€the€remaining€convictions.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€thatÐ ì< Ðthe€trial€court€erred€by€allowing€the€petitioner€to€assert€his€right€against€self„incrimination€during€theÐ Ø( Ðpost„conviction€proceedings,€yet€upheld€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€in€all€other€respects.Ð Ä ÐÌAfter€reviewing€the€record€and€applicable€authority,€we€conclude:€€(1)€that€the€petitioner€was€notÐ œì Ðdenied€his€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€based€on€the€failure€to€investigate€and€challengeÐ ˆØ Ðhis€confessions€as€false;€(2)€that€the€petitioner€was€not€denied€his€right€to€the€effective€assistance€ofÐ tÄ Ðcounsel€based€on€the€failure€to€challenge€the€legality€of€his€arrest;€(3)€that€the€petitioner€was€notÐ `° Ðdenied€his€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€capital€trial€basedÐ L œ Ðon€the€failure€to€present€additional€mitigating€evidence;€(4)€that€the€petitioner€was€not€denied€hisÐ 8!ˆ  Ðright€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€capital€trial€based€on€theÐ $"t! Ðfailure€to€object€to€misconduct€by€the€prosecution;€(5)€that€the€petitioner€was€not€denied€his€right€toÐ #`" Ðthe€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€capital€trial€based€on€the€failure€toÐ ü#L# Ðrequest€mitigating€instructions;€(6)€that€the€petitioner€was€not€denied€his€right€to€the€effectiveÐ è$8 $ Ðassistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€capital€trial€based€on€the€failure€to€raise€issuesÐ Ô%$!% Ðregarding€the€constitutionality€of€capital€punishment;€(7)€that€the€petitioner€was€not€denied€his€rightÐ À&"& Ðto€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€capital€trial€based€on€the€failureÐ ¬'ü"' Ðto€object€to€the€discovery€of€notes€prepared€by€a€defense€psychologist€on€self„incrimination€grounds;Ð ˜(è#( Ð(8)€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€did€not€err€in€refusing€to€remand€the€case€for€additional€DNAÐ „)Ô$) Ðtesting;€(9)€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€by€addressing€the€issue€of€whether€the€petitionerÐ p*À%* Ðhad€a€right€against€self„incrimination€in€this€post„conviction€proceeding€but€the€error€had€no€effectÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âon€the€outcome;€and€(10)€that€the€trial€courtððs€findings€were€not€clearly€erroneous€and€cumulativeÐ H,˜',ý ÐÔ_Ôerror€did€not€require€the€reversal€of€the€petitionerððs€convictions.€€Accordingly,ò ò€ó ówe€affirm€the€CourtÐ ° Ðof€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment.Ð  ð Ðâ âÓ4Óò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ŒÜ ÐAffirmedó óÐ xÈ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€C.J.,Ð P   Ðóóand€òò€Janice€M.€Holder,óó€and€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€JJ.óó,€joined.òòóó€€òò€Adolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,óó€J.,€filedÐ < Œ Ða€concurring€and€dissenting€opinion.Ð ( x ÐÌArdena€J.€Garth,€District€Public€Defender,€and€Mary€Ann€Green,€Assistant€Public€Defender,Ð  P  ÐChattanooga,€Tennessee;€Donald€E.€Dawson,€Post„Conviction€Defender,€and€Catherine€Y.Ð ì <  ÐBrockenborough,€Assistant€Post„Conviction€Defender,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,Ð Ø(  ÐHarold€Wayne€Nichols.Ð Ä  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Gordon€W.Ð œì  ÐSmith,€Associate€Solicitor€General;€Gill€Robert€Geldreich,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€William€H.Ð ˆØ  ÐCox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€C.€Leland€Davis,€C.€Caldwell€Huckabay,€and€Glenn€R.Ð tÄ ÐPruden,€Assistant€District€Attorneys€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð `° ÐÌDavid€M.€Eldridge€and€Jeanne€L.€Wiggins,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€òòAmicus€Curiaeóó,€The€NationalÐ 8ˆ ÐAssociation€of€Criminal€Defense€Lawyers€and€The€Tennessee€Association€of€Criminal€DefenseÐ $t ÐLawyers.Ð ` ÐÓ‡ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ è8 ÐÌò òBACKGROUNDó óÐ À ÐÌòòProcedural€HistoryóóÐ ˜è ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€petitioner,€Harold€Wayne€Nichols,€was€convicted€of€felony€murder€and€sentenced€toÐ pÀ Ðdeath€for€the€1988€killing€of€21„year„old€Karen€Pulley€in€Chattanooga,€Tennessee.€€In€imposing€theÐ \ ¬ Ðdeath€penalty,€the€jury€found€that€Nichols€had€several€prior€convictions€for€violent€felonies,€includingÐ H!˜ Ðfive€aggravated€rapes€committed€against€four€different€victims.€€To€place€the€issues€in€this€post„Ð 4"„  Ðconviction€appeal€in€the€appropriate€context,€we€first€summarize€the€extensive€background€facts€andÐ  #p! Ðprocedural€history.€€Ð  $\" ÐÌà  àOn€September€30,€1988,€the€petitioner,€Harold€Wayne€Nichols,€broke€into€a€home€in€theÐ ä%4!$ ÐBrainerd€area€of€Chattanooga€and€found€the€victim,€Karen€Pulley,€alone€in€an€upstairs€bedroom.€Ð Ð& "% ÐAfter€forcibly€removing€Pulleyððs€clothing,€Nichols€raped€her€and€struck€her€in€the€head€with€a€boardÐ ¼' #& Ðhe€had€found€in€the€home.€€After€the€rape,€Nichols€struck€the€victim€in€the€head€with€the€board€atÐ ¨(ø#' Ðleast€four€more€times€as€she€struggled.€€Although€Pulley€was€found€alive€by€one€of€her€roommates,Ð ”)ä$( Ðshe€died€the€following€day.€€The€cause€of€death€was€the€blunt€trauma€to€the€victimððs€head,€whichÐ €*Ð%) Ðresulted€in€skull€fractures€and€massive€brain€injuries.Ð l+¼&* Їà  àSeveral€months€later,ò ò€ó óon€January€5,€1989,€ò òó ópolice€officers€arrested€Nichols€after€receivingÐ ° Ðinformation€that€he€committed€several€rapes€in€the€East€Ridge€area€near€Chattanooga€that€wereÐ  ð Ðunrelated€to€the€Pulley€rape€and€murder.€€When€questioned€by€officers€of€the€East€Ridge€PoliceÐ ŒÜ ÐDepartment€on€January€6,€1989,€Nichols€confessed€to€several€rapes€that€occurred€in€December€ofÐ xÈ Ð1988€and€early€January€of€1989.€€When€questioned€later€by€Detective€Richard€Heck€of€theÐ d´ ÐChattanooga€Police€Department,€Nichols€confessed€to€the€rape€and€murder€of€Karen€Pulley€and€gaveÐ P   Ða€videotaped€statement€in€which€he€discussed€the€layout€of€the€victimððs€home€and€bedroom,€his€entryÐ < Œ Ðpoint€into€the€home,€the€facts€of€the€rape€and€murder,€and€his€disposal€of€the€murder€weapon.€€Ð ( x ÐÌà  àFollowing€these€confessions,€Nichols€was€first€charged€with€and€convicted€of€numerousÐ  P  Ðoffenses€involving€four€different€victims:׃9×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€aggravated€rape€and€first€degree€burglary€committedÐ ì <  Ðagainst€T.R.€on€December€27,€1988;€aggravated€rape€and€first€degree€burglary€committed€againstÐ Ø(  ÐS.T.€on€January€3,€1989;€two€counts€of€aggravated€rape€and€first€degree€burglary€committed€againstÐ Ä  ÐP.R.€on€January€3,€1989;€and€aggravated€rape,€first€degree€burglary,€and€petit€larceny€against€P.G.Ð °  Ðon€December€20,€1988.€€Nichols€pled€guilty€to€the€offenses€involving€T.R.€and€S.T.,€but€elected€toÐ œì  Ðgo€to€jury€trials€for€the€offenses€involving€P.G.€and€P.R.€and€was€convicted.׃@T×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РˆØ  ÐÌà  àAfter€these€convictions,€Nichols€pled€guilty€to€charges€of€felony€murder,€aggravated€rape,€andÐ `° Ðfirst€degree€burglary€for€the€offenses€against€Karen€Pulley.€€At€a€sentencing€hearing€to€determine€theÐ Lœ Ðpunishment€for€the€felony€murder€conviction,€the€prosecution€sought€the€death€penalty€based€uponÐ 8ˆ Ðtwo€aggravating€circumstances:€that€Nichols€had€prior€convictions€for€felonies€involving€violenceÐ $t Ðand€that€the€killing€of€Pulley€had€occurred€during€the€commission€of€a€felony.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ` Ððð39„13„204(i)(2)€and€(7).€€The€State€introduced€Nicholsðð€five€prior€convictions€for€aggravated€rapeÐ üL Ðagainst€T.R.,€S.T.,€P.G.,€and€P.R.,€as€well€as€his€videotaped€confession€to€the€murder€and€rape€ofÐ è8 ÐKaren€Pulley.€€€Ð Ô$ ÐÌà  àIn€mitigation,€the€defense€introduced€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€character€and€background.€Ð ¬ü ÐReverend€Robert€Butler€testified€that€he€had€known€Nichols€since€his€childhood€and€that€Nichols€hadÐ ˜è Ðthe€ð ðbest€qualityðð€of€character€as€a€child.€€Winston€Gonia,€a€minister€who€had€known€Nichols€sinceÐ „Ô Ðage€ten,€also€testified€that€Nichols€was€a€good€person.€€Similarly,€Reverend€Charles€Hawkins€testifiedÐ pÀ Ðthat€he€had€visited€Nichols€at€an€orphanage€on€many€occasions€and€that€Nichols€had€been€a€ð ðveryÐ \ ¬ Ðfine€young€man.ðð€€Reverend€Hawkins€testified€that€he€could€not€associate€the€crimes€with€the€personÐ H!˜ Ðhe€once€knew.€€€€€€Ð 4"„  ÐÌà  àA€co„employee,€Larry€Kilgore,€testified€that€he€worked€with€Nichols€at€Godfatherððs€Pizza€andÐ  $\" Ðconsidered€Nichols€to€be€a€dependable€employee€and€a€friend.€€Kilgore€testified€that€Nichols€hadÐ ø$H # Ðâ âreceived€promotions€leading€to€assistant€manager€and€worked€night€shifts€and€did€paperwork.€Ð ä%4!$ ÐKilgore€was€shocked€at€Nicholsðð€arrest€and€said€that€the€person€who€committed€these€crimes€was€notÐ ° Ðthe€person€that€he€knew.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€defendantððs€wife,€Joanne€Nichols,€testified€that€she€married€Nichols€in€1986€and€that€heÐ tÄ Ðwas€a€perfect€gentleman€who€was€nice,€caring,€and€never€mean€to€her.€€The€couple€lived€for€a€timeÐ `° Ðwith€Nicholsðð€father,€whom€Joanne€Nichols€described€as€harsh€and€unloving.€€She€testified€that€herÐ L œ Ðhusband€worked€late€hours€and€sometimes€did€not€come€home€all€night.€€She€did€not€think€thatÐ 8 ˆ ÐNichols€raped€and€killed€the€victim€because€he€never€showed€any€indication€that€he€would€act€in€thatÐ $ t Ðmanner.€€She€admitted€that€she€told€an€investigating€officer€that€Nichols€had€said€the€murder€was€anÐ  ` Ðaccident.€€Finally,€she€testified€that€she€did€not€want€her€husband€to€die.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àNichols,€age€29€at€the€time€of€the€sentencing€hearing,€testified€about€his€family€background.€Ð Ô$  ÐWhen€Nichols€was€ten€years€of€age,€his€mother€died€of€cancer€and€he€was€placed€in€an€orphanageÐ À  Ðby€his€father.€€Nichols€did€not€know€why€he€had€been€placed€in€the€orphanage€and€did€not€recall€anyÐ ¬ü  Ðabuse€taking€place€while€he€was€there.€€When€Nichols€was€about€to€be€adopted€in€1976,€he€wasÐ ˜è  Ðinstead€returned€to€his€father€with€whom€he€had€a€difficult€relationship.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àNichols€joined€the€army€and€received€an€honorable€discharge€in€1984.€€He€€married€his€wife,Ð \¬ ÐJoanne€Nichols,€in€1986,€and€he€believed€they€had€a€good€marriage.€€Nichols€testified€that€he€had€aÐ H˜ Ðprior€conviction€for€assault€with€intent€to€commit€rape€and€that€he€had€a€daughter€through€a€priorÐ 4„ Ðrelationship€for€whom€he€paid€child€support€up€until€the€time€of€his€arrest.€€Nichols€said€that€heÐ  p Ðenjoyed€his€job€and€had€received€promotions€from€cook€to€assistant€manager.€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àNichols€testified€that€when€he€committed€acts€of€violence,€he€had€a€ð ðstrange€energizedÐ ä4 Ðfeelingðð€that€he€could€not€resist€or€stop.€€He€conceded€that€he€had€never€sought€help€forò ò€ó óor€toldÐ Ð  Ðanyone€about€his€criminal€activity.€€He€did€not€know€Karen€Pulley€and€intended€only€to€burglarizeÐ À Ðher€home€and€not€to€kill€her.€€He€knew€Pulley€was€hurt€during€his€attack€but€he€did€nothing€to€helpÐ ¬ü Ðher;€instead,€he€disposed€of€the€murder€weapon€and€his€clothing.€€Although€he€was€remorseful,€heÐ ˜è Ðadmitted€that€he€would€have€continued€his€violent€behavior€had€he€not€been€arrested.Ð „Ô ÐÌà  àDr.€Eric€Engum,€a€clinical€psychologist,€testified€that€he€met€with€Nichols€five€or€six€timesÐ \ ¬ Ðand€that€Nichols€was€of€ð ðhigh€averageðð€intelligence€and€fairly€articulate.€He€diagnosed€Nichols€withÐ H!˜ Ðð ðintermittent€explosive€disorder,ðð€which€is€marked€by€an€irresistible€drive€to€commit€a€violent,Ð 4"„  Ðdestructive€act€until€the€act€is€committed.€€Dr.€Engum€testified€that€the€condition€may€relate€toÐ  #p! Ðorganic€factors€or€developmental€factors€such€as€a€hostile€environment,€abuse,€absence€of€love,€andÐ  $\" Ðabandonment.€€In€Nicholsðð€case,€there€was€the€presence€of€a€harsh,€hostile€father€and€theÐ ø$H # Ðabandonment€of€being€placed€in€an€orphanage€after€his€motherððs€death.€€Dr.€Engum€testified€thatÐ ä%4!$ ÐNichols€was€not€a€psychopath€and€was€not€always€violent€or€evil;€indeed,€according€to€Dr.€Engum,Ð Ð& "% ÐNicholsðð€confessions€reflected€his€ð ðgood€side€taking€responsibility€for€what€[his]€bad€side€did.ðð€€Dr.Ð ¼' #& ÐEngum€concluded€that€Nichols€would€function€well€in€an€institutionalized€setting€but€would€repeatÐ ¨(ø#' Ðthe€destructive€behavior€if€released.€€Ð ”)ä$( Ðâ âÐ €*Ð%) Ðà  àThe€jury€imposed€a€sentence€of€death€after€finding€that€the€evidence€of€the€two€aggravatingÐ ° Ðâ âcircumstances€outweighed€the€evidence€of€mitigating€circumstances€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€TheÐ œì Ðtrial€court€later€imposed€a€60„year€sentence€for€the€aggravated€rape€and€a€15„year€sentence€for€theÐ ˆØ Ðfirst€degree€burglary,€to€be€served€consecutively.€€This€Court€affirmed€the€convictions€and€theÐ tÄ Ðsentence€of€death€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722€(Tenn.€1994).׃"×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р`° ÐÌ€€€à@aaìàòòPost„Conviction€ProceedingsóóˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIn€April€of€1995,€Nichols€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€seeking€to€set€aside€hisÐ  ` Ðfelony€murder€conviction€and€death€sentence.€€In€December€of€1996,€he€filed€post„convictionÐ ü L  Ðpetitions€challenging€all€of€the€aggravated€rape€and€related€convictions€in€the€non„capital€cases.€€TheÐ è 8  Ðmain€allegation€underlying€all€of€the€post„conviction€petitions€was€that€the€petitioner€was€denied€hisÐ Ô$  Ðright€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€conducted€evidentiary€hearings€on€the€post„conviction€petitionsò ò€ó óover€theÐ ˜è  Ðcourse€of€eight€days,€considered€thousands€of€pages€of€records€and€documentary€evidence,€and€heardÐ ˆØ  Ðtestimony€from€dozens€of€witnesses.€€Nichols€introduced€extensive€evidence€in€an€effort€to€show€thatÐ tÄ Ðhis€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€in€his€capital€and€non„capital€cases€because€they€failed€toÐ `° Ðinvestigate€evidence€of€his€innocence€and€failed€to€challenge€his€numerous€confessions€to€all€of€theÐ Lœ Ðoffenses.€€Nichols€also€introduced€the€testimony€of€numerous€witnesses€that€he€contends€should€haveÐ 8ˆ Ðbeen€presented€as€mitigating€evidence€in€the€penalty€phase€of€his€capital€trial.€€Although€the€StateÐ $t Ðcalled€Nichols€to€testify€in€support€of€his€allegations,€Nichols€invoked€his€constitutional€right€againstÐ ` Ðself„incrimination€and€refused€to€answer€questions.Ô‡5XL1XXXL1ÔÐ üL ÐÌà  àThe€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€in€all€of€the€cases€were€Hugh€Moore€and€Rosemary€Bryan.€Ð Ô$ ÐMoore€had€defended€defendants€in€two€capital€cases€before€representing€Nichols€and€had€publishedÐ À Ðwork€in€a€capital€defense€manual.€€Bryan€had€worked€on€one€prior€capital€case,€had€attendedÐ ¬ü Ðnumerous€seminars€in€criminal€defense,€and€had€a€practice€consisting€of€40€to€70€percent€criminalÐ ˜è Ðcases.€€Moore€and€Bryan€presented€time€records€indicating€that€they€worked€over€1,300€out„of„courtÐ „Ô Ðhours€and€259€in„court€hours€on€the€Karen€Pulley€case,€in€addition€to€over€650€out„of„court€hoursÐ pÀ Ðand€nearly€30€in„court€hours€on€the€other€cases.Ô#†XL1XX5XL1aH#ÔÐ \ ¬ ÐÌà  àFollowing€the€hearings,€the€trial€court€made€detailed€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€lawÐ 4"„  Ðand€denied€post„conviction€relief€by€upholding€the€felony€murder€conviction,€the€death€sentence,€andÐ  #p! Ðâ âall€of€the€non„capital€convictions.€€The€trial€court,€however,€granted€partial€relief€by€ordering€newÐ  $\" Ðsentencing€proceedings€on€the€non„capital€convictions.׃6×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ° Ðâ âconcluded€that€Nichols€should€not€have€been€permitted€to€invoke€his€right€against€self„incriminationÐ œì Ðin€these€post„conviction€proceedings€and€that€a€reviewing€court€is€allowed€to€draw€a€negativeÐ ˆØ Ðinference€from€such€a€failure€to€testify,€it€nonetheless€held€that€the€evidence€supported€all€of€the€otherÐ tÄ Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€trial€court€and€affirmed€its€judgment.Ð `° ÐÌà  àWe€granted€this€appeal.€€€€€€€€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ€ %(…H03Óà@dd!ìàò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óˆÐ  ` ÐÌà  àThe€April€1995€petition€challenging€Nicholsðð€conviction€for€felony€murder€and€deathÐ è 8  Ðsentence€is€governed€by€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€then€in€effect,€which€required€thatÐ Ô$  Ðallegations€be€proven€by€a€preponderance€of€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„101,€òòetóó€òòseqóó.Ð À  Ð(1990).€€The€December€1996€petition€challenging€all€of€the€convictions€in€the€non„capital€cases€isÐ ¬ü  Ðgoverned€by€the€more€recent€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€which€requires€that€allegations€beÐ ˜è  Ðproven€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997).€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àA€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€in€the€recordÐ \¬ Ðpreponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).€€When€reviewingÐ H˜ Ðfactual€issues,€the€appellate€court€will€not€re„weigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence;€moreover,€factualÐ 4„ Ðquestions€involving€the€credibility€of€witnesses€or€the€weight€of€their€testimony€are€matters€for€theÐ  p Ðtrial€court€to€resolve.€€òòHenley€v.€Stateóó,€960€S.W.2d€572,€579€(Tenn.€1997).€€When€reviewing€legalÐ  \ Ðissues,€however,€or€a€mixed€question€of€law€and€fact€such€as€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÐ øH Ðclaim,€the€appellate€courtððs€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,Ð ä4 Ð6€S.W.3d€at€461.€€€€Ð Ð  ÐÌÔ‡*XL1XXXL1Ôà@û û ìàò òINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSEL€ó óˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àTo€establish€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÐ €Ð ÐStates€Constitution€and€article€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€a€petitioner€must€show€thatÐ l¼ Ðcounselððs€performance€was€deficient€and€that€the€deficiency€prejudiced€the€defense.€€òòSeeóó€òòStricklandÐ X ¨ Ðv.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€692,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2067,€80€L.Ed.2d€674€(1984);Ô#†XL1XX*XL14W#Ô€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938Ð D!” ÐS.W.2d€363,€370€(Tenn.€1996).€€Because€a€petitioner€must€establish€both€prongs€of€the€test,€a€failureÐ 0"€  Ðto€prove€either€deficiency€or€prejudice€provides€a€sufficient€basis€to€deny€relief€on€the€ineffectiveÐ #l! Ðassistance€claim.Ô‡*XL1XXXL1Ô€€òòId.óóÐ $X" ÐÌà  àTo€prove€a€deficiency€in€counselððs€performance,€a€petitioner€must€show€that€counselððs€actsÐ à%0!$ Ðor€omissions€were€so€serious€that€they€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonableness€underÐ Ì&"% Ðprevailing€professional€norms.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€688,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064;€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).Ô#†XL1XX*XL1ÀZ#ÔÔ‡*XL1XXXL1Ô€As€this€Court€has€observed:Ð œì ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[T]he€assistance€of€counsel€required€under€the€Sixth€Amendment€isÐ tÄ Ðcounsel€reasonably€likely€to€render€and€rendering€reasonably€effectiveÐ `° Ðassistance.€€It€is€a€violation€of€this€standard€for€defense€counsel€toÐ L œ Ðdeprive€a€criminal€defendant€of€a€substantial€defense€by€his€ownÐ 8 ˆ Ðineffectiveness€or€incompetence.€...€€Defense€counsel€must€performÐ $ t Ðat€least€as€well€as€a€lawyer€with€ordinary€training€and€skill€in€theÐ  ` Ðcriminal€law€and€must€conscientiously€protect€his€clientððs€interests,Ð ü L  Ðundeflected€by€conflicting€considerations....òòÐè 8 ` x` x ÐóóÌòòIdóó.€at€934„35€(quoting€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,€491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.€1974)€(citationsÐ À  Ðomitted)).€€In€reviewing€counselððs€conduct,€a€ð ðfair€assessment.€.€.€requires€that€every€effort€be€madeÐ ¬ü  Ðto€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstruct€the€circumstances€of€counselððsÐ ˜è  Ðchallenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€from€counselððs€perspective€at€the€time.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,Ð „Ô  Ð466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ct.€at€2065.Ô#†XL1XX*XL1¹\#ÔÔ‡*XL1XXXL1ÔÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àA€key€aspect€of€counselððs€performance€pertinent€to€the€allegations€raised€in€this€case€isÐ H˜ Ðcounselððs€duty€to€investigate.€€Defense€counsel€ð ðmust€conduct€appropriate€investigations,€bothÐ 4„ Ðfactual€and€legal,ðð€and€ð ðmust€assert€them€in€a€proper€and€timely€manner.ðð€€òòBaxteróó,€523€S.W.2d€atÐ  p Ð932,€935.€€As€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€said,€ð ðcounsel€has€the€duty€to€make€reasonableÐ  \ Ðinvestigations€or€to€make€a€reasonable€decision€that€makes€particular€investigations€unnecessary.ðð€Ð øH ÐòòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€691,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2052.€€Although€a€defendantððs€statements€or€confessionsò òÐ ä4 Ðó ódo€not€eliminate€counselððs€duty€to€investigate,€the€reasonableness€of€counselððs€actions€ð ðmay€beÐ Ð  Ðdetermined€or€substantially€influenced€by€the€defendantððs€own€statements€or€actions.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€691,€104Ð ¼  ÐS.€Ct.€at€2066.€€Moreover,€counselððs€conduct€must€be€ð ðassessed€for€reasonableness€in€all€theÐ ¨ø Ðcircumstances,€applying€a€heavy€measure€of€deference€to€counselððs€judgments.ððÔ#†XL1XX*XL14b#ÔÔ‡*XL1XXXL1Ô€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6Ð ”ä ÐS.W.3d€at€462.òòÔ#†XL1XX*XL1Mg#ÔÔ‡*XL1XXXL1ÔóóÐ €Ð ÐÌà  àTo€establish€that€a€deficiency€resulted€in€prejudice,€a€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€there€is€aÐ X ¨ Ðreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€unprofessional€errors,€the€result€of€the€proceedingÐ D!” Ðwould€have€been€different.€€A€reasonable€probability€is€a€probability€sufficient€to€undermineÐ 0"€  Ðconfidence€in€the€outcome.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€694,€104€S.Ct.€at€2068.€€In€short,€a€petitionerÐ #l! Ðmust€establish€that€the€deficiency€of€counsel€was€of€such€a€degree€that€it€deprived€the€defendant€ofÐ $X" Ða€fair€trial€and€called€into€question€the€reliability€of€the€outcome.€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€at€463.€Ð ô$D # ÐIn€cases€involving€a€guilty€plea,€a€petitioner€must€establish€that€but€for€counselððs€deficiency,€heÐ à%0!$ Ðwould€have€gone€to€trial€instead€of€entering€the€plea€of€guilty.€€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€52,€59,€106Ð Ì&"% ÐS.€Ct.€366,€370€(1985).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÔ#†XL1XX*XL1Îg#ÔÓ€ +(ê½80%ÓÔ‡*XL1XXXL1Ôòòóóà@òò&ìàòòóóÔ#†XL1XX*XL1Àl#Ôò òÔ‡*XL1XXXL1ÔANALYSISó óˆÐ )à$( ÐÌà@H H ìàI.€€€òòIneffective€Assistance€of€Counsel€ð!ð€€Failure€to€Investigateóó€ˆÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ€ -(ú¼08+ÓÔ#†XL1XX*XL1#m#ÔØ! !ØòòóóÌà0  àòòà@ŽŽì(#(#àA.óó€€€òòPetitionerððs€AllegationsˆÐ œì ÐÌà  àóóThe€petitioner€argues€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€withÐ tÄ Ðrespect€to€his€felony€murder€capital€conviction€and€with€respect€to€all€of€his€non„capital€convictions.€Ð `° ÐHis€underlying€arguments€are€two„fold:€€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€investigate€evidence€of€hisÐ L œ Ðinnocence€and€failed€to€challenge€all€of€his€confessions€in€light€of€the€evidence€of€his€innocence.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐNichols€also€argues€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€applied€an€incorrect€standard€of€review€byÐ $ t Ðrequiring€him€to€prove€his€actual€innocence€of€the€offenses.€€We€will€review€each€of€his€underlyingÐ  ` Ðarguments€and€analyze€them€in€light€of€trial€counselððs€conduct€and€performance.Ð ü L  ÐÌò òà0  à1.à0` (#(#àSerology€Evidence€Regarding€Karen€Pulley€and€T.R.ó óÐÔ$ ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€investigate€serologyÐ ¬ü  Ðevidence€that€excluded€him€as€the€perpetrator€of€the€murder€and€aggravated€rape€of€Karen€Pulley,Ð ˜è  Ðnotwithstanding€his€guilty€plea€to€the€offenses.€€Relying€upon€a€report€prepared€in€1989€by€theÐ „Ô  ÐTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation,€the€petitioner€argues€Ô‡*XL1XXXL1Ôthat€spermatozoa€found€in€a€vaginal€swabÐ pÀ Ðtaken€from€the€victim,€which€did€not€contain€A,€B€or€H€antigens,€excluded€him€as€the€perpetratorÐ \¬ Ðbecause€he€is€a€blood€type€O€secretor€who€produces€H€antigens€in€his€bodily€fluids.Ô#†XL1XX*XL1ft#ÔÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àMike€VanSant,€a€former€T.B.I.€serologist,€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€massiveÐ  p Ðbleeding€and€blood€transfusions€may€affect€serological€tests€on€blood€samples€but€not€on€saliva€orÐ  \ Ðvaginal€samples.€€Although€VanSant€testified€that€semen€from€a€vaginal€swab€is€distinguishable€fromÐ øH Ðblood€even€when€the€vaginal€swab€is€bloody,€he€agreed€that€the€blood€flow€will€have€a€ð ðcleansingÐ ä4 Ðactionðð€over€a€period€of€time.€€He€was€then€asked:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQ.à0¸ ` x` xà[B]ut€just€because€thereððs€a€lot€of€blood,€that€doesnððt€hide€theÐ ¨ø Ðfact€that€thereððs€semen€there,€that€whatever€antigens€youÐ ”ä Ðwould€get€from€the€semen?Ѐи x¸ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA:à0¸ ` x` xàNot€necessarily.ÐX ¨¸ x¸ x ÐÌThere€was€no€further€testimony€or€evidence€following€up€on€this€issue;€accordingly,€given€theÐ 0"€  Ðequivocal€nature€of€the€evidence€regarding€whether€massive€bleeding€may€have€had€a€cleansingÐ #l! Ðaction€that€affected€the€discovery€of€antigens,€as€well€as€the€lack€of€expert€testimony€indicating€thatÐ $X" Ðthe€petitioner€was€excluded€as€the€perpetrator,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðevidence€was€inconclusive.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àSimilarly,€Nichols€claims€that€serology€evidence€excluded€him€from€the€class€of€possibleÐ ¸'#& Ðoffenders€in€the€aggravated€rape€of€T.R.,€notwithstanding€his€guilty€plea€to€the€offense.€€In€particular,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðhe€argues€that€saliva€and€vaginal€swabs€of€the€victim€revealed€the€presence€of€a€type€B€antigen€andÐ )à$( Ðthat€he€and€the€victim€were€both€type€O€secretors€who€secreted€only€type€H€antigens.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àVanSant€testified€that€as€a€T.B.I.€serologist€in€1989,€he€tested€a€saliva€sample€taken€fromÐ ° ÐT.R.,€which€revealed€a€B€antigen,€and€a€vaginal€sample,€which€revealed€B€and€H€antigens€in€threeÐ œì Ðof€four€tests€and€only€an€H€antigen€in€one€of€the€four€tests.€€He€indicated€that€he€did€not€test€the€salivaÐ ˆØ Ðsample€for€semen€and€that€the€results€were€therefore€inconclusive.€€Although€VanSant€agreed€thatÐ tÄ Ðit€was€a€ð ðdefinite€possibilityðð€that€the€rapist€was€a€type€B€secretor,€he€testified€that€he€also€found€aÐ `° Ðsample€of€spermatozoa€on€the€victimððs€bedspread€that€contained€only€type€H€antigens.€€AccordingÐ L œ Ðto€Van€Sant,€the€type€H€antigen€could€only€have€been€produced€by€the€victim,€Nichols€or€any€otherÐ 8 ˆ Ðtype€O€secretor;€moreover,€although€the€type€B€antigen€must€have€been€produced€by€someone€otherÐ $ t Ðthan€the€petitioner,€its€presence€did€not€exclude€the€petitioner€or€anyone€else€as€the€perpetrator€of€theÐ  ` Ðoffense.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àVanSant€testified€that€he€was€unaware€at€the€time€he€performed€his€analysis€that€the€victimÐ Ô$  Ðhad€sexual€relations€three€days€before€the€offense:Ð À  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[T]here€were€seven€areas€of€stain€on€the€bedspread....Had€I€knownÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€she€had€voluntary€sexual€intercourse€previously€I€would€haveÐ ˜è  Ðtested€maybe€two€or€three€different€areas€to€try€to€find€somethingÐ „Ô  Ðdifferent€than€the€H€[antigen]€because,€you€know,€I€canððt€say,€thatÐ pÀ Ðcould€just€be€hers.Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌAlthough€VanSant€said€he€would€not€expect€to€find€antigens€in€a€sample€three€days€after€sexualÐ 4„ Ðintercourse,€he€acknowledged€that€the€relevant€ð ðliteratureðð€states€that€antigens€may€be€found€up€toÐ  p Ðnine€days€later.€€After€reviewing€all€of€the€evidence,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€again€determinedÐ  \ Ðthat€the€evidence€was€inconclusive.Ô‡*XL1XXXL1Ô€€Ð øH ÐÌÔ#†XL1XX*XL1Ù…#ÔÔ‡5XL1XXXL1Ôà  àò ò2.à0 ` àMurder€Weaponó óÐÐ ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€because€they€failed€to€investigateÐ ¨ø Ðthe€circumstances€concerning€the€officersðð€discovery€of€the€alleged€murder€weapon.€€As€stated€above,Ð ”ä ÐNicholsðð€confession€to€the€murder€and€rape€of€Karen€Pulley€indicates€that€he€gave€a€detailedÐ €Ð Ðdescription€of€the€route€he€used€in€fleeing€the€scene€and€of€the€area€in€which€he€had€disposed€of€theÐ l¼ Ðtwo„by„four€by€throwing€it€out€of€his€car€window.€€According€to€Detective€Heck,€the€petitionerÐ X ¨ Ðaccompanied€officers€to€the€scene€and€a€board€was€found€that€the€petitioner€stated€ð ðlooked€like€theÐ D!” Ðone€he€threw€out€the€window€of€his€car.ðð€€Ô#†XL1XX5XL13†#ÔÔ‡5XL1XXXL1ÔÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Steve€Miller,€an€officer€with€the€Chattanooga€PoliceÐ $X" ÐDepartment,€testified€that€he€did€not€find€a€two„by„four€board€in€his€search€of€the€area€where€it€wasÐ ô$D # Ðlater€found.€€Susan€Saunders€Massey,€who€was€Karen€Pulleyððs€roommate,€testified€she€was€taken€toÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€area€by€police€and€saw€a€two„by„four€leaning€against€a€tree.€€She€did€not€recognize€the€board€butÐ Ì&"% Ðbelieved€there€had€been€a€two„by„four€in€their€home€under€a€washer€that€was€being€repaired.€€Finally,Ð ¸'#& ÐDr.€Neal€Haskeall,€a€forensic€entomologist,€testified€that€no€blood€or€fiber€evidence€was€found€onÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€two„by„four€that€linked€Nichols€to€the€murder€of€Karen€Pulley.€€He€also€found€no€evidence€ofÐ )à$( Ðplant€material€even€though€the€board€was€allegedly€discarded€by€the€petitioner€in€September€of€1988Ð |*Ì%) Ðand€not€recovered€until€January€of€1989.Ô#†XL1XX5XL1ĉ#ÔÔ‡5XL1XXXL1ÔÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ€ (¦Ù00-ÓØ! !ØÌò òà  àòòóó3.à0 ` àHair€Evidenceó óÐœì` (#` (# ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€investigate€hair€samplesÐ tÄ Ðcollected€from€the€Karen€Pulley€crime€scene;€in€particular,€evidence€at€the€post„conviction€hearingÐ `° Ðindicated€that€two€slides€containing€several€samples€from€the€pubic€area€of€the€victim€each€revealedÐ L œ Ðone€hair€that€was€inconsistent€with€Pulley€or€Nichols.€€The€petitioner€argues€that€the€evidence€mayÐ 8 ˆ Ðhave€established€reasonable€doubt€inasmuch€as€the€evidence€also€showed€that€the€victim€had€neverÐ $ t Ðhad€sexual€intercourse€before€the€rape.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAs€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€observed,€the€report€prepared€by€Forensic€ScienceÐ è 8  ÐAssociates€and€relied€upon€by€Nichols€was€not€dated€until€after€the€post„conviction€hearingsÐ Ô$  Ðconcluded;€thus,€the€State€had€no€opportunity€to€contest€the€issue€and€no€expert€witness€testified€asÐ À  Ðto€the€result.€€In€any€event,€the€report€itself€stressed€that€because€ð ðhairs€are€ubiquitous€in€theÐ ¬ü  Ðenvironment,€degrade€very€slowly,€and€are€easily€inadvertently€picked€up,€transferred,€or€shed,€aÐ ˜è  Ðloose€hair€is€of€relatively€little€significance€without€some€independent€knowledge€that€it€is€relatedÐ „Ô  Ðto€the€incident€being€investigated.ðð€€The€evidence€showed€that€Karen€Pulley€lived€with€two€otherÐ pÀ Ðwomen€from€whom€hair€samples€were€not€evaluated€as€reference€samples€as€part€of€the€forensicÐ \¬ Ðevaluation€now€relied€upon€by€the€petitioner.Ð H˜ ÐÌò òà  àòòóó4.à0 ` àAlibi€Defenseó óÐ p` (#` (# ÐÌà  àNichols€contends€that€his€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€investigate€evidence€ofÐ øH Ðalibi€defenses€for€all€of€the€offenses.€€During€post€conviction,€Nichols€cited€evidence€that€he€was€atÐ ä4 Ðwork€at€the€time€an€offense€was€committed€against€T.M.€ð!ð€an€offense€not€at€issue€in€this€post„Ð Ð  Ðconviction€proceeding€ð!ð€and€argued€that€the€evidence€of€an€alibi€for€this€offense€should€haveÐ ¼  Ðprompted€his€trial€counsel€into€investigating€defenses€for€all€of€the€other€offenses€to€which€he€gaveÐ ¨ø Ðfalse€confessions.€€The€record€indicates,€however,€that€Nichols€confessed€and€later€pled€guilty€to€theÐ ”ä Ðoffense€against€T.M.,€and€was€also€identified€by€T.M.€as€the€person€who€attacked€her.€€Although€theÐ €Ð Ðpetitioner€argues€this€ð ðrock€solidðð€alibi€should€have€prompted€trial€counsel€to€investigate€alibiÐ l¼ Ðdefenses€in€the€other€cases,€he€did€not€present€any€alibi€evidence€at€the€post„conviction€hearingÐ X ¨ Ðregarding€any€of€the€offenses€at€issue€in€this€proceeding.€€Ô#†XL1XX5XL1Ž#ÔÔ‡5XL1XXXL1Ô€€Ô#†XL1XX5XL1³š#ÔÔ‡*XL1XXXL1ÔÐ D!” ÐÌÔ#†XL1XX*XL1÷š#ÔÔ‡5XL1XXXL1Ôò òà  àòòóó5.à0 ` àOther€Evidence€and€Suspectsó óÔ#†XL1XX5XL1O›#ÔÔ‡*XL1XXXL1ÔÐ#l!` (#` (# ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€investigate€that€a€pistolÐ ô$D # Ðrecovered€from€the€trunk€of€his€car€did€not€match€the€description€of€a€ð ðblue€steel€revolverðð€used€inÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€offense€against€S.T.€€The€record€reflects€that€Nichols€confessed€to€the€offense€against€S.T.€andÐ Ì&"% Ðentered€a€guilty€plea;€before€the€plea€was€entered,€the€prosecutor€stated€that€S.T.€had€identifiedÐ ¸'#& ÐNichols€from€a€photograph€and€that€Nichols€had€consented€to€a€search€of€his€car€that€revealed€a€.38Ð ¤(ô#' Ðrevolver€belonging€to€S.T.ò òÔ#†XL1XX*XL1Ò›#ÔÔ‡*XL1XXXL1Ôó óÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àAccording€to€Dwight€Short,€a€witness€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€by€theÐ ° Ðâ âpetitioner,€a€property€sheet€prepared€by€police€officers€indicated€that€the€pistol€was€an€ð ðAuto€SST,ððÐ œì Ðwhich€he€interpreted€to€mean€a€stainless€steel€automatic.€Ô#†XL1XX*XL1¹ž#ÔÔ‡*XL1XXXL1Ô€Short€also€testified,€however,€that€the€serialÐ ˆØ Ðnumber€recorded€for€the€pistol€on€the€property€report€was€traced€to€a€ð ðthree€inch€.38€Ross€revolverÐ tÄ Ðwith€€a€blue€finish.ðð€Ô#†XL1XX*XL1k #ÔÔ‡*XL1XXXL1ԀР`° ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€the€petitioner€argued€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€investigateÐ 8 ˆ Ða€suspect€named€Fred€Coats€because€there€was€evidence€that€a€police€dog€tracked€a€scent€from€P.R.ððsÐ $ t Ðresidence€following€the€offense€to€a€car€owned€by€Coatsðð€mother€and€that€P.R.€had€identified€Coats.€Ð  ` ÐThe€record€reveals,€however,€that€during€the€aggravated€rape€trial€of€P.R.,€the€victim€testified€thatÐ ü L  Ðshe€saw€a€photograph€of€Coats€in€which€there€were€features€that€resembled€the€perpetrator.€€AfterÐ è 8  Ðlater€seeing€Coats€in€a€lineup,€however,€she€told€the€officers€he€was€not€the€rapist.€€She€also€testifiedÐ Ô$  Ðthat€she€identified€Nichols€as€the€one€who€had€raped€her,€and€she€made€an€in„court€identification€ofÐ À  Ðhim€at€trial.€€The€petitioner€asserted€that€the€defense€failed€to€pursue€other€possible€suspects€as€well.ò ò€Ð ¬ü  Ðó ó€Ô#†XL1XX*XL1…¡#ÔÐ œì  Ðò òà  àòòóó6.à0 ` àOfshe€Depositionòòóó€ó óÐˆØ ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€presenting€evidence€of€alleged€innocence,€Nichols€presented€the€deposition€ofÐ `° ÐDr.€Richard€Ofshe,€a€Ph.D.€in€sociology,€who€teaches,€works,€and€researches€in€the€field€of€policeÐ Lœ Ðinterrogations€and€false€confessions.€€Ofshe€discussed€ð ðcoerciveðð€interrogation€techniques,€whichÐ 8ˆ Ðcan€lead€to€false€confessions€through€the€making€of€threats€or€promises,€and€ð ðpersuadingððÐ $t Ðinterrogation€techniques,€which€can€lead€to€false€confessions€by€convincing€an€innocent€suspect€thatÐ ` Ðhe€or€she€committed€the€crimes.€€Ofshe€testified€that€numerous€factors€must€be€reviewed€in€analyzingÐ üL Ðthe€nature€of€the€interrogation€and€the€veracity€of€a€confession:€€whether€a€confession€has€beenÐ è8 Ðrecorded€in€its€entirety;€whether€the€confession€contains€any€details€uniquely€known€to€the€defendant;Ð Ô$ Ðwhether€the€confession€has€been€tainted€or€contaminated€by€an€officer€telling€the€suspect€the€factsÐ À Ðof€the€offense;€and€whether€the€confession€is€corroborated€by€other€evidence.Ð ¬ü ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€Nicholsðð€confessions,€Ofshe€determined€that€there€were€no€indications€as€toÐ „Ô Ðhow€the€statements€came€about€or€whether€they€were€reliable.€€In€Ofsheððs€view,€trial€counsel€shouldÐ pÀ Ðhave€investigated€whether€officers€told€Nichols€that€he€would€receive€ð ðtreatmentðð€in€exchange€forÐ \ ¬ Ðhis€statements,€whether€officers€ð ðrehearsedðð€Nicholsðð€statements€before€recording€them,€and€whetherÐ H!˜ ÐNichols€had€requested€an€attorney.€€Ofshe€testified€that€there€were€no€indications€in€the€record€thatÐ 4"„  Ðtrial€counsel€had€investigated€the€circumstances€of€the€confessions,€despite€the€lack€of€physicalÐ  #p! Ðevidence,€and€that€any€attorney€who€fails€to€conduct€an€investigation€cannot€competently€advise€aÐ  $\" Ðdefendant€on€whether€to€plead€guilty€or€go€to€trial.Ð ø$H # ÐÌà  àOfshe€acknowledged€that€at€the€time€of€the€offenses,€confessions,€and€convictions€in€thisÐ Ð& "% Ðcase,€his€field€of€study€was€in€its€earliest€stages€with€regard€to€research€and€publication.€€Ofshe€didÐ ¼' #& Ðnot€testify€regarding€any€of€Nicholsðð€traits€or€characteristics€that€may€have€made€him€susceptible€toÐ ¨(ø#' Ðundue€pressure€or€risk€of€giving€a€false€confession€under€the€interrogation€techniques€he€hadÐ ”)ä$( Ðdescribed.€€Ofshe€admitted€that€he€never€met€with€the€petitioner.Ð €*Ð%) ÐÐ l+¼&* Ðà  àApplying€Ofsheððs€framework,€the€petitioner€asserts€that€his€confessions€bore€several€indiciaÐ ° Ðof€falsity€and€unreliability.€€For€instance,€he€contends€that€his€confessions€to€the€offenses€againstÐ œì ÐT.R.,€S.T.,€P.G.,€and€P.R.€were€coached€by€East€Ridge€investigators€who€used€leading€questions€toÐ ˆØ Ðelicit€one„word€responses€in€a€short€period€of€time.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€interrogation€wasÐ tÄ Ðcontaminated€by€the€fact€that€investigators€showed€him€incident€reports€of€the€offenses€and€promptedÐ `° Ðhim€with€regard€to€details.€€Similarly,€the€petitioner€now€argues€that€his€confession€to€the€PulleyÐ L œ Ðoffenses€was€coached€by€Detective€Richard€Heck€of€the€Chattanooga€Police€Department€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontained€details€that€were€inconsistent€with€the€actual€facts€of€the€investigation.€€Ô‡5XL1XXXL1ÔÐ $ t ÐÌÔ#†XL1XX5XL1d´#Ôà@JJìàòòB.óó€€€òòCounselððs€ConductóóˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àHugh€Moore,€lead€counsel€for€Nichols,€testified€that€he€reviewed€files€and€records,€talked€toÐ Ô$  Ðinvestigating€officers,€interviewed€witnesses,€and€visited€the€crime€scenes.€€He€was€aware€theÐ À  Ðprosecutionððs€strategy€was€to€obtain€convictions€for€the€rapes€and€then€to€use€those€convictions€inÐ ¬ü  Ðseeking€the€death€penalty€for€the€murder€of€Karen€Pulley,€and€he€argued€at€trial€and€on€appeal€thatÐ ˜è  Ðthe€procedure€was€improper€because€the€rape€offenses€had€occurred€later€in€time.׃?×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€When€askedÐ „Ô  Ðwhether€he€had€considered€filing€a€motion€for€a€speedy€trial€on€the€Karen€Pulley€charges,€Moore€saidÐ pÀ Ðhe€was€concerned€such€a€strategy€would€reduce€the€amount€of€time€in€which€they€had€to€prepare€forÐ \¬ Ðthe€capital€charge.€€€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àMoore€conceded€that€the€guilty€pleas€were€entered€with€respect€to€the€charges€against€S.T.Ð  p Ðand€T.R.€before€the€petitioner€had€received€an€independent€psychiatric€examination.€€He€stated,Ð  \ Ðhowever,€that€there€been€no€evidence€to€support€a€mental€incapacity€or€insanity€defense€whenÐ øH ÐNichols€was€examined€by€state„employed€mental€health€professionals€following€the€charges.€€MooreÐ ä4 Ðconceded€that€he€did€not€cross„examine€the€victims€in€the€trials€of€P.G.€and€P.R.,€and€therefore€didÐ Ð  Ðnot€ask€them€about€their€identifications€of€the€petitioner€or€other€possible€suspects.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àMoore€was€questioned€about€the€defenseððs€consideration€of€various€issues€such€as€serologyÐ ”ä Ðreports,€hair€samples,€other€possible€suspects,€weapon€description,€and€other€matters.€€He€did€notÐ €Ð Ðrecall€exactly€why€the€defense€had€not€pursued€DNA€testing,€but€expressed€concern€that€a€resultÐ l¼ Ðadverse€to€Nichols€could€have€been€used€against€the€defense.€€Although€Moore€was€unable€to€recallÐ X ¨ Ðsome€details€relating€to€the€investigation,€he€reiterated€several€times€that€the€strategy€had€beenÐ D!” Ðshaped€by€Nicholsðð€numerous€confessions€to€the€charged€offenses,€including€the€murder€and€rapeÐ 0"€  Ðof€Karen€Pulley.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àMoore€and€hisò ò€ó óco„counsel€spent€nearly€70€hours€meeting€with€Nichols€in€prison,€duringÐ ô$D # Ðwhich€Nichols€consistently€confirmed€his€statements€to€officers.€€Moore€concluded€that€Nichols€hadÐ ä%4!$ Ðsaid€nothing€to€indicate€the€confessions€were€false€or€had€been€coerced€and€that€investigation€of€otherÐ Ð& "% Ðsuspects€ð ðdid€not€seem€fruitful.ðð€€When€they€were€unsuccessful€at€having€Nicholsðð€statementsÐ ¼' #& Ðsuppressed,€counsel€focused€upon€presenting€a€mitigating€defense€to€the€death€penalty,€a€strategyÐ ¨(ø#' Ðwith€which€Nichols€was€familiar€and€understood.€€Moore€did€not€believe€that€any€of€the€evidenceÐ ° Ðat€the€post„conviction€hearing€would€have€changed€Nicholsðð€decisions€to€plead€guilty€or€theÐ œì Ðdefenseððs€mitigation€strategy.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àRosemary€Bryan,€co„counsel,€testified€that€her€investigation€included€numerous€conversationsÐ `° Ðwith€Nichols,€reviewing€the€prosecutionððs€files,€interviewing€police€officers,€and€attempting€toÐ L œ Ðinterview€the€victims€of€the€rapes,€who€declined€to€speak€with€her.€€Bryan€admitted€that€Nichols€pledÐ 8 ˆ Ðguilty€to€two€of€the€rapes,€T.R.€and€S.T.,€€because€he€wanted€to€ð ðget€them€over€withðð€and€becauseÐ $ t Ðother€charges€were€dismissed€in€return.€€She€admitted€that€although€these€guilty€pleas€were€enteredÐ  ` Ðprior€to€Dr.€Engumððs€examination€of€Nichols,€the€petitioner€had€already€been€examined€by€Dr.Ð ü L  ÐNickerson,€who€had€found€no€basis€for€a€competency€or€insanity€issue.€€Bryan€could€not€recall€whyÐ è 8  Ðthe€cases€involving€P.G.€and€P.R.€went€to€trial€or€why€the€victims€were€not€asked€about€otherÐ Ô$  Ðpossible€suspects.€€She€believed€that€P.R.€was€not€asked€about€Fred€Coats€as€a€possible€suspectÐ À  Ðbecause€the€victimððs€direct€testimony€fully€explained€why€she€had€misidentified€Coats.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àBryan€testified€that€the€petitioner€had€admitted€the€facts€against€him€in€ð ðgreat€detailðð€and€thatÐ „Ô  Ðhe€never€told€her€the€confessions€were€false€or€coerced.€€She€described€Nicholsðð€statements€to€herÐ pÀ Ðabout€the€offenses€as€ð ðvery€vivid,ðð€containing€facts€that€only€he€and€the€victims€would€have€known.€Ð \¬ ÐBryan€testified€that€the€defense€investigated€many€of€the€issues€raised€by€Nichols€in€post„conviction,Ð H˜ Ðsuch€as€the€victimsðð€identifications€of€the€petitioner,€the€suppression€of€statements,€and€possible€alibiÐ 4„ Ðdefenses.€€With€regard€to€possible€alibi€defenses,€for€example,€Bryan€testified:€Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAnother€thing€we€were€aware€of€is€that€[Nichols]€was€clocked€inÐ øH Ðsome€of€the€times€that€some€of€the€rapes€were€supposed€to€haveÐ ä4 Ðoccurred,€but€I€talked€to€[Nichols]€about€those€things.€.€.€.ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThere€was€one,€and€it€may€have€been€[T.M.],€where€he€supposedlyÐ ¨ø Ðcould€not€have€done€it€according€to€his€wife.€€Well,€I€spent€many,Ð ”ä Ðmany€hours€talking€to€[Nichols€and€his€wife]€about€this€time€thingÐ €Ð Ðand€was€this€really€a€defense€we€had€and€it€turned€out€it€wasnððt€andÐ l¼ Ðagain€I€donððt€remember€why.€€It€was€either€he€was€clocked€in€but€heÐ X ¨ Ðhad€[gone]€to€deliver€a€pizza.ÐD!”` x` x ÐÌBryan€testified€that€ð ðthere€were€things€like€that€.€.€.€we€looked€at€and€tried€to€ascertain€if€they€wouldÐ #l! Ðbe€helpful€and€they€werenððt€.€.€.€.ðð€€She€concluded€that€challenging€all€of€the€confessions€as€falseÐ $X" Ðwould€have€been€ð ðludicrousðð€and€would€have€required€that€the€defense€ð ðmanufacture€a€defense.ððÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àAlthough€she€and€Moore€investigated€all€of€the€offenses,€Bryan€said€that€most€of€their€workÐ Ì&"% Ðwas€on€the€death€penalty€case€and€that€Nichols€played€a€knowing,€active€role€in€formulating€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdefense€strategy.€€Bryan€said€that€the€defense€focus€became€mitigation€but€that€she€and€Moore€veryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcarefully€decided€what€witnesses€to€present€in€the€penalty€phase.€€She€believed€that€the€petitionerððsÐ )à$( Ðfamily€were€not€as€cooperative€with€regard€to€testifying€at€trial€as€they€appeared€to€be€in€post„Ð |*Ì%) Ðconviction.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àMichael€Cohan€testified€that€he€worked€with€lawyers€Moore€and€Bryan€as€an€investigator.€Ð ° ÐCohan,€who€had€years€of€experience€in€law€enforcement€before€becoming€a€private€investigator,Ð œì Ðrecorded€163€hours€locating€and€interviewing€witnesses€and€over€50€hours€discussing€the€defenseÐ ˆØ Ðwith€counsel.€€Cohan€testified€that€Nichols€told€him€extensive€details€about€his€attack€on€KarenÐ tÄ ÐPulley€that€corroborated€the€facts€he€had€told€investigating€officers,€as€well€as€additional€facts.€Ð `° ÐCohan€testified€that€he€worked€primarily€on€the€Pulley€offense€but€also€worked€on€the€other€casesÐ L œ Ðwhen€requested€to€do€so€by€trial€counsel.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà@77ìàòòC.óó€€€òòFindings€and€ConclusionsóóˆÐ  ` ÐÌà  àò ò1.à0 ` àKaren€Pulley€Offensesó óÐè 8 ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€all€of€the€testimony€and€evidence€from€the€trial€and€extensive€post„convictionÐ À  Ðhearings,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim€with€respect€toÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€Karen€Pulley€offenses€was€without€merit:Ð ˜è  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTrial€counsel€and€investigator€Cohan€testified€that€any€allegation€thatÐ pÀ Ðcounsel€should€have€more€fully€researched€the€possibility€of€a€falseÐ \¬ Ðconfession€was€ððludicrous.ðð€€The€petitioner€gave€very€detailedÐ H˜ Ðstatements€to€trial€counsel€separate€from€his€statements€given€to€theÐ 4„ Ðpolice.€€Trial€counsel€testified€that€they€thoroughly€discussed€theÐ  p Ðoptions€available€with€the€petitioner€and€that€the€petitionerÐ  \ Ðunderstood€that€his€confessions€would€be€very€damaging€evidence€atÐ øH Ðthe€guilt€phase.€€They€advised€him€that€if€he€entered€a€guilty€plea€andÐ ä4 Ðtook€responsibility€for€his€actions€that€the€jury€might€take€this€intoÐ Ð  Ðconsideration€in€the€penalty€phase€despite€the€obviously€weightyÐ ¼  Ðaggravating€factors.€€Under€all€the€circumstances,€the€decision€to€pleaÐ ¨ø Ðwas€a€strategic€decision€which€will€not€now€be€questioned€using€20„Ð ”ä Ð20€hindsight.€€It€is€also€noted€that€counselððs€time€records€ððspeak€forÐ €Ð Ðthemselvesðð€as€to€the€substantial€amount€of€time€expended€by€counselÐ l¼ Ðon€this€case.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€does€notÐ 0"€  Ðpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings.€€With€respect€to€the€murder€and€rape€of€KarenÐ #l! ÐPulley,€trial€counsel€testified€regarding€their€investigation€and€defense€strategy,€which€they€admittedÐ $X" Ðwas€influenced€by€Nicholsðð€confessions.€€The€petitionerððs€detailed€and€emotional€videotapedÐ ô$D # Ðconfession€to€the€murder€and€rape,€for€instance,€described€the€victimððs€house,€the€petitionerððs€pointÐ à%0!$ Ðof€entry,€the€layout€of€the€bedroom,€and€the€facts€of€the€rape€and€murder.€€The€petitioner€alsoÐ Ì&"% Ðconsistently€admitted€his€guilt€regarding€the€Pulley€offense€to€his€counsel,€investigator,€and€mentalÐ ¸'#& Ðhealth€expert.€€As€we€have€noted,€it€is€entirely€reasonable€for€counselððs€actions€to€be€influenced€byÐ ¤(ô#' Ða€defendantððs€own€statements.€€òòSeeóóòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€691,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2066Ð )à$( Ð(stating€that€reasonableness€of€counselððs€actions€ð ðmay€be€determined€or€substantially€influenced€byÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€defendantððs€own€statements€or€actionsðð).€Ð h+¸&* Їà  à€In€addition,€the€record€reveals€substantial€evidence€corroborating€the€testimony€of€trialÐ ° Ðcounsel€and€the€defense€investigator.€€At€the€sentencing€phase€for€the€rape€and€murder,€for€example,Ð œì ÐNichols€admitted€that€he€broke€into€the€victimððs€home,€raped€her,€and€killed€her€when€he€was€tryingÐ ˆØ Ðto€leave.€€The€petitionerððs€wife€also€indicated€that€she€had€asked€about€the€Karen€Pulley€offense€andÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€petitioner€told€her€that€it€was€an€accident.€€Dr.€Engumððs€testimony€at€sentencing€alsoÐ `° Ðindicated€that€Nichols€had€committed€the€offenses€against€Karen€Pulley.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àNichols€continued€to€admit€his€guilt€even€after€the€sentencing€hearing.€€Bryan€testified,€forÐ $ t Ðexample,€that€the€petitioner€met€with€Karen€Pulleyððs€mother€after€the€death€sentence€had€beenÐ  ` Ðreturned€and€in€a€brief€but€emotional€meeting,€ð ðapologized€over€and€over€for€what€he€had€done€toÐ ü L  Ðher€daughter€.€.€.€.ðð€€Similarly,€the€petitionerððs€uncle,€Claude€Nichols,€testified€during€post€convictionÐ è 8  Ðthat€he€visited€his€nephew€in€prison€after€the€Karen€Pulley€trial€and€that€he€admitted€the€crimes.€Ð Ô$  ÐLastly,€Dr.€David€Solovay,€a€clinical€psychologist€relied€upon€by€the€petitioner€in€this€post„Ð À  Ðconviction€proceeding,€indicated€that€the€petitioner€had€expressed€his€guilt€and€remorse.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àDespite€his€confessions€and€statements,€the€petitionerððs€main€argument€is€that€his€confessionsÐ „Ô  Ðshould€have€been€challenged€as€false€because€they€contained€inaccuracies€and€omissions€and€becauseÐ pÀ Ðthere€was€evidence€of€his€innocence.€€The€argument€is€immediately€undercut,€however,€by€the€factÐ \¬ Ðthat€the€petitioner€never€refuted€his€confessions€or€his€own€statements€to€his€trial€counsel€and€others.€Ð H˜ ÐAs€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€stated,€it€is€in€this€context€in€which€trial€counselððs€conduct€mustÐ 4„ Ðbe€viewed:Ð  p ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[W]e€will€first€consider€the€situation€in€which€trial€counsel€foundÐ øH Ðthemselves€at€the€time€of€the€petitionerððs€trials.€€The€petitioner€hadÐ ä4 Ðgiven€multiple€confessions€to€the€offenses€with€which€he€was€chargedÐ Ð  Ð.€.€.€.€The€petitionerððs€statements€to€both€trial€counsel,€as€well€as€theirÐ ¼  Ðinvestigator,€were€consistent€with€his€confessions€to€law€enforcementÐ ¨ø Ðofficers.€€Trial€counselððs€motions€to€suppress€the€confessions€wasÐ ”ä Ðunsuccessful.€€òòThe€petitioner€has€not€attempted€to€explain€how,€inÐ €Ð Ðview€of€his€continuing€to€assert€that€the€confessions€were€true,€trialÐ l¼ Ðcounsel€could€have€effectively€presented€a€ððfalse€confessionðð€defenseóó.€Ð X ¨ ЀÐ ` x` x Ð(emphasis€added).Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€presented€at€post„conviction€did€not€alter€the€fact€that€the€petitioner€consistentlyÐ $X" Ðadmitted€his€guilt€and€never€provided€a€basis€for€a€false€confession€defense.€€Nichols€never€told€hisÐ ô$D # Ðcounsel,€for€example,€that€the€confession€to€the€Karen€Pulley€offenses€was€false€or€coerced.€Ð à%0!$ ÐMorever,€there€was€no€evidence€presented€at€post„conviction€indicating€that€the€petitioner€sufferedÐ Ì&"% Ðfrom€a€mental€impairment,€intellectual€deficiency,€or€other€condition€that€rendered€him€prone€toÐ ¸'#& Ðbeing€led€or€confessing€falsely.€€Although€Dr.€Ofshe€discussed€the€issue€of€false€confessions€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðgeneral,€he€never€met€the€petitioner€and€did€not€address€any€of€the€petitionerððs€own€characteristics.€Ð )à$( ÐIndeed,€as€the€intermediate€court€noted:Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThere€was€not,€and€has€never€been,€a€showing€that€the€petitioner€wasÐ ° Ðsusceptible€to€suggestions€and€pressure€and€might€have€been€led€intoÐ œì Ðgiving€false€confessions.€€In€fact,€had€trial€counsel€tried€to€presentÐ ˆØ Ðsuch€a€claim,€they€would€have€been€confronted€by€proof€showing€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€petitioner€was€twenty„eight€years€old€and€married,€with€threeÐ `° Ðprevious€felony€convictions€and€time€spent€in€the€Tennessee€prisonÐ L œ Ðsystem.€€Thus,€he€could€not€have€claimed€youth€and€experience€asÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasons€for€falsely€confessing.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€when€viewed€in€the€appropriate€context€ð!ð€that€applicable€to€trial€counsel€at€theÐ ü L  Ðtime€of€their€representation€ð!ð€we€agree€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€evidence€presentedÐ è 8  Ðduring€the€post„conviction€failed€to€establish€that€trial€counselððs€performance€was€deficient.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðevidence€showed€that€counsel€and€their€investigator€put€thousands€of€hours€into€the€investigation€ofÐ À  Ðthe€offenses€and€considered€numerous€issues€and€the€viability€of€several€possible€defenses.€€They€hadÐ ¬ü  Ðnumerous€meetings€and€conversations€with€the€petitioner,€who€was€aware€of€and€understood€theÐ ˜è  Ðevidence€of€his€guilt€and€the€strategy€used€in€his€defense.€€While€the€lens€of€hindsight€indicates€thatÐ „Ô  Ðtrial€counsel€could€have€developed€some€of€the€issues€more€fully,€such€as€the€serology€and€theÐ pÀ Ðabsence€of€physical€evidence€on€the€alleged€murder€weapon€relating€to€Karen€Pulley,€Nichols€stillÐ \¬ Ðconfessed€and€the€issues€were€fully€litigated€by€the€post„conviction€trial€court.€€In€sum,€as€the€trialÐ H˜ Ðcourt€found,€nothing€at€post„conviction€established€that€trial€counselððs€representation€fell€below€anÐ 4„ Ðobjective€standard€of€reasonableness€either€in€failing€to€investigate€evidence€of€innocence€or€inÐ  p Ðfailing€to€challenge€the€confessions€as€false€when€viewed€in€the€context€of€the€petitionerððs€ownÐ  \ Ðconfessions€and€statements€of€guilt.Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€we€also€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€conclusion€that€the€petitionerÐ Ð  Ðfailed€to€show€any€prejudice€under€the€second€prong€of€the€analysis€with€respect€to€his€guilty€pleaÐ ¼  Ðto€the€offenses€involving€Karen€Pulley.׃>×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€we€have€pointed€out€in€great€detail,€the€record€revealsÐ ¨ø Ðthat€Nichols€confessed€to€the€offenses€against€Karen€Pulley€and€that€he€knowingly€and€voluntarilyÐ ”ä Ðentered€pleas€of€guilty.€€The€petitioner€was€well€aware€that€the€defense€strategy€was€to€acceptÐ €Ð Ðresponsibility€for€his€actions€and€focus€on€mitigating€evidence.€€Moreover,€given€his€confessions€andÐ l¼ Ðthe€consistent€statements€of€guilt€he€made€to€his€trial€counsel€and€others,€it€would€be€speculation€toÐ X ¨ Ðfind€that€the€evidence€at€the€post„conviction,€which€did€not€exclude€Nichols€as€the€perpetrator€orÐ D!” Ðotherwise€establish€a€defense,€would€have€resulted€in€a€decision€to€proceed€to€trial€instead€ofÐ 0"€  Ðpleading€guilty.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€at€59,€106€S.€Ct.€at€370.òòòòóóóó€ò òÐ #l! ÐÓ€ $(å£80ÓØ! !ØÌà  àÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£œþÝÔ2å£ÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝNon„Capital€Convictionsó ó݃3£œþÉþÝŒÐô$D #` (#` (# Ðâ âŒÝ  ÝÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àThe€trial€courtððs€findings€with€respect€to€counselððs€performance€in€the€rape€cases€involvingÐ ° Ðâ âT.R.,€S.T.,€P.G.,€and€P.R.€were€nearly€identical€to€its€findings€with€respect€to€counselððs€performanceÐ œì Ðin€the€Karen€Pulley€cases,€and€it€concluded€that€the€petitioner€had€not€established€his€allegations€byÐ ˆØ Ðclear€and€convincing€evidence.€€We€again€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€evidenceÐ tÄ Ðin€the€record€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€and€that€the€petitionerÐ `° Ðfailed€to€establish€that€trial€counsel€were€deficient.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAs€with€the€Karen€Pulley€case,€trial€counselððs€investigation€and€defense€were€reasonablyÐ $ t Ðshaped€by€Nicholsðð€confessions€and€statements€to€the€non„capital€offenses.€€Nichols€confessed€to€theÐ  ` Ðoffenses€involving€T.R.,€S.T.,€P.G.,€and€P.R.€€His€confession€to€the€rape€of€P.R.€described€his€entryÐ ü L  Ðinto€the€victimððs€home€with€a€screwdriver,€the€location€of€the€victim,€the€clothing€he€tore€from€theÐ è 8  Ðvictim,€and€the€circumstances€of€the€offense.€€His€confession€to€the€rape€of€P.G.€described€his€entry,Ð Ô$  Ðuse€of€a€knife,€the€location€of€the€victim€on€a€couch€in€the€living€room,€and€the€facts€of€the€offense.Ô‡5XL1XXXL1ԀРÀ  ÐÔ#†XL1XX5XL16#ÔÌà  àAlthough€the€petitioner€now€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€investigate€evidence€of€hisÐ ˜è  Ðinnocence€and€failed€to€challenge€his€confessions€as€false€because€they€were€given€in€a€short€periodÐ „Ô  Ðof€time€in€response€to€leading€questions€asked€by€police€officers,€we€once€again€observe€that€heÐ pÀ Ðnever€refuted€his€confessions€or€his€statements€to€his€trial€counsel€and€never€provided€a€basis€for€aÐ \¬ Ðfalse€confession€defense.€€In€addition,€the€record€reveals€that€substantial€evidence€corroborated€trialÐ H˜ Ðcounselððs€testimony.€€By€entering€guilty€pleas€for€the€offenses€against€S.T.,€for€example,€theÐ 4„ Ðpetitioner€acknowledged€the€evidence€of€his€guilt,€which€included€S.T.ððs€identification€of€him€fromÐ  p Ða€photograph€and€the€finding€of€a€pistol€belonging€to€S.T.€in€his€car.€€In€entering€guilty€pleas€for€theÐ  \ Ðoffenses€against€T.R.,€the€petitioner€conceded€the€evidence€of€his€guilt€and€knowingly€andÐ øH Ðvoluntarily€waived€his€right€to€a€jury€trial.€€Finally,€in€the€trials€for€the€offenses€against€P.G.€and€P.R.,Ð ä4 Ðthe€victims€made€in„court€identifications€of€the€petitioner€as€the€assailant,€and€the€juries€found€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€petitionerððs€guilt€was€proven€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€the€evidence€at€the€post„conviction€hearings€did€not€establish€the€deficientÐ ”ä Ðperformance€of€counsel€given€the€petitionerððs€confessions€and€consistent€statements€of€guilt.€€WeÐ €Ð Ðconclude€that€trial€counselððs€representation€did€not€fall€below€an€objective€standard€of€reasonablenessÐ l¼ Ðeither€in€failing€to€investigate€any€evidence€of€innocence€or€in€failing€to€challenge€the€confessionsÐ X ¨ Ðas€false.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€we€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€conclusion€that€Nichols€failed€toÐ #l! Ðshow€any€prejudice€under€the€second€prong€of€the€analysis.€€As€we€have€discussed,€the€record€revealsÐ $X" Ðthat€Nichols€confessed€to€the€offenses€against€T.R.€and€S.T.€and€that€he€knowingly€and€voluntarilyÐ ô$D # Ðentered€pleas€of€guilty€to€the€offenses.€€In€light€of€his€confessions€and€consistent€statements€of€guilt,Ð à%0!$ Ðas€well€as€trial€counselððs€testimony€that€the€petitioner€was€fully€aware€of€the€defense€strategy€and€allÐ Ì&"% Ðof€his€options,€it€would€be€speculation€to€find€from€any€of€the€evidence€introduced€at€post„convictionÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€he€would€have€proceeded€to€trial€instead€of€pleading€guilty.€€òòSeeóó€òòHill€v.€Lockhartóó,€474€U.S.€atÐ ¤(ô#' Ð59,€106€S.€Ct€at€370.€€Similarly,€the€petitionerððs€confessions€to€the€offenses€committed€against€P.G.Ð )à$( Ðâ âand€P.R.€were€read€to€the€jury€in€the€trials€for€those€offenses,€and€the€victims€identified€him€as€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðperpetrator.€€The€evidence€at€post„conviction€with€respect€to€P.G.€and€P.R.€therefore€failed€toÐ ° Ðestablish€a€reasonable€probability€of€a€different€outcome€but€for€the€performance€of€counsel.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà@  ìàII.€€€òòIneffective€Assistance€of€Counsel€ð!ð€Unlawful€Arrestóó€ˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€seek€suppressionÐ L œ Ðof€his€statements€on€the€basis€that€he€was€arrested€without€a€warrant€and€without€probable€cause€onÐ 8 ˆ ÐJanuary€5,€1989.€€Nichols€asserts€that€police€notes€indicate€that€it€was€not€until€after€his€arrest€thatÐ $ t Ðat€least€three€of€the€victims€identified€him€from€a€photograph€taken€by€police€on€January€6,€1989,€andÐ  ` Ðthat€the€statements€he€made€during€the€period€of€alleged€illegal€detention€should€have€beenÐ ü L  Ðsuppressed.€€The€State€maintains€that€the€police€verified€the€anonymous€tip€by€discovering€evidenceÐ è 8  Ðof€Nicholsðð€prior€arrest€for€a€sex€crime€and€that€an€arrest€was€made€after€at€least€one€of€the€victimsÐ Ô$  Ðidentified€Nichols€from€his€mug€shot.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€reviewed€the€evidence€in€the€record€and€the€testimony€of€trial€counsel,€whoÐ ˜è  Ðrecalled€that€they€vigorously€sought€suppression€of€Nicholsðð€statements€on€numerous€grounds.€Ð „Ô  ÐAlthough€the€trial€court€determined€that€counsel€ð ðshould€have€more€fully€pursued€this€issue,ðð€itÐ pÀ Ðfound€that€Ð \¬ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[v]iewing€the€exhibits€and€records€as€a€whole,€it€appears€that€some€ofÐ 4„ Ðthe€photo€identifications€occurred€after€the€petitionerððs€arrest.€€ThisÐ  p Ðfact,€however,€does€not€establish€that€none€of€the€identificationsÐ  \ Ðoccurred€before€his€arrest.€€Numerous€documents€and/or€statementsÐ øH Ðrefer€to€some€pre„arrest€identifications.€€.€.€.€No€victims€were€calledÐ ä4 Ðto€ask€at€what€point€they€had€made€these€identifications.€€AlthoughÐ Ð  Ðpetitioner€has€pointed€out€the€ambiguities,€.€.€.€he€has€failed€toÐ ¼  Ðestablish€the€lack€of€any€pre„arrest€identifications€and€thus€has€failedÐ ¨ø Ðto€establish€any€prejudice.€.€.€.Дä` x` x ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€conclusion€that€the€record€does€notÐ l¼ Ðpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€inasmuch€as€there€is€evidence€in€the€recordÐ X ¨ Ðindicating€that€Nichols€had€been€identified€before€his€arrest.€€An€offense€report€dated€January€6,€1989Ð D!” Ðand€prepared€by€the€East€Ridge€Police€Department€states€that€officers€received€an€anonymous€tip€onÐ 0"€  ÐJanuary€5,€1989,€which€led€to€a€computer€check€and€discovery€of€Nicholsðð€prior€arrest€for€a€sexÐ #l! Ðoffense.€€The€report€indicates€that€a€victim€identified€Nichols€as€the€perpetrator€from€his€mug€shotÐ $X" Ðand€that€ð ðshe€was€the€fourth€victim€in€a€rowðð€to€identify€Nichols.€€In€addition,€the€record€reveals€thatÐ ô$D # Ðat€the€trial€of€P.R.,€Captain€Holland€of€the€East€Ridge€Police€Department€testified€that€the€victimÐ à%0!$ Ðidentified€Nichols€prior€to€his€arrest€on€January5,€1989.€€As€both€the€trial€court€and€Court€ofÐ Ì&"% ÐCriminal€Appeals€observed,€none€of€the€victims€were€called€to€testify€in€post„conviction€as€to€whenÐ ¸'#& Ðthey€made€an€identification€of€Nichols.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€in€the€recordÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdoes€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€on€this€claim€and€that€the€petitionerÐ )à$( Ðhas€failed€to€establish€that€his€trial€counsel€were€deficient€on€this€ground.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àIn€a€similar€vein,€Nichols€argues€that€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€seek€suppressionÐ ° Ðof€his€statements€on€the€basis€that€he€was€not€taken€before€€a€judicial€officer€within€72€hours€of€hisÐ œì Ðarrest.€€The€trial€court€specifically€rejected€the€basis€for€this€claim:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAlthough€no€paperwork€on€the€arraignment€was€introduced,€there€wasÐ `° Ðevidence€of€an€arraignment.€€In€the€transcript€of€the€motion€toÐ L œ Ðsuppress,€the€petitioner€himself€referred€numerous€times€to€the€factÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€he€was€arraigned€the€day€after€he€was€arrested.€€.€.€.€€In€addition,Ð $ t Ð[the€assistant€district€attorneyððs]€notes€refer€to€an€arraignment€beforeÐ  ` Ða€special€judge€as€well.€€Under€these€circumstances,€petitioner€has€notÐ ü L  Ðestablished€that€he€was€not€arraigned,€that€counsel€was€ineffective€orÐ è 8  Ðthat€he€was€in€any€way€prejudiced€by€counselððs€failure€to€challengeÐ Ô$  Ðthe€timing€of€the€arraignment.€€ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€conclusion€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€doesÐ ˜è  Ðnot€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€on€this€issue.€€We€also€agree€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðpetitioner€failed€to€show€that€suppression€would€not€have€been€required€given€that€Nichols€was€readÐ pÀ Ðhis€Miranda€rights,€that€he€confessed€within€24€hours€of€his€arrest,€and€that€there€appeared€to€be€noÐ \¬ Ðintervening€circumstances€or€misconduct€in€regard€to€obtaining€the€confessions.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.Ð H˜ ÐHuddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666,€674€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€sum,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€failed€toÐ 4„ Ðestablish€that€he€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€on€this€basis.Ð  p ÐÌà@X X ìàIII.€€€òòIneffective€Assistance€of€Counsel€ð!ð€Mitigating€EvidenceóóˆÐ øH ÐÔ‡'XU˜ XXXL1ÔÌà@AAìàòòÔ#†XL1X X'XU˜¨)#ÔÔ€*XL1XXXL1ÔA.óó€€€òòStandards€in€Capital€SentencingóóˆÐ Ê Ðà  àThe€Eighth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution€mandate€that€aÐ ¶ Ðdeath€sentence€be€based€on€a€ð ðparticularized€consideration€of€relevant€aspects€of€the€character€andÐ ¢ò Ðrecord€of€each...€defendant.ðð€€òòWoodson€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€428€U.S.€280,€303,€96€S.€Ct.€2978,€2991,Ð ŽÞ Ð49€L.€Ed.€2d€944€(1976).€€As€a€result,€courts€are€ð ðparticularly€cautious€in€preserving€a€defendantððsÐ zÊ Ðright€to€counsel€at€a€capital€sentencing€hearing.ðð€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996)Ð f¶ Ð(quoting€òòDeutscher€v.€Whitleyóó,€884€F.2d€1152,€1160€(9th€Cir.€1989)).€€Although€there€is€noÐ R ¢ Ðrequirement€that€defense€counsel€present€mitigating€evidence€in€the€penalty€phase€of€a€capital€trial,Ð >!Ž Ðcounselððs€duty€to€investigate€and€prepare€for€a€capital€trial€encompasses€both€the€guilt€and€sentencingÐ *"z  Ðphases.€€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.3d€at€369„70;€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2d€417,€421€(Tenn.€1989).€Ð #f! ÐÌà  àò òòòó óóóWhen€a€petitioner€challenges€a€death€sentence€based€on€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€inÐ î$> # Ðthe€penalty€phase,€he€or€she€must€show€that€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€absent€the€errors,Ð Ú%*!$ Ðthe€sentencer€.€.€.€would€have€concluded€that€the€balance€of€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstancesÐ Æ&"% Ðdid€not€warrant€death.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695,€104€S.Ct.€at€2069.€€Where€the€alleged€prejudiceÐ ²'#& Ðinvolves€counselððs€failure€to€present€sufficient€mitigating€evidence,€several€factors€are€ofÐ ž(î#' Ðsignificance:€€(1)€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€mitigating€evidence€that€was€available€but€notÐ Š)Ú$( Ðpresented;€(2)€whether€substantially€similar€mitigating€evidence€was€presented€to€the€jury€in€eitherÐ v*Æ%) Ðthe€guilt€or€penalty€phase€of€the€proceedings;€and€(3)€whether€there€was€such€strong€evidence€ofÐ b+²&* Ðaggravating€factors€that€the€mitigating€evidence€would€not€have€affected€the€juryððs€determination.€Ð ° ÐòòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€371.€Ð œì ÐÌà@””ìàòòB.óó€€€òòPetitionerððs€AllegationsóóˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€theÐ L œ Ðcapital€proceeding€for€the€rape€and€murder€of€Karen€Pulley€for€failing€to€present€sufficient€evidenceÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€mitigating€circumstances.€€The€State€maintains€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€relief€on€thisÐ $ t Ðclaim€after€finding€that€the€mitigating€evidence€now€cited€by€the€petitioner€would€have€duplicatedÐ  ` Ðor€been€cumulative€to€that€introduced€by€trial€counsel.€€We€will€review€the€evidence€introduced€byÐ ü L  ÐNichols€at€the€post„conviction€hearings.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  à€Deborah€Nichols€Sullivan,€the€petitionerððs€sister,€who€testified€by€deposition,€said€that€sheÐ À  Ðloved€her€brother€and€tried€to€take€care€of€him€after€their€mother€died€of€cancer.€€She€describedÐ ¬ü  ÐNichols€as€quiet,€with€a€mild€demeanor,€and€recalled€that€he€held€his€motherððs€hand€while€she€wasÐ ˜è  Ðill.€€She€testified€that€she€was€afraid€of€her€fatherððs€intense€spankings,€which€often€left€welts€andÐ „Ô  Ðstripes.€€She€was€ð ðsureðð€Nichols€received€such€spankings€as€well.€€She€would€not€confirm€that€sheÐ pÀ Ðwas€sexually€abused€but€did€say€ð ðthat€would€be€me€and€not€[the€petitioner].ðð€€When€they€were€placedÐ \¬ Ðin€the€childrenððs€home,€she€was€told€it€was€because€her€father€could€not€care€for€them.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àDeborah€Nichols€acknowledged€that€trial€counsel€probably€tried€to€contact€her€but€that€sheÐ  p Ðdid€not€return€their€calls.€€Indeed,€counsel€Rosemary€Bryan€testified€that€she€spoke€to€the€witness€twoÐ  \ Ðor€three€times€and€that€they€hoped€she€would€testify€about€the€family€background,€their€abusiveÐ øH Ðfather,€and€the€orphanage.€€Counsel€said,€however,€that€Deborah€Nichols€ð ðwas€the€most€unwillingÐ ä4 Ðwitness€that€you€would€ever€want€to€put€on€the€stand.ðð€€The€witness€told€counsel,€for€example,€thatÐ Ð  Ðshe€would€not€talk€about€any€abuse€in€the€family€and€had€nothing€to€say€that€would€help€her€brother.€Ð ¼  ÐMoreover,€her€husband€said€that€she€would€not€testify€under€any€circumstances.€€Finally,€counsel€saidÐ ¨ø Ðthat€Nichols€decided€he€did€not€want€to€make€his€sister€testify€under€the€circumstances.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àSeveral€other€witnesses€testified€as€to€their€experiences€with€Nichols,€as€well€as€with€NicholsððÐ l¼ Ðfamily.€€Diana€Allred€testified€that€she€and€her€brother€lived€with€the€Nicholsðð€family€from€1961€toÐ X ¨ Ð1967€following€the€death€of€their€parents.€€She€said€that€Nicholsðð€father€would€get€angry€and€ð ðspankððÐ D!” ÐNichols€and€his€sister,€Deborah,€and€that€she€saw€Deborah€bleeding€after€the€spankings.€€AllredÐ 0"€  Ðtestified€that€Nicholsðð€father€often€undressed€in€front€of€her€and€once€asked€if€he€could€get€in€bedÐ #l! Ðwith€her.€€She€said€that€although€Nichols€seemed€like€a€ð ðnormalðð€child€when€she€lived€there,€he€andÐ $X" Ðhis€sister€seemed€frightened€and€shy€years€later€after€Allred€had€moved€out.€€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àRoyce€Sampley,€Diana€Allredððs€brother,€testified€that€the€Nicholsðð€home€was€a€ð ðthreateningððÐ Ì&"% Ðplace€in€that€Nicholsðð€father€was€often€angry€and€cursing.€€Sampley€testified€that€he€never€saw€anyÐ ¸'#& Ðsexual€abuse€of€Nichols.€€Neither€Allred€nor€Sampley€had€any€contact€with€Nichols€after€1971€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwere€not€aware€of€the€charges€against€Nichols€at€the€time€of€the€trial€and€sentencing.€€DennisÐ )à$( ÐSampley,€brother€of€Royce€Sampley€and€Diana€Allred,€testified€that€he€was€not€familiar€with€NicholsÐ |*Ì%) Ðbut€that€he€had€lived€in€the€same€childrenððs€home.€€He€testified€that€he€received€whippings€in€theÐ h+¸&* Ðhome,€as€did€other€children,€and€was€not€permitted€to€tell€anyone.€€He€described€it€as€a€ð ðhellaciousÐ ° Ðhome.ðð€€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àJuanita€Herron,€a€cousin,€said€that€Nichols€became€ð ðdisturbedðð€and€ð ðsadðð€following€hisÐ tÄ Ðmotherððs€death.€€She€testified€that€Nicholsðð€sister€had€reported€sexual€abuse€and€that€family€membersÐ `° Ðarranged€to€have€the€children€placed€in€a€childrenððs€home.€€Louella€Wagner,€also€a€cousin,€testifiedÐ L œ Ðthat€Nicholsðð€father€was€strict.€Margaret€Crox€and€Linda€Crox€Johnson,€who€had€been€neighbors€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€Nichols,€said€that€the€petitionerððs€father€did€not€seem€concerned€about€his€children.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àJim€Gumm€testified€that€he€went€to€school€with€Nichols€until€they€were€both€sophomores€inÐ ü L  Ðhigh€school€and€that€he€always€considered€Nichols€to€be€ð ðone€of€the€nicest€guys€around.ðð€€NancyÐ è 8  ÐAtchley,€who€taught€Nichols€in€the€seventh€and€eight€grades,€testified€that€he€had€been€a€sweet,€kind,Ð Ô$  Ðand€well„mannered€student€who€was€quieter€than€the€other€boys.€€Jacqueline€Boruff,€whose€son€wasÐ À  Ða€friend€of€Nichols€when€they€were€teenagers,€said€that€Nichols€was€ð ðsweetðð€and€that€his€father€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðan€ð ðassðð€who€was€cold€and€uncaring.€€Like€several€of€the€post„conviction€witnesses,€Boruff€said€thatÐ ˜è  Ðshe€was€not€contacted€before€the€capital€sentencing€proceeding.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àSeveral€witnesses€testified€regarding€the€childrenððs€home€in€which€Nichols€and€his€sister€hadÐ \¬ Ðbeen€placed€after€their€motherððs€death.€€Claude€Nichols,€the€petitionerððs€uncle,€testified€that€theÐ H˜ Ðpetitionerððs€father€said€the€children€had€been€placed€in€a€group€home€through€a€decision€of€theÐ 4„ Ðchurch.€€Winston€Gonia,€who€had€testified€during€the€capital€sentencing,€testified€that€he€had€beenÐ  p Ða€board€member€of€the€Tomlinson€Childrenððs€Home;€the€group€home€was€a€disciplined€place€but€heÐ  \ Ðnever€saw€any€abuse€take€place€there.€€Jackie€Bailey,€an€academic€and€personal€counselor€at€theÐ øH ÐTomlinson€Childrenððs€Home€from€1974€to€1977,€testified€that€she€counseled€Deborah€Nichols€butÐ ä4 Ðhad€no€information€about€the€petitioner€or€his€background.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àLinda€Melton,€a€former€house€parent€at€the€Tomlinson€Childrenððs€Home,€testified€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðpetitioner€and€his€sister€were€close.€€She€said€that€the€15„year„old€Nichols€never€caused€any€problemsÐ ”ä Ðand€was€a€ð ðsweetheart.ðð€€Melton€testified€that€the€childrenððs€activities€were€church„related€and€thatÐ €Ð Ðpaddling€was€not€used€as€a€means€of€discipline.׃&×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Arlyne€McGriff€testified€by€deposition€that€she€wasÐ l¼ Ða€house€parent€at€the€home€just€before€it€closed;€she€recalled€that€Nichols€talked€about€his€motherÐ X ¨ Ðand€did€not€cause€any€problems.€€She€testified€that€Nicholsðð€father€visited€two€or€three€times€whileÐ D!” Ðshe€was€the€house€parent.€€Neither€Melton€nor€McGriff€were€contacted€by€trial€counsel.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àFinally,€Nichols€presented€testimony€from€three€expert€witnesses.€€Dr.€Kenneth€Nickerson,Ð $X" Ða€clinical€psychologist,€evaluated€Nichols€in€April€and€May€of€1989.€€He€testified€that€he€interviewedÐ ô$D # ÐNichols€and€reviewed€notes€taken€by€Dr.€Frausto€Natal,€a€psychiatrist€who€had€conducted€anÐ à%0!$ Ðinterview€and€examination.€€Dr.€Natalððs€notes€indicated€that€Nichols€denied€murdering€any€of€theÐ Ì&"% Ðvictims.€€Dr.€Nickerson€testified€that€Nichols€had€not€shown€any€prior€signs€of€ð ðintense€or€explosiveÐ ° Ðemotions,ðð€that€he€was€found€competent€to€stand€trial,€and€that€he€was€not€legally€insane€at€the€timeÐ œì Ðof€the€offenses.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àDr.€David€Solovay,€a€clinical€psychologist,€testified€that€he€reviewed€the€case€notes,Ð `° Ðexamination,€assessment,€reports,€and€testimony€of€Dr.€Eric€Engum,€who€had€testified€on€NicholsððÐ L œ Ðbehalf€in€the€sentencing€proceeding.€€Dr.€Solovay€said€that€Dr.€Engum€did€a€ð ðfine€jobðð€and€thatÐ 8 ˆ ÐEngumððs€notes€and€data€were€similar€to€his€own.€€He€criticized€Dr.€Engum€for€failing€to€identifyÐ $ t Ðhimself€as€a€member€of€the€defense€team,€however,€and€for€failing€to€present€the€petitionerððsÐ  ` Ðbackground€as€a€mitigating€factor.€€Dr.€Solovay€did€not€agree€with€the€diagnosis€of€intermittentÐ ü L  Ðexplosive€disorder,€but€instead€diagnosed€Nichols€as€having€borderline€personality€disorder.€€Dr.Ð è 8  ÐSolovay€said€that€Nichols€had€learned€to€ð ðdisassociateðð€from€threatening€situations.€€He€admitted€thatÐ Ô$  Ðhis€report€revealed€that€Nichols€had€acknowledged€his€guilt€to€him€and€had€shown€remorse.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àDr.€Frank€Einstein€testified€that€he€is€a€mitigation€specialist€who€works€with€defenseÐ ˜è  Ðattorneys€in€capital€defense€representation.€€He€described€that€mitigation€work€involves€examiningÐ „Ô  Ða€defendantððs€life,€identifying€life€events€that€led€up€to€the€offense,€and€presenting€the€complete€storyÐ pÀ Ðof€the€defendantððs€life€for€the€juryððs€consideration.€€Dr.€Einstein€testified€that€significant€events€inÐ \¬ Ðthis€case€included€Nicholsðð€inability€to€remember€events€before€the€age€of€ten,€the€presence€ofÐ H˜ ÐNicholsðð€cousins€in€his€home,€the€death€of€his€mother€and€grandmother,€the€physical€and€emotionalÐ 4„ Ðabuse€in€the€home,€and€his€being€placed€in€an€orphanage.Ð  p ÐÌà  àDr.€Einstein€said€that€Dr.€Engum€and€investigator€Michael€Cohan€identified€the€major€eventsÐ øH Ðin€Nicholsðð€life.€€He€believed€that€trial€counsel€should€have€presented€additional€information€toÐ ä4 Ðhumanize€Nichols€and€to€illustrate€the€conduct€of€Nicholsðð€father,€the€presence€of€physical€and€sexualÐ Ð  Ðabuse€in€the€home,€and€the€isolation€of€the€family.€€Dr.€Einstein€said€that€although€trial€counselÐ ¼  Ðidentified€many€of€these€themes,€they€did€not€present€the€evidence€in€such€a€way€to€establish€a€linkÐ ¨ø Ðbetween€Nicholsðð€background€and€the€crimes.€€He€admitted€that€some€mitigation€themes€can€haveÐ ”ä Ða€negative€effect€and€that€it€is€difficult€to€second„guess€counsel.Ð €Ð ÐÌòòà@77ìàC.óó€€€òòFindings€and€ConclusionsˆÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àóóThe€trial€court,€after€considering€the€testimony€of€all€of€these€witnesses€during€the€post„Ð 0"€  Ðconviction€hearings€and€reviewing€the€record,€made€extensive€findings€of€fact,€including:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àPetitioner€presented€numerous€relatives€and€acquaintances€at€theÐ ô$D # Ðhearings€in€this€matter€to€demonstrate€the€amount€and€type€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðmitigating€evidence€which€was€not€presented€at€the€sentencingÐ Ì&"% Ðhearing€at€the€original€trial.€€.€.€.€Many€of€these€witnesses,€however,Ð ¸'#& Ðwere€cumulative€and€only€expounded€on€issues€which€were€raisedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthrough€the€evidence€presented€by€trial€counsel€at€the€sentencingÐ )à$( Ðhearing.€.€.€.€€The€psychologist€retained€by€post„conviction€counselÐ |*Ì%) Ðeven€testified€that€while€he€may€have€had€more€personal€history€inÐ h+¸&* Ðconducting€his€evaluation,€it€was€essentially€the€same€kind€ofÐ ° Ðinformation€Dr.€Engum€and€trial€counsel€had€at€the€original€trial.Ðœì` x` x Ðòòà  àóóà ` àÌÓÓThe€trial€court€further€concluded:Ð tÄ ÐÓÓà8  àà8` Ð Ð àMany€of€the€witnesses€testified€that€they€were€not€contacted€and€thatÐ L œ Ðthe€petitioner€probably€did€not€know€how€to€contact€them.€€SomeÐ 8 ˆ Ðwitnesses,€however,€testified€that€the€petitioner€knew€how€to€contactÐ $ t Ðthem€but€that€they€received€no€contact€and€did€not€step€forward€onÐ  ` Ðtheir€own.€€Using€20„20€hindsight€more€witnesses€may€have€beenÐ ü L  Ðpreferable;€based€upon€all€the€evidence€and€documentation,€however,Ð è 8  Ðthis€court€finds€that€counsel€[were]€not€derelict€in€their€investigationÐ Ô$  Ðof€this€case€and€that€no€prejudice€has€been€shown.€€.€.€.€€AnyÐ À  Ðadditional€witnesses€would€have€been€cumulative€or€the€weight€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðtheir€testimony€would€have€been€minimal.€€The€aggravator€of€priorÐ ˜è  Ðviolent€felonies€was€very€substantial.Ð„Ô ` x` x ÐÌWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€evidence€in€the€record€supported€the€trialÐ \¬ Ðcourtððs€findings€and€conclusions.€òòóó€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àIn€applying€the€first€part€of€the€analysis€in€òòGoad€v.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€371,€the€trial€courtÐ  p Ðcorrectly€noted€that€the€nature€and€the€extent€of€the€evidence€at€post„conviction€focused€on€theÐ  \ Ðpetitionerððs€family€background,€abusive€father,€placement€in€a€childrenððs€home,€and€pleasantÐ øH Ðpersonality€as€a€child.€€Although€witnesses€described€the€petitionerððs€father€as€angry€and€abusive,Ð ä4 ÐNichols€himself€never€testified€regarding€any€possible€abuse€he€suffered€at€home€or€in€the€childrenððsÐ Ð  Ðhome.€€Only€one€witness,€Deborah€Nichols,€said€that€she€saw€her€father€abuse€the€petitioner;Ð ¼  Ðhowever,€she€made€herself€unavailable€to€trial€counsel€and€refused€to€testify.€€Several€witnessesÐ ¨ø Ðtestified€that€Nichols€was€a€pleasant€child€who€was€quiet€and€well„mannered.€€Although€one€witnessÐ ”ä Ðclaimed€that€abuse€took€place€in€the€childrenððs€home,€there€was€no€evidence€that€Nichols€was€everÐ €Ð Ðabused€there;€indeed,€several€other€witnesses€testified€that€the€orphanage€was€not€an€abusiveÐ l¼ Ðenvironment.€€Finally,€there€was€expert€testimony€questioning€whether€Nichols€suffered€from€anÐ X ¨ Ðexplosive€disorder,€as€diagnosed€by€Dr.€Engum,€and€questioning€the€manner€in€which€trial€counselÐ D!” Ðpresented€the€mitigating€themes€and€evidence€at€the€sentencing.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€applying€the€second€òòGoadóófactor,€the€trial€court€correctly€found€that€the€evidence€wasÐ $X" Ðcumulative€to€that€presented€by€trial€counsel€at€sentencing.€€Three€witnesses€at€sentencing€hadÐ ô$D # Ðtestified€about€Nicholsðð€background€and€placement€in€an€orphanage.€€Several€witnesses€said€they€hadÐ à%0!$ Ðknown€Nichols€to€have€been€a€ð ðfine€young€manðð€and€to€have€possessed€good€character€as€a€child€andÐ Ì&"% Ðas€an€adult.€€Several€witnesses,€including€Nichols,€testified€about€his€troubled€relationship€with€hisÐ ¸'#& Ðfather€and€the€abandonment€associated€with€being€placed€in€an€orphanage.€€Nichols€denied,€however,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthat€he€was€ever€physically€abused€by€his€father€or€at€the€orphanage.€€Finally,€there€was€expertÐ )à$( Ðtestimony€regarding€Nicholsðð€intermittent€explosive€disorder€and€how€it€affected€his€conduct.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐAccordingly,€the€record€indicates€that€trial€counsel€identified€and€supported€the€relevant€mitigatingÐ h+¸&* Ðthemes.€€The€evidence€presented€at€post„conviction€did€not€contest€trial€counselððs€performance€inÐ ° Ðthis€regard,€but€rather,€second„guessed€the€quantity€of€the€mitigating€evidence€and€the€manner€of€itsÐ œì Ðpresentation.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àFinally,€with€respect€to€the€third€and€final€òòGoadóó€factor,€it€appears€that€any€of€the€evidence€atÐ `° Ðpost„conviction€which€was€not€cumulative€or€may€have€bolstered€the€evidence€presented€at€trialÐ L œ Ðwould€not€have€affected€the€juryððs€determination€given€the€strong€evidence€supporting€the€priorÐ 8 ˆ Ðviolent€felonies€aggravating€circumstance.€€In€sum,€Nichols€has€not€established€a€reasonableÐ $ t Ðprobability€that€the€jury€would€have€concluded€that€the€ð ðbalance€of€aggravating€and€mitigatingÐ  ` Ðcircumstances€did€not€warrant€death.ðð€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€695,€104€S.Ct.€at€2069;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòGoadÐ ü L  Ðv.€Stateóó,€938€S.W.3d€at€371.Ð è 8  ÐÌà@  ìàIV.€€€òòIneffective€Assistance€of€Counsel€ð!ð€Prosecutorial€MisconductóóˆÐ À  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€next€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€object€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðprosecutionððs€misconduct€in€eliciting€the€facts€of€the€rape€offenses€used€to€prove€the€prior€violentÐ „Ô  Ðfelony€aggravating€circumstance€during€the€sentencing€phase€of€his€capital€trial.€€The€State€maintainsÐ pÀ Ðthat€counsel€were€not€ineffective€because€there€was€no€misconduct€by€the€prosecution.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€record€reveals€that€in€its€cross„examination€of€Nichols,€the€prosecution€asked€about€theÐ 4„ Ðrapes€he€committed€against€T.R.,€S.T.,€P.G.,€and€P.R.€€In€particular,€the€prosecutor€asked€whetherÐ  p ÐNichols€had€committed€a€rape€on€December€21,€1988,€by€using€a€knife;€whether€Nichols€hadÐ  \ Ðcommitted€a€rape€on€December€27,€1988,€by€using€an€electrical€cord;€and€whether€Nichols€hadÐ øH Ðcommitted€a€rape€against€two€victims€on€January€3,€1989,€one€of€which€involved€the€use€of€a€knife.€Ð ä4 ÐNichols€admitted€that€he€committed€all€of€the€offenses.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,€885€S.W.2d€797€(Tenn.€1994),€the€prosecutor€introduced€the€facts€of€aÐ ¨ø Ðprior€murder€conviction€it€relied€upon€as€an€aggravating€circumstance€and€strongly€implied€in€closingÐ ”ä Ðargument€that€the€jury€should€return€a€death€sentence€based€on€the€facts€of€the€prior€murderÐ €Ð Ðconviction€for€which€the€defendant€had€only€received€a€life€sentence.€€Indeed,€the€prosecutorððsÐ l¼ Ðargument€contained€extensive€references€to€the€facts€of€the€prior€murder,€the€victim€of€the€priorÐ X ¨ Ðmurder,€the€family€of€the€victim€of€the€prior€murder,€and€the€need€to€impose€the€death€penaltyÐ D!” Ðbecause€of€the€prior€murder.€€òòId.óó€at€810.€€We€concluded€that€the€introduction€of€such€evidence€is€errorÐ 0"€  Ðwhere€the€prior€conviction€on€its€face€involves€violence€or€the€threat€of€violence,€and€we€held€thatÐ #l! Ðthe€prosecutorððs€argument,€which€improperly€enhanced€the€impact€of€the€aggravating€circumstance,Ð $X" Ðaffected€the€juryððs€determination€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€€òòId.óó€at€811„12.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àIn€applying€òòBigbeeóó,€we€have€focused€upon€the€nature€and€extent€of€the€evidence€introduced,Ð Ì&"% Ðthe€prosecutorððs€intent,€and€whether€the€evidence€or€argument€improperly€enhanced€the€aggravatingÐ ¸'#& Ðcircumstance€or€affected€the€juryððs€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Stoutóó,€46Ð ¤(ô#' ÐS.W.3d€689,€701€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Chalmersóó,€28€S.W.3d€913,€918€(Tenn.€2000).€€We€have,€inÐ )à$( Ðeffect,€clarified€that€òòBigbeeóóinvolved€serious€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€thatò ò€ó óòòóónot€every€violationÐ |*Ì%) Ðof€the€òòBigbeeóó€holding€warrants€reversible€error€and€a€re„sentencing.òòóó€Ð l+¼&* Їà  àAccordingly,€our€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€trial€counsel€did€not€render€ineffectiveÐ ° Ðassistance€of€counsel€by€failing€to€object€to€the€prosecutorððs€questioning.€€First,€we€note€that€òòBigbeeóóÐ œì Ðhad€not€been€decided€at€the€time€of€the€sentencing€in€this€case;€thus,€counsel€cannot€be€consideredÐ ˆØ Ðdeficient€for€failing€to€object€to€a€violation€of€its€holding.€€Second,€the€record€indicates€that€the€factsÐ tÄ Ðof€the€underlying€rapes€were€briefly€cited€by€the€prosecutor€and€admitted€by€Nichols€without€aÐ `° Ðlengthy€discussion€or€detailed€description€of€the€rapes.€€Finally,€the€prosecution€did€not€enhance€theÐ L œ Ðaggravating€circumstance€by€unduly€or€repeatedly€emphasizing€the€underlying€facts€of€the€priorÐ 8 ˆ Ðconvictions,€nor€did€it€imply€that€the€jury€should€impose€the€death€penalty€based€on€the€facts€of€theÐ $ t Ðprior€convictions€in€such€a€manner€that€affected€the€verdict€to€the€prejudice€of€the€petitioner.׃:×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р ` ÐAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€trial€counsel€were€not€deficient€in€failing€to€object€to€the€prosecutorððsÐ ü L  Ðconduct€and€that€there€was€no€reasonable€probability€of€a€different€outcome€even€had€counselÐ è 8  Ðobjected.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà@ì ì ìàV.€€€òòIneffective€Assistance€of€Counsel€ð!ð€€Jury€InstructionsóóˆÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€request€that€the€trial€courtÐ „Ô  Ðcharge€the€jury€with€regard€to€the€definition€of€mitigation,€the€weight€to€be€given€mitigatingÐ pÀ Ðevidence,€the€mitigating€circumstances€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð39„13„204(j)(7)€and€(8),€andÐ \¬ Ðseveral€non„statutory€mitigating€circumstances.€€As€the€State€asserts,€each€of€the€issues€is€withoutÐ H˜ Ðmerit.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àFirst,€this€Court€has€held€that€a€jury€instruction€on€the€definition€of€mitigation€or€the€weightÐ  \ Ðto€be€given€mitigating€circumstances€is€not€required.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€75,€83Ð øH Ð(Tenn.€1993).€€Next,€the€record€did€not€support€an€instruction€on€the€mitigating€circumstance€inÐ ä4 ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„13„204(j)(7),€òòi.e.óó,€the€youthfulness€of€the€defendant,€given€thatÐ Ð  ÐNichols€was€a€28„year„old€high€school€graduate€with€an€honorable€discharge€from€the€military.€Ð ¼  ÐThird,€contrary€to€the€petitionerððs€contention,€the€trial€court€did€charge€the€jury€on€the€mitigatingÐ ¨ø Ðcircumstance€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€39„13„204(j)(8),€òòi.e.óó,€that€the€defendantððs€capacity€toÐ ”ä Ðappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€his€conduct€or€to€conform€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€lawÐ €Ð Ðwas€substantially€impaired€as€a€result€of€a€mental€disease€or€defect€that€substantially€affected€hisÐ l¼ Ðjudgment.€€Finally,€we€have€held€that€the€trial€court€was€not€required€to€charge€the€jury€on€specific,Ð X ¨ Ðnon„statutory€mitigating€circumstances€at€the€time€of€this€offense€and€trial.€€òòSeeóóòòState€v.€Cauthernóó,Ð D!” Ð967€S.W.2d€726,€747€(Tenn.€1998).€€Accordingly,€trial€counsel€were€not€deficient€for€failing€toÐ 0"€  Ðrequest€these€instructions.Ð #l! Ðâ âÐ $X" Ðà  àIn€a€related€issue,€Nichols€argues€that€trial€counsel€were€deficient€for€failing€to€object€to€theÐ ° Ðâ âtrial€courtððs€instruction€that€ð ðthe€verdict€must€be€unanimousðð€because€it€misled€the€jury€to€believeÐ œì Ðthat€unanimity€was€required€to€return€a€life€sentence.€€As€the€State€observes,€this€Court€has€rejectedÐ ˆØ Ðarguments€contesting€the€unanimous€verdict€instruction.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nesbitóó,€978€S.W.2d€872,€902„Ð tÄ Ð903€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Brimmeróó,€876€S.W.2d€at€87.Ð `° ÐÌà@# # ìàVI.€€€òòIneffective€Assistance€of€Counsel€ð!ð€€Constitutional€IssuesóóˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€challenge€theÐ  ` Ðconstitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€on€the€basis€that€it€cannot€be€administered€fairly€and€cites€theÐ ü L  Ðdissenting€opinion€in€òòCallins€v.€Collinsóó,€510€U.S.€1141,€1143,€114€S.€Ct.€1127,€1128,€127€L.Ed.2dÐ è 8  Ð435€(1994)€(Blackmun,€J.,€dissenting).€€This€Court€has€repeatedly€upheld€the€constitutionality€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðdeath€penalty€in€this€State.€€òòSeeóóòòTerry€v.€Stateóó,€46€S.W.3d€147,€169€(Tenn.€2001);€òòState€v.€Stoutóó,€46Ð À  ÐS.W.3d€at€719;€òòState€v.€Hallóó,€976€S.W.2d€121,€166€(Tenn.€1998).€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àNichols€also€argues€that€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€challenge€theÐ „Ô  Ðconstitutionality€of€the€death€penalty€on€the€basis€that€it€violates€the€fundamental€right€to€life€withoutÐ pÀ Ðserving€any€compelling€state€interest.€€This€Court€has€rejected€such€a€claim.€€òòState€v.€Mannóó,€959Ð \¬ ÐS.W.2d€503,€536€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€942€S.W.2d€489,€523€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà@  ìàVII.€€€òòIneffective€Assistance€of€Counsel€ð!ð€€Psychologistððs€NotesˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àóóThe€petitioner€argues€that€his€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€argue€that€the€trialÐ øH Ðcourtððs€order€requiring€the€defense€to€disclose€the€notes€of€Dr.€Eric€Engum€at€trial€violated€his€rightÐ ä4 Ðagainst€self„incrimination€under€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€The€State€contendsÐ Ð  Ðthat€trial€counsel€were€not€ineffective€because€the€disclosure€of€the€notes€for€the€purpose€ofÐ ¼  Ðimpeachment€or€rebuttal€did€not€violate€the€petitionerððs€right€against€self„incrimination.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€record€reveals€that€the€trial€courtððs€order€stemmed€from€the€defenseððs€failure€to€prepareÐ €Ð Ða€final€report€of€Dr.€Engumððs€findings€until€the€second€day€of€trial.€€On€direct€appeal,€we€held€thatÐ l¼ Ðthe€notes€were€discoverable€under€the€circumstances€of€the€case€pursuant€to€the€discovery€provisionsÐ X ¨ Ðof€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€16(b)(1)(B):Ð D!” ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWe€thus€conclude€that€when€a€psychologist€or€psychiatrist€does€notÐ #l! Ðprepare€a€summary€report,€but€instead€relies€on€extensive€memorandaÐ $X" Ðto€record€not€only€observations€and€hypotheses€but€also€evaluations,Ð ô$D # Ðsuch€records€are€discoverable.€€.€.€.€€Although€we€do€not€suggest€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€trial€court€should€require€a€formal€report€in€every€case,€we€doÐ Ì&"% Ðconclude,€under€the€facts€of€this€cases,€that€Rule€16€authorizedÐ ¸'#& Ðdiscovery€of€the€available€reports€to€the€extent€that€they€related€to€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtestimony€to€be€given€at€trial.Ð)à$(` x` x ÐÌòòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€730.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThe€petitioner€now€argues€that€his€counsel€were€ineffective€for€failing€to€argue€that€theÐ ° Ðdisclosure€violated€his€constitutional€right€against€self„incrimination€and€that€the€error€wasÐ œì Ðprejudicial€because€the€prosecution€used€the€notes€to€impeach€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Engum€byÐ ˆØ Ðcharging€that€he€was€a€member€of€the€defense€team€attempting€to€help€Nichols€avoid€the€deathÐ tÄ Ðpenalty.€€Although€Moore€and€Bryan€admitted€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€the€disclosure€andÐ `° Ðthe€prosecutionððs€cross„examination€of€Dr.€Engum€was€damaging€to€the€defense,€they€did€not€believeÐ L œ Ðit€affected€the€juryððs€verdict.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àAs€the€State€notes,€this€Court€has€indicated€that€where€a€defendant€initiates€a€psychiatricÐ  ` Ðexamination€and€introduces€evidence€from€the€examination,€his€right€against€self„incrimination€isÐ ü L  Ðnot€violated€by€disclosure€of€the€information€or€the€prosecutionððs€use€of€the€information€forÐ è 8  Ðimpeachment€and€rebuttal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€950€S.W.2d€20,€24€(Tenn.€1997).€€The€sameÐ Ô$  Ðprinciples€apply€to€the€sentencing€proceeding€of€a€capital€trial.€€òòState€v.€Reidóó,€981€S.W.2d€166,€172„Ð À  Ð73€€(Tenn.€2001).€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àMoreover,€although€as€the€trial€court€noted,€ð ðhindsight€may€indicate€that€the€failure€to€prepareÐ „Ô  Ða€final€report€may€have€been€imprudent,ðð€it€is€clear€that€the€issue€did€not€affect€the€juryððs€verdict.€Ð pÀ ÐThe€prosecution€would€have€been€entitled€to€a€final€report€that€would€not€have€violated€theÐ \¬ Ðpetitionerððs€right€against€self„incrimination;€indeed,€on€direct€appeal,€we€said€that€the€notes€wereÐ H˜ Ðtantamount€to€a€report€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€Dr.€Engum€testified€that€he€evaluated€Nichols€andÐ 4„ Ðinterviewed€several€background€witnesses€and€that€he€ultimately€determined€that€Nichols€had€anÐ  p Ðintermittent€explosive€disorder.€€The€prosecutionððs€cross„examination€attempted€to€impeach€Dr.Ð  \ ÐEngumððs€testimony€by€charging€that€Engum€was€a€member€of€the€defense€team€and€by€showing€thatÐ øH ÐNichols€acted€with€deliberation€and€in€his€own€self€interest.€€In€sum,€when€the€evidence€is€viewedÐ ä4 Ðalong€with€the€petitionerððs€confession€and€the€overwhelming€weight€of€the€aggravating€circumstance,Ð Ð  Ðit€is€clear€that€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€show€a€reasonable€probability€of€a€different€outcome€butÐ ¼  Ðfor€counselððs€failure€to€argue€that€the€disclosure€of€the€notes€violated€his€right€against€self„Ð ¨ø Ðincrimination.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà@  ìàVIII.€€€òòRemand€for€Additional€DNA€TestingóóˆÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€refusing€to€remand€the€caseÐ D!” Ðto€the€trial€court€for€additional€DNA€testing€to€establish€his€innocence.׃;×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€State€maintains€that€theÐ 0"€  Ðissue€of€additional€DNA€testing€was€not€properly€raised€by€the€petitioner€and€was€correctly€denied.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€record€indicates€that€the€post„conviction€trial€court€authorized€DNA€testing€of€evidenceÐ ô$D # Ðtaken€from€the€rape€kit€performed€on€Karen€Pulley.€€After€finding€that€ð ð[n]o€results€which€wouldÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âestablish€any€prejudice€to€the€petitioner.€.€.€were€submitted€to€the€court€at€the€final€hearing,ðð€the€trialÐ Ì&"% Ðcourt€denied€the€petitionerððs€request€for€additional€DNA€testing.€€The€petitioner€did€not€challengeÐ ° Ðthe€trial€courtððs€denial€of€additional€DNA€testing€as€an€issue€on€appeal.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àFollowing€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€decision€and€its€denial€of€a€petition€to€rehear,Ð tÄ ÐNichols€filed€a€motion€for€consideration€of€post„judgment€facts׃<×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€requesting€that€the€case€beÐ `° Ðremanded€for€additional€DNA€testing.€€The€motion€asserted€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsððÐ L œ Ðrejection€of€the€serology€evidence€concerning€Karen€Pulley€in€effect€meant€that€the€court€wasÐ 8 ˆ Ðrequiring€the€petitioner€to€show€actual€innocence€to€establish€the€prejudice€component€of€hisÐ $ t Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,€and€that€additional€DNA€testing€was€required€to€meet€suchÐ  ` Ðan€ð ðunreasonableðð€standard.€€The€motion€was€accompanied€by€the€records€and€documents€regardingÐ ü L  ÐNicholsðð€initial€request€for€DNA€analysis,€which€had€been€granted€by€the€trial€court,€and€his€motionÐ è 8  Ðfor€additional€DNA€testing,€which€had€been€denied.€€The€petitioner€asked€that€the€record€beÐ Ô$  Ðsupplemented€and€asserted€that€due€process€required€consideration€of€this€issue€because€his€libertyÐ À  Ðinterests€outweigh€any€interest€the€State€may€have€in€finality€of€the€judgments.Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àÌà  àThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€denied€the€motion€for€two€reasons.€€First,€the€court€stated€thatÐ „Ô  Ðit€had€not€required€actual€innocence€to€establish€the€prejudice€prong€of€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ pÀ Ðcounsel€claim;€instead,€it€applied€the€analysis€of€whether€the€petitioner€had€shown€a€reasonableÐ \¬ Ðprobability€of€a€different€outcome.€€Second,€the€court€found€that€the€motion€was€not€based€on€post„Ð H˜ Ðjudgment€facts€as€required€by€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€14.€€The€court€concluded:Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àSeeking€to€utilize€the€doorway€made€available€by€[Rule€14]€forÐ  \ Ðconsideration€of€ððfacts€concerning€the€action€that€occurred€afterÐ øH Ðjudgment,ðð€the€petitioner€asks€by€the€motion€to€have€this€courtÐ ä4 Ðconsider€arguments€and€supporting€documents€as€ððfactsðð€and€rule€òòexÐ Ð  Ðparteóó€on€a€matter€which€was€not€raised€previously€in€his€appeal.€€.€..€Ð ¼  ÐThe€petitioner€has€recast€the€arguments€raised€in€his€previous€petitionÐ ¨ø Ðto€rehear,€that€this€court€erred€in€its€treatment€of€the€serology€evidenceÐ ”ä Ðpresented€and€in€its€application€of€the€standard€for€determiningÐ €Ð Ðwhether€counsel€was€ineffective,€and€now€presents€them€as€the€basisÐ l¼ Ðof€his€motion€to€consider€post„judgment€facts.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐÌà  àOur€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€denied€theÐ 0"€  Ðmotion€for€consideration€of€post„judgment€facts€and€the€request€to€remand€the€case€for€additionalÐ #l! ÐDNA€testing.€€The€petitioner€misconstrues€the€appellate€courtððs€analysis€of€the€ineffective€assistanceÐ $X" Ðclaim€ð!ð€the€court€concluded€that€Nichols€failed€to€show€that€his€trial€counsel€were€deficient€inasmuchÐ ô$D # Ðas€he€repeatedly€admitted€that€he€committed€the€offenses€and€the€serology€evidence€did€not€excludeÐ à%0!$ Ðhim€as€the€assailant.€€When€the€court€also€considered€the€prejudice€component,€it€properly€analyzedÐ ° Ðwhether€the€petitioner€showed€a€reasonable€probability€of€a€different€outcome.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€any€event,€the€motion€for€consideration€of€post„judgment€facts€was€improper€given€thatÐ tÄ Ðit€did€not€contain€post„judgment€facts€but€rather€reasserted€matters€that€had€been€denied€by€the€trialÐ `° Ðcourt€and€were€not€appealed€at€all€by€the€petitioner.€€In€addition,€as€the€State€recognizes,€relief€basedÐ L œ Ðon€DNA€analysis€may€be€sought€upon€making€the€required€showing€pursuant€to€the€appropriateÐ 8 ˆ Ðprocedure.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„401€(ð ðPost„Conviction€DNA€Analysis€Act€of€2001").€€InÐ $ t Ðsum,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€relief.Ð  ` ÐÌà@û û ìàIX.€€€òòRight€Against€Self„Incriminationóóˆà  àÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àAs€summarized€earlier,€Nichols€did€not€testify€in€support€of€his€post„conviction€allegations.€Ð À  ÐMoreover,€when€called€to€the€stand€by€the€prosecution,€the€petitioner€invoked€his€right€against€self„Ð ¬ü  Ðincrimination€and€refused€to€answer€questions€about€the€offenses€or€the€post„conviction€allegations.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€State€did€not€appeal€the€issue,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€trialÐ pÀ Ðcourtððs€decision€to€allow€the€petitioner€to€invoke€his€right€against€self„incrimination€was€erroneous.€Ð \¬ ÐThe€intermediate€court€reasoned€that€there€is€no€right€against€self„incrimination€in€a€post„convictionÐ H˜ Ðcase€under€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€or€article€I,€ðð€8€and€9€of€theÐ 4„ ÐTennessee€Constitution€because€the€petitioner€had€already€been€convicted€of€the€offenses€beingÐ  p Ðchallenged.€€The€court€also€stated€that€a€reviewing€court€may€draw€a€negative€inference€from€aÐ  \ Ðpetitionerððs€failure€to€testify€in€support€of€the€post„conviction€allegations.Ð øH ÐÌà  àNichols€initially€argued€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€addressing€this€issueÐ Ð  Ðbecause€it€had€not€been€appealed€by€the€State€and€was€not€properly€before€the€court€for€review.€Ð ¼  ÐNichols€has€additionally€argued€that€there€is€a€right€against€self„incrimination€in€a€capital€post„Ð ¨ø Ðconviction€procedure€due€to€the€likelihood€that€a€cap