 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Patterson v. State9/10/1999
ruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), to eliminate all references to Cauthern. Specifically, Petitioner claims that he was prejudiced by introduction of the redacted statement because "his own redacted statement rendered his confession more incriminating than before the redaction."
Although Petitioner makes the conclusory argument that his redacted statement was more incriminating than his unredacted statement, he has failed to identify any portion of the statement that became more incriminating after it was redacted. Indeed, we have reviewed both the redacted and unredacted statements and conclude that the redacted statement is not significantly more incriminating. Indeed, this Court concluded on direct appeal that admission of the redacted statement into evidence was proper. Brett Patterson, 1989 WL 147404, at *6.
In addition, we note that the decision of Petitioner's counsel not to seek a severance was a tactical one. Indeed, Richardson expressly testified during the post-conviction hearing that "I don't remember if we moved for a severance or not, but tactically speaking, we definitely wanted [Petitioner and Cauthern] tried together." Richardson also testified that part of the strategy was to attempt to contrast Petitioner and Cauthern as much as possible in terms of attitude and culpability. Similarly, Barrett testified that one of the trial strategies was to "show that Cauthern was really the moving party" and Petitioner "played a very, relatively speaking, minor role compared to Mr. Cauthern." This Court may not second-guess the tactical and strategic choices made by trial counsel unless those choices were uninformed because of inadequate preparation. Hellard v. State, 629 S.W.2d 4, 9 (Tenn. 1982); Alley v. State, 958 S.W.2d 138, 149 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). "Trial counsel may not be deemed ineffective merely because a different procedure or strategy might have produced a different result." Alley, 958 S.W.2d at 149. We conclude that counsels' decision not to seek severance in order to contrast Petitioner's participation in the crimes with that of Cauthern appears to have been informed and based upon adequate preparation. We cannot second-guess counsel in this regard. See Hellard, 629 S.W.2d at 9. This issue has no merit.
D. Voluntariness
Petitioner contends that his trial counsel were ineffective in failing to adequately address the voluntariness of his statement to police.
The record indicates that Petitioner's trial counsel filed a motion to suppress Petitioner's statement to police on the ground that the statement was involuntary. The record also indicates that during the suppression hearing, Petitioner's counsel questioned Gray about the length of the police interview of Petitioner and whether Petitioner invoked his right to counsel or his right to remain silent. Counsel also questioned Petitioner about his interview with police, and Petitioner testified that the entire interview was not recorded, that Gray told him that Cauthern was putting the blame on him, and that Breedlove told him that cooperation could mean the difference between a life or a death sentence. Counsel then questioned Breedlove about the length of Petitioner's interview, whether the entire interview was recorded, whether Petitioner was informed that Cauthern was blaming him for the crimes, whether Petitioner was advised of his rights, and whether he made any promises to Petitioner that cooperation could mean the difference between a life or death sentence.
Petitioner claims that trial counsel failed to adequately address the voluntariness of his statement because counsel failed to question Breedlove about whether he made any
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|