 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. Oklahoma12/1/1998
uesses or innuendo. This requirement of setting forth evidence does not include requests for more time to develop and investigate information that was readily available during trial preparation. Under the provisions of Rule 3.11, an Appellant is afforded a procedure to have included in the record for review on appeal evidence which was known by trial counsel but not used or evidence which was available but not discovered by counsel. It is not a procedure for post-trial discovery.
Applying this standard to Appellant's application, we find that two of the ten claims warrant an evidentiary hearing. Only in his fourth and fifth claims does Appellant set forth sufficient evidence showing a strong possibility trial counsel was ineffective. In his fourth claim, Appellant asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to employ psychologist Bill Sharp earlier in his trial preparation, and once employed, failed to maximize Dr. Sharp's expert assistance. In a supporting affidavit, Dr. Sharp states he was hired less than one month prior to trial, upon being told by defense counsel it was an "emergency request." Dr. Sharp states that he first interviewed Appellant two days before trial, and met with Appellant again the first two days of trial. He further states he did not have the records from the substance abuse treatment facility Appellant attended in Stillwater, Oklahoma, records which indicate a history of blackouts and numerous driving under the influence arrests. Dr. Sharp states this evidence would have been of value to Appellant in the first stage of trial in order to illuminate his behavior, in terms of his mens rea, during the shootings. Dr. Sharp states that no attempt was made by trial counsel to utilize his findings during the first stage of trial. Dr. Sharp concludes his affidavit by stating the lack of time to prepare, or to consult with trial counsel, "made an adequate and accurate mitigation case difficult, and with more time and ability to evaluate the facts of this crime, I feel I would have recommended my involvement at first stage as well." (Exhibits C & C-2). The evidence, as set forth in Appellant's claim, and as supported in Dr. Sharp's affidavit, provide clear and convincing evidence there is a strong possibility that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to hire Dr. Sharp earlier in his trial preparation and utilizing Dr. Sharp effectively in developing his trial strategy.
In his fifth claim, Appellant contends he was poorly prepared to testify by trial counsel and that counsel's anger at his failure to demonstrate sufficient remorse influenced counsel in withholding mitigation testimony of ready and willing witnesses. In a supporting affidavit, Karen Billing, the Investigator assigned to Appellant's case, gives a chronology demonstrating the lack of preparation in this case. Ms. Billing states that Appellant was not adequately prepared to testify in either stage of trial, and consequently Appellant declined to testify at all in the second stage. Ms. Billing states that lead defense counsel, Mr. John T. Elliot, appeared to be exasperated and upset by this decision and other than the psychologist, Dr. Bill Sharp, no additional witnesses were called in the second stage. Ms. Billing also states that she managed to secure a number of character witnesses for use in second stage, but does not know why they were not called. In sixteen supporting affidavits, character and family witnesses provide second stage evidence which would have been used if they had been called to testify. The evidence as set forth in this claim and as supported in the affidavits provides clear and convincing evidence there is a strong possibility that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequat
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|