 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Britt v. State9/26/2002
hat [counsel] employed a great number of resources in investigating the case. This Court's experience is, that [counsel] did not plead the cases easily. Over the years with him trying the cases for defendants in this court, probably had more jury trials from the clients that he's represented than any others, so - t . . . always has been . . . hard to get [counsel] to the podium for a plea. He tried cases and . . . often won the cases. Had a great rate of success in trying cases when he practiced law.
In this particular case, which is what is important, all the evidence indicates that [counsel] had numerous conferences with the petitioner; that he investigated the case thoroughly; that he filed all motions that seemed to be appropriate to be filed or were called for under the facts and circumstances of the case; that he almost surreptitiously, but not unethically, had a mole, in effect, in the District Attorney General's Office telling him everything that was going on and the discussions with the victim.
It's rare in a child rape case for a defense counsel to have an opportunity to talk to a victim. The Supreme Court has said that the victim does not have to talk to the defense counsel. And ordinarily that is the choice that the victim makes.
From everything that I've heard in this case, that seems to be the choice that was made either by the victim herself, or her mother on her behalf. And if that choice was made by her mother on her behalf, you have to take into consideration the fact that her mother seemed to, at all times, be trying to support, defend the petitioner in the charges against him.
No court reviewing this case would look at the case and . . . decide that . . . [counsel] did not do a fair investigation; that he did not try to discover all witnesses, and all about the witnesses; all incriminating evidence. He fully obtained discovery. It's easy to look at any one aspect, or even all aspects of the investigation, the attempt by a defense lawyer to ferret out evidence; the decisions that have to be made about the evidence; what impact it would have, and conclude that there is some inconsistency somewhere, or inconsistencies everywhere - - that a wrong decision was made at some point about some evidence, how to use it.
But you have to look at the totality of the circumstances and decide whether the tactics of the lawyer in the end were appropriate tactics; whether any different results would have occurred had other tactics been used; other decisions been made.
There are always conflicts in the evidence in the case. There are always conflicts in the witness's testimony. This Court has been trying cases for twenty-five years, and has yet to see a case where any witness's testimony was perfect, unimpeachable in any respect. That's just not the way lawsuits work. . . .
The only conclusion I can reach about [counsel], first, is that he did leave no stone unturned; that he investigated every aspect of the case and made his decisions based upon the plea negotiations, or based upon evidence from which a jury could have convicted the petitioner of the principal charges.
With regard to the victim's testimony at the post-conviction hearing, the trial court made the following findings:
It's said . . . by the victim today, that she would have testified that the petitioner did not have any sexual contact with her had she testified at the trial several years ago. How can you believe or give credit to what is testified to today, based upon the record? Her statements back then were inconsistent. She had said back then, at some point, that the petitioner had not done what he was charged of doing. As a matt
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|