X hits on this document





77 / 115

reasonable to infer that counsel knew, or reasonably believed, that defendant did not desire them to present any argument to the jury in his behalf.27  As the confidential declarations outlined above reveal, defendant had steadfastly refused to cooperate with any investigation or defense strategy in preparation of a case in mitigation of penalty.  He had instructed his relatives not to cooperate with defense counsel or their investigator.  He had refused all jailhouse visits or communication with lead counsel Miller during the six-week break between the guilt and penalty phases of trial—a continuance that had been granted for the very purpose of allowing further investigation and preparation of a case in mitigation of penalty.  And he had agreed with Maple that evidence of his past good conduct while in custody should be withheld from the jury for tactical reasons.  Moreover, having represented defendant at the first trial of these charges, Miller knew that defendant once before had directed him not to offer any mitigating evidence in opposition to the prosecution’s case in aggravation, and that defendant had personally taken the stand and told the jury that in his opinion there were no factors in mitigation of penalty, that he had instructed his attorneys not to present any argument for life imprisonment, and that he did not want to go to prison for the rest of his life.

If the truth of the matters related in the confidential declarations are established at a habeas corpus proceeding, it might well be concluded that counsel

27 On the day the jury returned its verdict of guilt, Miller requested a continuance of the penalty phase in order to thoroughly investigate defendant’s background in preparation of a case in mitigation of penalty.  When the court addressed defendant directly to inquire whether he would agree to the continuance, defendant stated:  “Let’s do it today and get it over with.”  When the court responded by suggesting that defendant “Talk to your attorneys, please,” defendant again repeated, “Do it today and get it over with.”  After further discussion, the court ultimately granted the defense a continuance of nearly six weeks for further preparation of the defense case in mitigation.

Document info
Document views491
Page views491
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 09:13:05 UTC 2017