Andrew Davis v. Wayne Carpenter, 798 F.3d 468

Background

Andrew Davis was tried in Tennessee state court for the homicide of eight-month-old Caine McPeak after the infant suffered skull fractures, retinal hemorrhages, a torn frenulum, and massive intracranial bleeding while in Davis’s care; the child later died.
At trial Davis changed from earlier inconsistent accounts and testified he accidentally dropped the child; a defense expert (Dr. Harlan) had testified to that theory in the first trial but declined to testify at the second.
Prosecution medical witnesses, including the pathologist, testified the injuries were not consistent with an accidental short fall and instead indicated inflicted trauma; the first jury deadlocked, the second convicted Davis of felony murder and aggravated child abuse, and he received life plus 22 years.
On state post-conviction review Davis argued trial counsel Edward Yarbrough was ineffective for failing to secure a medical expert at the second trial; Yarbrough testified he and Harlan’s attorney Warlick contacted many doctors (locally and out-of-state) but none would testify for the defense.
A post-conviction court and the Tennessee Court of Appeals rejected the ineffective-assistance claim; Davis then sought federal habeas relief asserting the state court unreasonably found counsel had attempted to locate experts and unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that (1) the state court’s factual finding that counsel tried and potential experts refused was reasonable, and (2) under the deferential AEDPA/Harrington standard a fairminded jurist could conclude counsel’s efforts were within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state court unreasonably found counsel attempted to locate expert witnesses	Davis: the court’s finding was unsupported; counsel did not adequately search	State: counsel and Warlick contacted multiple doctors locally and out-of-state who refused	Held: State-court factual finding was reasonable and supported by counsel’s testimony; §2254(d)(1) not satisfied
Whether counsel’s failure to produce an expert at the second trial was constitutionally deficient under Strickland	Davis: Yarbrough should have contacted more experts, provided full files, and not relied on Warlick; Ophoven’s testimony shows willing experts existed	State: counsel sought Harlan, obtained continuance, worked with Warlick, personally contacted doctors; no guidance sets a required number/method	Held: Under Strickland and AEDPA/Harrington, a fairminded jurist could deem counsel’s efforts professionally reasonable; no Strickland violation
Whether reliance on Warlick or his summaries created conflict or negligent investigation	Davis: Warlick had potential conflict (represented Harlan) and summaries were inadequate; counsel over-relied on him	State: Warlick was motivated to help; summaries were detailed and counsel also made calls	Held: Reliance on Warlick was not per se unreasonable; fairminded jurists could agree counsel’s approach was reasonable
Whether state court ignored Dr. Ophoven’s testimony that an expert could have been found	Davis: Ophoven shows counsel could have located a willing expert and courts disregarded this	State: Even accepting Ophoven, question is whether counsel’s efforts were reasonable—state courts could credit counsel’s testimony	Held: Federal habeas must assess whether any reasonable argument supports the state decision; here that standard is met and writ denied

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (sets two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference: federal court must ask whether fairminded jurists could agree with state-court decision)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (examples of specific counsel duties that can constitute Strickland error)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (counsel ineffective for disregarding defendant’s specific instruction to appeal)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (ineffectiveness where counsel fails to investigate a Fourth Amendment claim)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (general rules give state courts leeway in case-by-case Strickland applications)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (counsel’s failure to inform re: plea consequences can be ineffective assistance)