Cartwright v. Caldwell
825 S.E.2d 168
Ga.2019Background
- In 2007 Derrick Cartwright was tried for Stafford's shooting; convicted of felony murder and related counts and sentenced to life plus 5 years. The defense was an alibi supported by five family/friend witnesses.
- At trial Detective Andrew Tyner testified repeatedly that Cartwright never mentioned an alibi during his post-arrest interview; the prosecutor emphasized this in closing to argue the alibi was fabricated afterward.
- Trial counsel did not impeach Tyner with evidence that Detective Bernard Spicer had testified at the preliminary hearing that Tyner told him Cartwright did assert the alibi in the interview.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed, noting Cartwright had not produced Spicer at the motion for new trial hearing nor introduced a transcript of Spicer’s preliminary hearing testimony, so prejudice under Strickland was not shown.
- In habeas proceedings Cartwright introduced (without objection) the preliminary hearing transcript and an affidavit from Spicer corroborating that Tyner told Spicer Cartwright asserted his alibi; the habeas court denied relief, finding no prejudice.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted appeal and reversed the habeas denial, holding trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present Spicer’s contradictory evidence and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce that evidence at the motion-for-new-trial hearing; the law-of-the-case binding prior appellate factual holding meant appellate counsel’s omission was acknowledged as such.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not impeaching Detective Tyner with Spicer's testimony that Tyner reported Cartwright gave an alibi in the interview | Cartwright: trial counsel unreasonably failed to present Spicer's prior inconsistent statement, which would have undercut Tyner and supported the alibi | State: evidence against Cartwright and multiple alibi witnesses meant omission not prejudicial; credibility issues remained for jury to resolve | Held: Trial counsel was ineffective — no reasonable attorney would forgo Spicer's admissible, directly contradictory evidence; omission had reasonable probability of affecting outcome |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce Spicer evidence at the motion-for-new-trial hearing | Cartwright: appellate counsel raised the claim but did not produce Spicer or the transcript, so appellate representation was deficient | State: previously the Court held Cartwright failed to show prejudice because evidence wasn’t introduced; AG later argued appellate counsel did provide some support at the hearing | Held: Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to present readily available Spicer evidence; law-of-the-case binds prior statement that counsel did not call Spicer or introduce transcript |
| Whether Cartwright suffered Strickland prejudice from trial counsel's omission | Cartwright: given close credibility contest, lack of physical evidence, and prosecutor's reliance on Tyner, Spicer's testimony would likely have changed outcome | State: habeas court found that because alibi witnesses testified, failing to add Spicer did not create reasonable probability of different result | Held: Prejudice shown — Spicer's testimony would have countered a central prosecution theme and plausibly altered verdict in a close case |
| Effect of prior appellate ruling (law-of-the-case) on habeas review | Cartwright: prior appellate factual holding that Spicer wasn’t called/transcript not introduced binds later proceedings | State: contended earlier appellate record actually showed some evidence was offered at motion-for-new-trial hearing | Held: Law-of-the-case applies; prior appellate determination that Spicer was not presented is binding, so appellate counsel’s omission stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance two-prong test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Cartwright v. State, 291 Ga. 498 (Ga. 2012) (prior direct-appeal decision addressing failure to introduce Spicer evidence at motion for new trial)
- Taylor v. Metoyer, 299 Ga. 345 (Ga. 2016) (standards for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel)
- Gramiak v. Beasley, 304 Ga. 512 (Ga. 2018) (to show appellate counsel prejudice, underlying trial- counsel ineffectiveness must have reasonable probability of success)
- Bryant v. State, 301 Ga. 617 (Ga. 2017) (prejudice found when State relied heavily on evidence defense counsel should have suppressed and other evidence was weak)
- Kennebrew v. State, 299 Ga. 864 (Ga. 2016) (prejudice where State emphasized evidence trial counsel should have suppressed and case was not overwhelming)
- Holiday v. State, 272 Ga. 779 (Ga. 2000) (prior inconsistent statements admissible as impeachment and substantive evidence)
- Fisher v. State, 299 Ga. 478 (Ga. 2016) (credibility and willingness of a witness to testify may be considered in evaluating counsel's tactical choices)