87 So. 3d 465
Miss.2012Background
- Davis was sentenced to death for capital murder in 1992 after turning himself in for Hillman’s murder and waiving Miranda rights.
- Shaddock was appointed trial counsel and had minimal mitigation preparation when the State sought the death penalty.
- Post-conviction counsel obtained new witnesses and evidence not uncovered by trial counsel.
- The sentencing hearing featured little mitigation testimony and no substantial investigation by Shaddock.
- The evidentiary hearing revealed multiple potential mitigation witnesses and prison-conduct evidence that Shaddock failed to utilize.
- Court remanded to vacate the death sentence and hold a new sentencing trial, reversing on ineffective assistance grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s investigation/mitigation presentation was deficient | Davis | State | Yes, deficient performance; remand for resentencing |
| Whether failure to interview jail officials and present prison-conduct evidence was prejudicial | Davis | State | Yes, prejudicial; remand for resentencing |
| Whether there was a plea offer and if counsel’s communication was deficient | Davis | State | No enforceable plea offer proven; issue lacked merit |
| Whether the addictionologist testimony was necessary or reversible error | Davis | State | Moot; court remanded for other reasons and did not reach the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (mitigating evidence after incomplete investigation deemed non-tactical)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel’s failure to uncover/introduce mitigating evidence prejudicial)
- Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) (jailers’ testimony highly probative; exclusion of such evidence reversible error)
- Havard v. State, 988 So.2d 322 (Miss. 2008) (duty to interview and independently investigate mitigating evidence; cumulative testimony not enough)
- Johns v. State, 926 So.2d 188 (Miss. 2006) (counsel must at least conduct sufficient investigation to evaluate potential defenses)
- Bobby v. Van Hook, 130 S. Ct. 13 (U.S. 2009) (mitigating evidence may be considered; testimony may be cumulative)