Harold Bernard Schaffer v. State of Tennessee
W2016-00115-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Mar 31, 2017Background
- In 1985 William Pierce Jr. was murdered; blood at the scene did not belong to the victim and a CODIS hit matched Harold Bernard Schaffer in 2005; Schaffer was convicted of first-degree felony murder and sentenced to life.
- Defense focused on attacking DNA: a 2009 outside lab (Sorenson) found the sample degraded; defense expert Dr. Watson advised limited testing and the team elected not to pursue more sensitive retesting.
- Trial counsel filed a suppression motion challenging the affidavit used to obtain Schaffer’s DNA; the trial court denied suppression and the issue was not raised in the motion for new trial.
- Several stipulations (including admissibility of DNA sample 9A, keys, autopsy, photos) were entered; Schaffer later claimed counsel agreed to stipulations without his consent.
- Schaffer raised multiple post-conviction ineffective-assistance claims: failing to challenge the indictment correctly, failing to preserve/search-warrant and Rule 41 issues, failing to retest DNA, inadequate alibi investigation, poor case theory/opening, fingerprint jury instruction, and stipulations without client consent.
- The post-conviction court denied relief; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding counsel’s choices tactical, adequately investigated, and not prejudicial under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Schaffer’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment mens rea / wrong statutory citation | Indictment cited post-1989 statute and lacked proper mens rea; counsel ineffective for not attacking citation | Indictment valid for 1985 felony murder; issue previously litigated | No relief — court previously decided indictment valid; no prejudice shown |
| Search warrant / Rule 41 compliance & preservation | Counsel ineffective for not preserving suppression issue and for failing to challenge Rule 41 failures (warrant not filed/left) | Any Rule 41 defect would not have prevented State from obtaining another warrant; waiver/plain-error analysis favors State | No relief — failure to preserve was deficient but no prejudice; Rule 41 noncompliance did not show suppression-required defect |
| DNA retesting | Counsel ineffective for declining more sensitive independent retesting that might exonerate Schaffer | Decision was tactical after expert advice; further testing risked confirming State’s result | No relief — tactical, informed decision; petitioner failed to show reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Alibi investigation & case theory | Counsel failed to investigate Georgia alibi witnesses and develop viable alternate suspect theory | Counsel investigated all provided alibi leads; no alibi witnesses produced; DNA was central | No relief — court credited counsel’s investigation; petitioner produced no alibi witnesses |
| Opening statement & inflammatoriness | Counsel inflamed jury and failed to state defense theory | Trial court admonished scope not characterization; no evidence jurors were influenced | No relief — not ineffective; no prejudice shown |
| Fingerprint instruction | Instruction falsely suggested fingerprint evidence linked Schaffer; counsel ineffective for failing to object | Fingerprint evidence was presented (prints/photos) and no match was emphasized; instruction correct as general law | No relief — counsel tactically sought/used instruction; no prejudice shown |
| Stipulations without consent | Counsel entered stipulations to admissibility without client consent, prejudicing Schaffer | Stipulations addressed admissibility only; commonly tactical to streamline trial | No relief — record does not show prejudice; stipulations were tactical and addressed uncontested admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (prejudice inquiry under Strickland)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (post-conviction standard of review for factual findings)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (post-conviction review principles)
- Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (no relief where petitioner cannot show results of unperformed testing)
- Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (competence standard for counsel performance)