109 N.E.3d 978
Ind.2018Background
- In April 2010 Jeffrey Weisheit set fire to a residence while two children (ages 8 and 5) were inside; both children died. He fled, was arrested after being tased, and sustained a concussion.
- A 2013 jury convicted Weisheit of two counts of murder and Class A felony arson; the jury found statutory aggravators and unanimously recommended death; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Weisheit filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; the PCR court denied relief and this appeal followed.
- Main PCR claims: inadequate mitigation investigation (failure to obtain Indiana Boys School records; failure to secure testimony from Dr. Philip Harvey and other experts); failures in voir dire about jurors’ willingness to consider a term of years; failure to preserve or object to certain evidence (fire origin opinions, Miranda waiver issues); exclusion/offer-of-proof problems for prison-classification expert James Aiken.
- The Supreme Court majority affirmed the PCR denial: many counsel mistakes found but not constitutionally deficient or not prejudicial under Strickland; two separate opinions (concurring and partial dissent) agreed on guilt but disagreed about cumulative prejudice at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Weisheit) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial counsel inadequately investigated/produced mitigation (Boys School records; Dr. Harvey; Dr. Gur) | Counsel failed to obtain Boys School records and did not secure Dr. Harvey’s testimony or adequately investigate alleged brain injuries, undermining mitigation | Counsel made reasonable efforts (requested records, obtained other mental-health records and experts); Dr. Harvey’s and Dr. Gur’s evidence was duplicative or speculative; additional records contained potentially harmful information | Majority: counsel’s efforts not deficient or not prejudicial; PCR court findings that some investigation was lacking did not establish Strickland prejudice. Concurring Justice: counsel may have been deficient but no prejudice. Dissent: cumulative deficiencies prejudiced sentencing. |
| 2. Exclusion and foundation for Aiken (prison-classification) testimony | Counsel failed to invoke correct evidentiary rule (702(a)), to lay foundation, and to make an adequate offer of proof, thereby depriving jury of mitigating evidence that Weisheit could be safely incarcerated | State contends Aiken’s testimony on future dangerousness was speculative and may have been excluded appropriately; even if admissible, record contains countervailing prison incident reports | Majority: even assuming some error, admissibility speculative and evidence undermined by Weisheit’s institutional record; no prejudice shown. Dissent: counsel’s failures here were deficient and contributed to cumulative prejudice. |
| 3. Failure to question/strike certain jurors regarding willingness to consider term-of-years | Counsel failed to follow up on questionnaire answers of several jurors who indicated resistance to term-of-years, undermining capital sentencing fairness | Jurors were presumed to follow the law; voir dire and questionnaires and later voir dire answers showed open minds; counsel reasonably prioritized jurors likely to automatically favor death | Held: counsel not deficient; no showing of prejudice — jurors’ oral statements showed willingness to consider mitigation and sentencing options. |
| 4. Appellate counsel’s omission re: juror quote (Juror 7) | Appellate counsel failed to cite the clearest transcript statement showing Juror 7 would automatically vote death | Appellate brief quoted strong, relevant portions; Court reviews the record independently and was not limited to counsel’s chosen quote | Held: appellate counsel’s performance not deficient and no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑pronged ineffective assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigation; counsel must follow up on leads)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (inadequate mitigation investigation can be deficient performance)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (duty to investigate and present mitigating evidence)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (totality of circumstances governs validity of Miranda waiver)
- Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (evidence of adjustment to incarceration is relevant mitigating evidence)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (prejudice inquiry requires reweighing aggravating and mitigating evidence)
- Wilkes v. State, 984 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. 2013) (standards for evaluating counsel strategy in capital voir dire and mitigation investigation)