Jerry Ray Davidson v. State of Tennessee
2014 Tenn. LEXIS 918
Tenn.2014Background
- Defendant Jerry Ray Davidson was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated kidnapping; jury sentenced him to death; convictions were later challenged via post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Trial counsel obtained extensive TDOC and MTMHI mental-health records showing lifelong severe cognitive defects, personality disorder, sexual-violence fantasies, abnormal CT and EEG, and prior clinicians’ warnings—but presented no clinical mental-health mitigation at sentencing and only cursory social-history witnesses.
- Counsel retained a mitigation specialist and neuropsychologist shortly before trial; both conducted limited work, produced brief reports, and did not testify; lead counsel admitted the investigation was cursory and the mitigation report may not have been fully read.
- Post-conviction experts (neuropsychologist and psychiatrist) found cognitive impairment consistent with frontal-lobe dysfunction and reasoning at a nine–ten year-old level; they concluded these deficits could have diminished moral culpability and affected premeditation/penalty assessment.
- Trial and appellate courts had declined relief; Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed de novo the Strickland claims and held counsel’s failure to investigate and present psychological mitigation evidence at sentencing was deficient and prejudicial.
- Court upheld convictions but vacated death sentence and remanded for a new capital sentencing hearing; one justice concurred in part and would have vacated guilt phase as well.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davidson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel performed reasonably in investigating/presenting mitigation at sentencing | Counsel failed to develop and present available psychological mitigation (brain atrophy, abnormal EEG, lifelong disorders); performance was deficient | Counsel reasonably limited investigation to avoid introducing damaging admissions at guilt phase and had resource/time constraints | Counsel’s failure to investigate/present psychological mitigation was professionally deficient; decision not to present was not a reasonable, informed strategy |
| Whether deficient performance prejudiced sentencing (Strickland prejudice) | Post-conviction evidence of severe cognitive deficits could have humanized Davidson and reasonably led at least one juror to impose a lesser sentence | Aggravating evidence and prior sexual convictions were strong; mental records could have been more harmful than helpful | Prejudice shown: reasonable probability the sentencing outcome would differ; death sentence vacated and remanded for new sentencing hearing |
| Whether mitigation investigation could have been used without damaging guilt-phase strategy | Davidson: mental-health evidence could be framed as mitigation and not undermine residual-doubt theory; failure to investigate prevented informed choice | State: opening mental records could be two-edged and exacerbate aggravation evidence | Court: mitigation and residual-doubt strategies are compatible; counsel should have investigated and made informed strategic judgment |
| Whether deficient investigation also undermines guilt-phase verdict (concurring view) | Post-conviction experts’ opinions on executive-function deficits could have negated premeditation, possibly changing guilt verdict | State maintained sufficiency of circumstantial evidence; presenting mental-health evidence risked admission of other damaging statements | Majority declined to overturn guilt convictions but one justice dissented, arguing the deficient investigation could have affected premeditation finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel must conduct thorough mitigation investigation; strategic choices require adequate investigation)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (mitigation investigation and presentation can be decisive at sentencing)
- Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009) (sentencer must be permitted to consider all relevant mitigating evidence)
- Sears v. Upton, 561 U.S. 945 (2010) (totality-of-mitigation analysis includes evidence presented at collateral proceedings)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (failure to investigate available records that could provide mitigation can be prejudicial even under a residual-doubt theory)
- Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (capital counsel has heightened duty to investigate mental-health mitigation)
- State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2003) (direct appeal opinion setting out facts, convictions, and earlier appellate posture)