Jordan v. State
2013 Ark. 469
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Brian Taylor Jordan was convicted of rape in 2011 and sentenced to life as a habitual offender; this Court affirmed on direct appeal and mandate issued August 14, 2012.
- Jordan filed a pro se Rule 37.1 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the trial court treated it as filed the day after the mandate and allowed attachments and an amended petition.
- The trial court denied the Rule 37.1 petition without an evidentiary hearing; Jordan timely appealed and moved for an extension to file his brief.
- Jordan’s ineffective-assistance claims centered on trial counsel’s alleged failures to: introduce/explore evidence related to witness Cleo Horton and alleged police coercion; provide or investigate a disputed September 2010 letter; effectively cross-examine the victim; object to admission of a crime-scene photo and questioning about prior convictions; and call mitigating witnesses at sentencing.
- The record contained investigative affidavits, incident reports, two affidavits attributed to Horton, an email from the victim, and inmate grievances; the trial court found these materials insufficient to establish counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Jordan's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel failed to introduce Horton-related evidence and argue police coercion | Horton’s statements and a September 2010 letter would show investigators coerced recantation and cast doubt on Jordan’s defense that the victim offered money | Evidence was tenuous; counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to present weak, inconsistent, or unverified materials | Denied — tactical choice supported; no reasonable probability of a different outcome given strong inculpatory evidence |
| Counsel failed to provide/investigate the September 2010 letter and investigators’ statements | If provided and authenticated, the letter would have exculpated Jordan or created reasonable doubt | Letter/authorship unproven; even if true, Jordan did not show prejudice or a reasonable probability of a different result | Denied — no prejudice shown; strategic decision and lack of proof of letter’s effect |
| Ineffective cross-examination of victim and omission of potentially inflammatory questions | Counsel should have impeached victim with inconsistent statements and questioned alternate causes of injuries or payment allegations | Cross-examination choices are tactical; counsel’s restraint was professional judgment to avoid inflaming jury | Denied — matters of trial tactics; no showing of deficient performance or resulting prejudice |
| Failure to call penalty-phase witnesses / present mitigating evidence | Counsel sent family away and failed to present them as mitigating witnesses | Petitioner failed to name witnesses or proffer their expected testimony or admissibility | Denied — conclusory claim; petitioner bore burden to identify witnesses and proffer testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 (discusses Strickland analysis applied in Arkansas)
- McCraney v. State, 360 S.W.3d 144 (per curiam) (presumption that counsel’s choices are reasonable; burden on appellant to identify specific errors)
- Howard v. State, 238 S.W.3d 24 (discusses reasonable-probability prejudice standard)
- Nelson v. State, 39 S.W.3d 791 (jury decides weight and credibility of testimony)