Ploof v. State, 2013 Del. LEXIS 274

Background

Defendant Gary Ploof was convicted of Murder in the First Degree and sentenced to death after a guilt phase and a separate penalty phase.
The guilt-phase trial included testimony from police, medical examiners, witnesses, and defense theories that Heidi committed suicide.
Trial Counsel did not consult with ballistics, toxicology, or forensic pathology experts, nor present extensive evidence of Heidi’s handedness, in support of a suicide theory.
The penalty phase relied on aggravating factors of pecuniary gain and premeditation; mitigation included various personal history and background evidence.
Postconviction relief proceedings introduced new mitigation evidence about Ploof’s childhood, foster-care abuse, and military service, and challenged trial counsel performance.
The trial court denied postconviction relief; on appeal, the court affirmed in part and remanded in part to reweigh mitigating and aggravating evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance—guilt phase ballistics/toxicology/handedness/forensics	Ploof asserts Trial Counsel failed to consult experts and present evidence undermining the suicide theory.	Ploof contends these failures prejudiced the outcome by supporting the suicide defense.	No prejudice shown; no Strickland violation as to guilt-phase claims.
Cumulative impact of additional guilt-phase evidence	New ballistics/toxicology/forensic evidence would shift weight toward suicide.	Such evidence would collectively undermine the State’s murder theory.	Insufficient prejudice; no reversal on guilt-phase grounds.
Cross-examination strategy—Jefferson	Cross-examination was inconsistent with the suicide defense and prejudicial.	Cross-examination should not necessarily be tailored to a single defense theory.	No prejudice; strategy not shown to have changed outcome.
Failure to rehabilitate or object to jurors dismissed for cause	Counsel should have rehabilitated or challenged jurors with death-penalty objections.	Judicial discretion allowed dismissals; rehabilitation would have been futile.	No prejudice; rulings within trial court discretion.
Appellate counsel—merits not raised on appeal	Appellate counsel failed to raise potentially meritorious issues.	Raising all issues is not required; strategic selection is permissible.	Waiver and lack of prejudice; issues not shown to require different result.
Penalty-phase prejudice and remand	Mitigating evidence (childhood abuse, foster care) could have changed the sentencing outcome if presented.	Failure to present such mitigation fell below Strickland; weighing should be redone on remand.	Remand to supplement record and reweigh aggravating and mitigating evidence; Part affirmed, part remanded.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (two-prong test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2000) (reweigh total mitigation evidence against aggravation)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (prohibits race-based peremptory challenges)
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1968) (jurors may not be excluded for general objections to death penalty)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1985) (broad discretion in voir dire for cause challenges)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002) (jury must find aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt)
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978) (mitigating evidence must be weighed in capital sentencing)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (defendant's character and circumstances may be mitigating)
Gersten v. Senkowski, 426 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2005) (defense failures to uncover critical medical evidence can be prejudicial)