Richard Scott Bennett v. David Ballard, Warden
16-0535
| W. Va. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Victim died from blunt and sharp force head trauma after landing on a metal bedframe; petitioner (Bennett) lived with victim and was present with victim's three children when injuries occurred.
- Jury convicted Bennett of first-degree murder (July 2009); sentenced to life without parole; direct appeal denied.
- Post-conviction habeas filed; omnibus evidentiary hearings held; habeas court denied relief (May 5, 2016).
- Trial evidence: extensive State case (20+ witnesses) including victim’s daughters describing abuse and murder, sister’s testimony that Bennett admitted beating victim to death, forensic pathologist confirming fatal head trauma, and physical evidence (lime in car). Defense presented expert pathologist and challenge that injury could be accidental or non‑intentional.
- Habeas claims focused on ineffective assistance of counsel (four main subclaims): (1) counsel conceded guilt in closing; (2) conflict of interest by co-counsel who previously represented a State witness; (3) inadequate pretrial investigation (failure to interview child witnesses, retain certain experts, or test DNA); and (4) cumulative error. Court applied Strickland standard and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for counsel conceding guilt in closing (Wilcher) | Bennett: Wilcher admitted guilt contrary to petitioner’s instruction to pursue an “all or nothing” acquittal; this usurped petitioner’s goals and amounted to constructive denial of counsel (presumed prejudice under Cronic). | State: Counsel made a tactical concession to acknowledge evidence while arguing lack of malice/premeditation; counsel otherwise performed vigorously (opening, extensive cross, expert, lengthy closing). Apply Strickland, not Cronic. | Denied. Court found tactical decision, not constructive denial; Strickland applied and no prejudice given overwhelming evidence. |
| 2. Conflict of interest by co-counsel (Rodgers) who previously represented State witness Elisha F. | Bennett: Rodgers’ prior representation of Elisha F. created an actual conflict that affected performance; under Cuyler/Sullivan prejudice is presumed. | State: Prior representation ended months before appointment; no evidence Rodgers actively represented conflicting interests at trial; Rodgers cross‑examined Elisha extensively and impeached her via CPS testimony. | Denied. No actual conflict shown and no adverse effect on performance; no presumed prejudice. |
| 3. Inadequate pretrial investigation (multiple failures) | Bennett: Counsel failed to consult adequately, interview child witnesses, retain experts on child memory/CSA, or DNA‑test a toenail — undermining defense and credibility attacks. | State: Counsel conducted multi-hour investigations, reviewed medical records, interviewed relevant staff, consulted experts, and made reasonable strategic choices (not to call certain experts or interview children). Toenail testing unnecessary given no suggestion of third‑party perpetrator. | Denied. Investigative efforts were reasonable; strategic decisions not deficient; no reasonable probability of different outcome. |
| 4. Cumulative error | Bennett: Even if single errors are insufficient, their cumulative effect was prejudicial. | State: No individual errors found; therefore cumulative-error claim fails. | Denied. No errors to aggregate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathena v. Haines, 219 W.Va. 417 (2006) (standard of review for habeas corpus appeals)
- State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3 (1995) (adoption of Strickland ineffective-assistance two-prong test in West Virginia)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (circumstances permitting presumed prejudice for denial of counsel)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (standard for conflict-of-interest claims; actual conflict affecting performance required)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (clarifies need to show active representation of conflicting interests)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (discusses narrow circumstances where prejudice may be presumed under Cronic)