Ward v. State, 969 N.E.2d 46

Ward was convicted in a second trial for the 2001 rape and murder of Stacy Payne and sentenced to death after a penalty-phase trial.
Direct appellate review affirmed the death sentence; Ward later filed a post-conviction relief petition in Indiana.
The post-conviction court denied relief, and Ward appeals challenging counsel performance, Eighth Amendment claims, and Napue-related claims.
The opinion analyzes claims under Strickland v. Washington, considering both trial and appellate counsel, as well as Cronic and Napue frameworks.
The court weighs mitigation evidence against aggravating evidence, concluding the penalty verdict was not prejudiced by alleged deficiencies.
Key issues include mitigation investigation, expert selection, presentation of certain testimony, and prosecutorial conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mitigation investigation deficient	Ward contends trial counsel failed to conduct a thorough mitigation investigation.	Ward's trial team conducted a reasonable investigation and made strategic choices.	Not deficient; no prejudice; investigation reasonable under Strickland.
Mental-health experts selection/preparation	Ward argues experts were ill-suited, retained late, and lacked background to form opinions.	Counsel thoughtfully selected experts and coordinated a reasonable mitigation strategy.	Not deficient; preparation and selection reasonable; no prejudice.
Guilty plea and execution-impact mitigation	Trial counsel failed to present Ward's guilty plea as mitigating and to argue execution impact.	Closing argued mitigating aspects and Ward's guilty plea was effectively highlighted.	Not prejudicial; strategy reasonable; plea presented in closing argu- ment.
Prosecutorial evidence/arguments impact	Counsel failed to object to DNA/anal-swab evidence and victim-impact/victim-related arguments.	Evidence and remarks were properly within trial strategy and properly limited.	Not ineffective; prejudice not shown; overwhelming aggravation evidence.
Cronic framework applicability	Continued denial, funding restrictions, and voir-dire changes created a presumption of prejudice.	Cronic not satisfied; there was not a complete denial or complete inability to test the State's case.	Cronic claims fail; no presumption of prejudice.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (prejudice from deficient mitigation investigation)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (review of mitigation evidence and reasonable investigation)
Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447 (U.S. 2009) (mitigation evidence and mental health considerations)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (adequacy of mitigation investigation standards)
Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2003) (inadvertent omissions and strategic choices)