James W. Chambers v. Bill Armontrout

825 learning investigative center new to the court’s refusal district in the no error plan. the We under court’s by the will be built funding settled liabilities reallocate the plan. the Board that on remand improvements agree capital with district-wide hearing to should conduct district court the dis addition, contends the Board center and add an a site for the new select funds in the placed should trict court purchase to the selected amount sufficient budget to remove asbestos magnet plan magnet plan budget. Other- site the the increase magnet schools from all wise, acquisition the site costs approve we with elevators magnet schools of number budgeted. court the The Board did handicapped students. for asbestos removal question of raise the contends the district Finally, the Board court, we decline to district in the closing of erroneously ordered the court time issue for the consider Wade, Ames, We Madison schools. Fayette v. School appeal. See Felton court’s unwilling to disturb district are the (8th Cir.1989). 191, As Dist., F.2d 193 closing three schools these decision that handicapped for access the issue of far magnet plan. the We goals serves concerned, the record contains students is out, phased should be schools believe the provided improvements suggestion no however, seating replacement be- satisfy magnet plan will in the for sched- in the schools comes available new handicapped access. federal standards for magnet for construction under uled (1989); pt. id. 34 C.F.R. 104.22-.23 §§ plan. A, paras. 20-21. app. carefully all of Having considered the district attacks The Board next contentions, the district we affirm Board’s liability to limit State’s court’s proceedings remand for further court and capital improvements magnet school opinion. We also reaf- consistent with funding obligation.” “one-time goal have stated before: firm we what at reject the Board’s We F.Supp. at 464. magnet 14,000 students is to enroll carefully pre court’s The district tack. deadline for the 1989-90 Since schools. pru financially “a budgеt represents pared met, the reaching this mark cannot now id. improvement,” approach school dent goal at to achieve the strive parties shall with aim we find consistent possible. time the earliest magnet facilities making St. Louis’s with those “reasonably comparable v. Board Liddell districts.” suburban Cir.1986) (8th 278, 283

Educ., F.2d IX). reject

(Liddell We also Board’s budget magnet plan

contention ceiling on State’s arbitrary

places an magnet school responsibility

financial The Board has capital improvements. CHAMBERS, Appellant, W. James its claim any evidence presented inadequate to budget is magnet plan ARMONTROUT, Appellee. Bill par on a magnet schools Louis’s place St. Thus, arewe districts. the suburban No. 88-2383. has district court to conclude unable Appeals, Court of United States “its pay less than State ordered Eighth Circuit. ex ... the reasonable share of magnet Liddell penses school[s].” [the] 19, 1990. Jan. Submitted (8th Educ., F.2d v. Board of July Decided VIII). Cir.1985) (Liddell the district contends The Board also mag funding in the provide failed a site to accommodate budget for plan

net

I. BACKGROUND was tried Chambers In December in the Circuit for the murder of Oestricker At County, Missouri. of Jefferson gave trial, eyewitnesses сonflict- two surrounding the versions of the events ing and killed shot moment when Chambers Arnold, Mis- outside bar Oestricker souri. eye- Ieppert, government’s

Fred (1) witness, following: to the testified engaged and Oestricker Chambers (2) bar; both argument inside heated to take and decided Chambers Oestricker (3) outside; upon their argument and exit, chair to the Ieppert moved from his bar, to do taking a few seconds door of the observe testified that he could Ieppert so. (1) following from the door: Oestricker air; (2) in the up with his hands stood pistol at Oestricker pointed Chambers single into fired a shot Oestricker’s and chest; (3) Oes- pistol-whipped Chambers to the times after he fell tricker several (4) told the victim ground; and that, tough guy,” epi- “take shouted bar, away. and ran thet into the eyewitness, had the other James minutes before the left the bar several Mo., Clayton, Schlesinger, R. Thomas car in the shooting had to wait but appellant. engine parking lot because bar’s Mo., Cone, City, Jefferson Richard Jared He testified that observed flooded. apрellee. (1) (Chambers) man following: the smaller first, walked about half left the bar LAY,- R. Judge, FLOYD Chief Before bar; truck, facing the length of a and stood HEANEY, Senior Circuit and GIBSON (Oestricker) (2) man left the bar bigger McMILLIAN, ARNOLD, Judges and later; (3) argued; two men moment FAGG, BOWMAN, GIBSON, JOHN R. (4) moved towards Chambers Oestricker BEAM, WOLLMAN, MAGILL face, knocking and struck Chambers Judges. Circuit (5) ground; Oestricker, who up then stood and shot- HEANEY, Judge. Circuit Senior (6) standing away; feet Oestricker six wall; (7) hit against the appeals his state con- fell back James times, gun with the several capi- the victim of death for and sentence viction (8) ground; knocking the victim to We Jerry Lee Oestricker. tal murder of bar, any of into the “Do yelled Chambers Chambers the conviction because reverse victim, any of this?” and to you want assistance of counsel ineffective received die”; (9) interview, ran (2) “Lay there and (1) failed to when his counsel ' engine car that had its trial, (3) nearby parked to a failed to call at failed to call (10) sped quickly running; and the car who would sentencing the witness addition, Jones testified away. acted in self- that Chambers testified foot-one inch tall was six defense. the bulk of the Ieppert providing Fred and that Chambers pounds weighed weighed At conclusion of prosecution’s inches tall and case. five foot-nine only eye- evidence, requested a self-defense pounds. occuring just before to the events witness the earlier As with instruction. shooting. jury the on to the trial court refused instruct right the denied self-defense and Chambers requested that attorney Chambers’ closing argu- argue in his to self-defense the be submitted instruction The second trial also resulted ment. jury refused. The trial court jury. The At sentenc- capital murder. guilty of murder conviction Chambers found mute, waiving death. ing, Hager him to Chambers’ sentenced sat mitigating right present Supreme Court appeal, the Missouri On leniency. sentenced argue for v. conviction. State Cham the reversed to death. Chambers (en banc) (Mo.1984) bers, S.W.2d 781 there suf It held that was I]. [Chambers yet another attor assistance of With the on an instruction justify ficient evidence Mis again appealed to the ney, Chambers to Jonеs’ self-defense, specifically pointing strong dis Over the souri Court. struck Chambers testimony that Oestricker affirmed the judges, the court sent of two the face, knocking Chambers to the sentence. v. and the death State conviction that a The court held at 783. ground. (en (Mo.1986) Chambers, 714 S.W.2d Oes- reasonably conclude that jury could banc) [Chambers II]. aggressor and initial was the tricker 1986, filed a Cham On November Chambers shot Oestricker Chambers of Jefferson bodily harm. Id.1 the great motion in Circuit feared 27.26 assert- County Missouri Rule under in Jefferson retried Missouri assistance ing that he received ineffective was newly appointed counsel His County. hearing A at the second trial. of counsel Hag- defender. Hager, public W. Donald February was held on this on motion called Jones nor neither interviewed er testified, includ- witnesses 1987. Several of Chambers. testify on behalf ver- to the same testified ing Jones. With not call Jones. state did the first trial.2 he had events as sion of proceeded exception, Hager nor testified neither with Jones also as the first the same manner much conclu- the same appellant could have drawn Supreme Court stated: The Missouri sion here. exchange inside Although verbal there was I, at 783. 671 S.W.2d aggres- tavern, physical act of the initial the however, some attempt, to eliminate Cham- struck Jones did occurred when sion apparent created Consequently, jury could confusion in the face. bers reasonably Oestricker, first conclude Chambers, Schlesinger, coun- aggressor. Chambers’ Q: initial was [Thomas lines on the first seven read from in stature—5'6" tall sel]: Page is small Please trial], Oestricker, transcript of the oth pounds. on weighing [of here, right hand, "No. It was pounds. Jones]: Some A: [James 6'4" and 250 was er against size, however, body, putting kind is re it behind his thing more than fear and the him leg. between deadly Q. Was Oestricker justify use of force quired gun back action, Q. So was ges A. Yeah. door? affirmative Some self-defense. right? A. Yeah." person here? Is feared communication ture or indicating you just read says Okay. Q: it here—or Now immediacy danger, the against his using you testified it kind necessity and thе ability avoid it was hidden? leg. you mean it present. v. Did deadly also be State force must was hidden. it didn’t mean that (Mo.App. A: No. Jackson, S.W.2d [522 you gave accu- here Isom, (Mo. Q: Is 1975)]; v. 660 S.W.2d 739 State Hicks, rate? S.W.2d 215 v. App.1983). [438 In State anybody say. I could show ], A: I would (Mo.1969) much the victim —I You could was. you show where could larger but also than the defendant say I would judgment it. your own make found these aggressor. This Court initial hidden, opinion. personal my being own necessity for its appearance of created an factors CV186-4580-CC-J3, Missouri, No. v. protect deadly him force to use defendant 23, 1987). (Mo.23d Feb. Cir. Certainly, transcript at 67 bodily harm. against ‍​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‍self severe appealed district court’s public defenders’ of- anyone else appeal, he ar- the first trial. to this On him since Court. fice had contacted denied effective assist- gues that at the Rule 27.26 testified also Hager did not in- ance of counsel because that before the sec- hearing. He testified call Jones and did not terview testimony from read Jones’ ond trial he had agreed, re- panel trial. A of this Circuit any- that neither he nor but court. versing the district public defenders’ office from the one else (8th Cir.1989). Armontrout, 885 F.2d 1318 testified contacted Jones.3 ever rehearing en granted petition We much of Jones’ testimo- that he considered After panel vacated the decision. banc and damaging. The as- ny to be banc, en we reaffirm rehearing appeal according Hager, were that Cham- pects, panel and reverse the district decision turned, first, stopped, stepped outside bers relief. court’s denial of habeas Oestricker, concealing pis- a and waited for pistol- leg; Chambers against tol shouted, “Lay whipped and Oestricker II. DISCUSSION die;” feet was six there and analyzing a the standards for Under moving away towards Chambers and counsel claim of ineffective assistance of shooting; and the time of the Chambers Washington, enunciated in Strickland facing in car that was left the scene a 668, 104 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 466 U.S. running. engine On this ba- road with its (1984), Hager’s must show that sis, that he did not inter- Hager testified prej and that it performance was deficient call Jones at the second Jones or

view udiced defense. id. at Chambers’ damaging that the as- he believed because performance 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Counsel’s outweighed its pects of Jones’ competent than is deficient when it is less mitigating value. provided by a the assistance that should be Rule 27.26 motion was denied Chambers’ cir attorney under the same County. of Jefferson by the Circuit cumstances. Id. ruling denied appeal of that His Appeals, applica- and his Missouri Court A. FAILURE TO INTERVIEW JONES the Missouri for transfer to tion potential a wit- The decision to interview denied. Court was ness is not a decision related to trial strate- petition filed a for a writ next Rather, gy. related to ade- is a decision corpus in federal court. Cham- of habeas Thus, Hager quate preparation for trial. alia, he alleged, that was denied inter investiga- duty had “a to make reasonable at the sec- of counsel effective assistance tions or to make a reasonable decision Hager failed to interview because оnd trial particular investigations unneces- makes call him at that trial. Jones or to Be- sary.” 104 S.Ct. at 2066. Hager’s perform- held district court by Hag- never cause Jones was interviewed constitutionally adequate. The ance was er, Hag- whether question before us is the decision not to court concluded not to interview Jones was er’s decision reason- call Jones at trial was interview or perspective at reasonable from counsel’s potential as- able because the time that decision was made. testimony, pects of Jones’ case, witness, by Hag- The facts of this confirmed credible and because was not a testimony at the signed pretrial a statement in er’s actions at trial and Hager’s hearing, not Rule 27.26 indicate that there was agreed with decision which he upon Accordingly, only one defense which Chambers to call Jones rely: That defense was petition Chambers’ could self-defense. court denied district capital realistic defense to the habeas relief. any attempt Hager’s investigator office did not make Hager testify from the did that an public up attor- office contacted Jones’ this contact. defenders’ follow conversation, ney. Nothing came of this the bar. each other in argue with er did ‍​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‍not Moreover, self-defense charge. murder contended never appropriate Chambers mitigating circumstance awas challenge each a determining other did Oestrieker jury’s consideration to fight. sentenced should whether Thus, without death. at both trials contend did knocked that Oestrieker fight was theory that the government’s argue permitted was not ground, where outside lure Oestrieker ruse to complete or partial as either fiction him murder could Without capital murder. defense shoot- that the contended fact. He and not only return could testimony, altercation a barroom ing grew out guilty of that Chambers verdict he had after in self-defense he acted murder. ground Oestrieker. been knocked Hager's grave effect Because strategy did apparent Bеcause Chambers’ capi- in this interview not to decision the sec- trial to change from alleges case, Chambers murder tal of new indication no and because ond trial He unreasonable. existed, reasonable different an interview asserts Cham- anticipated that counsel problems many of the (1) clarified much as proceed second trial bers’ first testimony at the in Jones’ saw Hager of testi- lack Except for the did. the first own make his to Hager trial, (2) permitted that tending show Oestrieker to mony credi- and demeanor of Jones’ assessment just ground be- to the Chambers knocked Hager to ascertain (3) bility, permitted him, trial shot fore Chambers testimo- to his adhere Jones whether did. as the proceed much did 2, (4) note supra see the first ny at very testi- lacked therefore second trial evi- additional to discover Hager enabled Supreme Court Missouri mony that Chambers, (5) en- and to favorable dence in instruction self-defense justified stated his in more effective be Hager to abled the first put forward of witnesses cross-examination Hager’s however, government.4 that by argues, Missouri reason Jones was not to interview decision Hag- the reasonableness To determine aspects of damaging light of able re- interview to er’s Other disagree. We testimony. Jones’ as circumstances underlying of the view negative as to had testified witnesses trial of second time Hager at the to known Hager testimony cited pects of Jones’ never contended Chambers order. is in to interview his decision justifying Cham- Oestrieker. not shoot he did that any tes respect, In that Jones.5 and Oestrick- that he never contended bers weapon). hiding knife some was Chambers suggest Jones that Although the State does have clarified Jones would Hager unavailable, An interview that argues investiga- that further supplied by State information the defendant. unnecessary tion particular, of Jones because investigation what deci- theory did not intend to use are depends critically sions reasonable on argument at trial. This example, self-defense is such information. Fоr when by supported not the facts of the case. the facts that potential a certain Hager’s proceeded defense of Chambers on line of generally defense are known to theory. questions a self-defense His on counsel because of what the defendant said, solely were focused on cross-examination has the need investiga- for further Hager requested of self-defense. may issue tion considerably be diminished or denied a self-defense altogether. instruction. eliminated And when a de- 466, 509, 542, I, 566, 680, 700; Assuming Hager’s Chambers T. at 6. determination that II, 330, 360, 375, 420-21, 508, reasonable, credibility see at Chambers T. lacked Jones we aspect determination, facts, Hager 591. The final considered doubt that that under these justify related to Jones’ would that after reasonable counsel’s decision not shooting, waiting only only ran to interview to a car witness who had the running supporting immediately sped with its motor which an essential element of the defendant's defense. off. damning The dissent asserts that the "most argument Hager's 7. The State’s is that decision planning evidence of cool was Jones' very not to interview Jones is reasonable running.” may that the car was left This indeed agreed reason that Chambers with the decision case, witness, be the but another Dennis Sim- signed signed statement. Chambers’ state- mons, testified that Chambers had a car "wait- ment is as follows: 656-57; I, ing.” Chambers T. at see Chambers II premeditation agree subpoena at 460-61. This evidence of that Mr. need not jury, my therefore was before the but without or call James Jones at trial. His cross Oestricker, testimony that extremely Jones’ further larger a much examination at the first trial was damaging man, ground knocked Chambers to the to me and I believe it would be at shooting before the occurred —evidence which the second trial. I have been admonished theory calling may was essential to the self-defense not James Jones not be shooting may possible tended to show that the not have to obtain instruction on self premeditated presented been was not to the defense. jury. James W. Chambers 4/13/85 /s/ lеss made after choices “[Strategic Jones. to be- reason given counsel has fendant reasonable investigation are complete investigations than certain pursuing lieve reasonable harmful, extent that coun- as precisely even or fruitless be would limita- supports the investiga- judgment those professional pursue failure sel’s Strickland, 466 challenged as un- investigation.” be may not later tions tions Hager’s 690-91, at 104 S.Ct. at U.S. reasonable. only as call Jones thus not decision Strickland, 466 U.S. inter- not decision Hager's reasonable give did not statement Chambers’ amounted That decision Jones. view cer- pursuing to believe Hager reason Part counsel. or assistance ineffective fruitless investigations would tain (H)(A). Hager with provide not does It harmful. discredited that either information any gen- deference Furthermore, Rather, testimony. or Jones’ of trial strategic choices granted erally a defendant only that indicates statement lack Hager’s due to required is not counsel education, relying on grade eighth аn with to call not decision preparation, agreed Hager, provided information unreasonable was itself at trial Jones. to call decision Hager’s ap- they the circumstances light of all with the agreed or not Chambers Whether time peared make does to call decision Jones, attempted or the failing to call more reasonable any By evidentiary harmful. lacked defense that fruitless investigation to use Jones, Hager failing to call By support.9 that reasonable conclude Accordingly, we See Cham the case. law of neglected the Jones. interviewed counsel (something I, 671 S.W.2d testimony re- of Jones’ probativeness differ and the argument the barroom than heavily weighs garding indicat something physical ences only person size— was the He determination. to be danger immediacy of ing the the bar.8 —had outside altercation the entire see Jones, Hager failing to call By present). Oestrick- testimony regarding such, his As unbiased, wit uncontradicted ignored was uncontra- down knocking Chambеrs er evidentiary support provided who ness counsel Because dieted. damag whose only defense decision Chambers’ interviewed of sev merely cumlative testimony was ing assist- ineffective so constituted do not to testimony. witnesses’ State’s of the eral ance. Jones, disregarded Hager failing to call By AT TRI- JONES di TO CALL have testimony would FAILURE B. whose a witness theory that AL the State’s rectly contradicted Oes- altercation barroom Chambers’ not to Hager’s decision analysis of Our to part on Chambers’ a ruse tricker analy- our parallels as a witness call Jones where outside Oestricker lure interview not to decision Hager’s of sis of questioned Hager several shot. he was when above, exists seconds gap of several a noted 8. As Only one pliers. about the the State's witnesses eyewitness, government's the of any infor- witnesses, Ieppert, knew Fred the of of the clear view had a Ieppert. Jones Fred Ieppert testified any pliers, and mation about is con- car. This from his the bar outside area he pliers when pair of dropped a had cross- neither the State fact that firmed pull a hand- out pocket to pants in his reached the incident nor of view as to Jones' examined argues body. dead seeing Oestricker's on kerchief to see was unable appeal on unquestioned clearly. Jones’ incident the entire record indicates of the review Our emphasizes simply of incident Hager view no reason- clear had second time with Jones. interview importance of an to able would be that he conclude basis to able through of self-defense evidence sufficient elicit fact, Hager of a matter As cross-examination. sufficient attempted elicit Hager Fur- evidence. sufficient elicit unable of through cross-examination any thermore, Hager never interviewed alleged evidence The witnesses. State’s supported witnesses, including Ieppert, as to Oestricker’s trial was theory Hager’s pliers. possession pliers in his hand pair of a had 832 Armontrout, (8th Byrd v. 880 F.2d By failing him.10 to call

could murdеr Cir.1989). amounting slighted testimony Hager the subse- circumstance at mitigating to a Hager’s ineffective assist- The result of hearing. sentencing quent did not ance to sum, Hager’s decision not to call at trial or sen- testify in Chambers’ behalf admitting that in Chambers Jones resulted poten- great tencing. Jones’ without and killed Oestricker he had shot was a tial to aid Chambers’ case. Jones a ver- support that would any explanation witness who testified disinterested and sen- capital murder of less than dict enough hard Oestricker hit Chambers The has not than death. State tence of less ground before the knock Chambers to support reason to a con- offered sufficient Because no one else fatal shot was fired. Hager’s not to call clusion that occurred outside bar saw what reasonable.11 Jones was moments after Oestricker exited few bar, giv- testimony would have been Jones’ PREJUDICE C. contradiction. With jury en to the without Strickland, question remains Under in- testimony, the court would have circumstances, whether, all the light in per- jury on self-defense and structed assistance of counsel ineffective Hager's argue self-defense. Our mitted any prejudice. Prejudice occurs in resulted of the record indicates review probability reasonable “there is a when testimony substantially supported er- that, unprofessional but for counsel’s plain. approach.12 prejudice is either rors,” differ- “result would been say hap- We cannot what 694-95, Strickland, U.S. at ent.” pened at the second trial had Jones testi- 2068; Trickey, 875 F.2d S.Ct. at Sanders fied, verdict. we are not confident its but Cir.1989). (8th “A testified, Had a self-defense instruc- un- probability sufficient to probability is submitted to the tion would been in the outcome.” confidence dermine permitted have been Strickland, 466 U.S. jury might have argue self-defense. The instance, prejudice occurred In this murder, capital acquitted ei- prejudiced “conduct if deficient so by finding guilty ther him of a lesser as to undermine confidence [Chambers] sentencing. charge by finding that he acted the trial” or the outcome of (Welliver, charge probative value of Jones' of ineffective counsel.” 10. J., striking. dissenting). point altercation If barroom ruse, suggested, merely State testimony, Hager assert- provide evidence of Chambers' intent 12. Even without Jones' sufficient instruction, murder then ed that Chambers acted in self-defense or with according why to Jones’ testi- legal provocation. Hager presented did insufficient Chambers — face, evidence, however, in the mony. until Oestricker hit him either to an instruc- —wait ground, knocking to the before he shot argue him permit Hager or to tion on self-defense him? jury. self-defense to Supreme Judge of the Missouri 11." Blackmar prob- contends that the reasonable 13. The State concurring opinion point this in his Court noted guilty charge ability being found of a lesser II. in Chambers prejudice. amount We cannot does not why mystery as to the evidence that There is a Strickland, agree. 466 U.S. at defendant, knocking him the victim struck (prejudice a result is the "likelihood of require ground, which was held to to the defendant"). The favorable to the State's trial, instruction first ignores interpretation of Strickland the facts of the second. not offered in explicitly recog- Supreme that case. The Court J., II, (Blackmar, 714 S.W.2d at 534 sentencing prejudice nized that can occur in holding dissenting concurring). from a In Therefore, possibility if of a alone. evidence at the second insufficient there was prejudice, then the sentence shorter constitutes justify in- submission of a self-defense trial to charge possibility of a of a lesser struction, conviction Judge Missouri Su- Welliver of the resulting stated, sentence also constitutes opinion, shorter preme principal I “The fear, prejudice. proof of a best evidence for becomes the addition, court of its if the court and the district intention self-defense.14 regard days within 45 of this order. this sentencing, it testimony at credited Jones’ might not have sentenced GIBSON, Judge, JOHN R. Circuit death.15 FAGG, dissenting, whom BEAM, BOWMAN, MAGILL and Circuit III. CONCLUSION join. Judges, trial, ‍​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‍this case the time of the second At respectfully I dissent. brawl or appeared to involve a barroom today ignores Supreme The court not, did and could altercation. Chambers reviewing instruction that Court’s not, shooting His deny Oestricker. lawyer, Hager, performance of Chambers’ capital murder charge defense to “every made to eliminate the dis effort be that he acted in penalty the death hindsight, torting effects of to reconstruct could testi- Only one witness self-defense. challenged of counsel’s the circumstances required elements of self- fy to one of the conduct, the conduct and to evaluate from either submission of the permitting defense perspective at the time.” counsel’s Strick That wit- argument jury. to the issue or 668, 689, Washington, land v. U.S. ap- testimony would have ness’ harmful 2052, 2065, (1984). 80 L.Ed.2d 674 at the time of counsel peared to reasonable court and the state trial Like the district cumulative rather trial to be claim, court that reviewed conclude damaging. That witness significantly than properly strategic judg made a appeared That witness appeared credible. called to ment that Jones should only defense. Cham- crucial to Chambers’ testify and need not be interviewed because failed to inter- bers’ counsel nonetheless would have been more stand, al- to the or call this witness view Fur helpful harmful than to Chambers. existence, knew though he knew of thermore, studying after him. testimony, and was able to contact trial, I during the first believe that neither facts, these we hold On test has been element of the Strickland of counsel ineffective assistance received satisfied, the district and I would affirm thereby. prejudiced and was judgment denying the writ. Therefore, and remand to the we reverse Although the decision of the Missouri that it enter Court, court with directions reviewing appeal district the direct retry clearly that the state either Cham- states an order from Chambers’ sup- days this order or free within 120 that Jones’ instruction,1 Jones custody. ported The district court shall a self-defense him testify called to second notify state this was not order that further the outcome.” Id. at dermine confidence in argues Chambers cannot make Missouri 104 S.Ct. at 2068. showing prejudice adequate sufficiently against im- him was оther evidence Hag- makes two other claims: 15. Chambers also call Jones was not pressive that his failure to or call as witness- not to interview er's decision likely of the case. We alter the outcome Hotchkiss, Chapman, Eleanor es Donald I, disagree. 671 S.W.2d at 784 See Chambers Chambers effective assist- Jackie Turner denied ("While self-defense is not so the evidence of counsel; denied a and Chambers was ance of unequivocal a directed verdict of as to mandate to submit the trial court failed fair trial because justify acquittal, is sufficient to the evidence jury. As to a self-defense instruction jury.”). As- self-defense to the submission of issue, carefully we have examined former however, testimony suming, is not that Jones’ without merit. that claim to be record and find determinative, likely we would to be outcome issue, correct the trial court was As to the latter prejudice the Constitu- under still find sufficient instruction to the the self-defense not to submit prejudice prong adopting of Strick- In the tion. testimony, insuffi- jury Jones’ because absent land, it believes Supreme Court stated that the theory support the that existed to cient evidence not show that counsel’s a defendant need "that acted in self-defense. likely than not altered conduct more deficient Court, Strickland, reversing Supreme in the 466 U.S. in the case.” 1. The Missouri the outcome judgment, there was observed that The Constitution Chambers I S.Ct. at 2068. at 104 and stat- conflicting as to the incident merely requires probability to un- "a sufficient theory of the State’s supported have would court, in consider- However, trial the state that, because concluded It also case. the under Missouri’s attack ing the collateral resulted interview Jones failure to testimo- 27.26, that Jones’ concluded Rule decision, performance his strategic damaging than a from balance, was ny, on it decided Because observing that not deficient. After was helpful to Chambers. assistance, the weak effective a rendered between Hager “could cho[o]se of question it a reach the with did not theory that сarried district case,” try or the State’s prejudice.3 of strengthening did, court conclud- state he the the case a Jones was not call the decision

ed that I. of Court The Missouri one.2 conviction, Chambers the affirmed Appeals the of component effectiveness The (Mo.Ct.App.1987), State, 745 S.W.2d v. defen- the asks whether test Strickland for transfer application and Chambers’ assist- “reasonably effective dant received denied. was Court Supreme Missouri the at 2064. at 466 U.S. ance.” judi- us Moreover, teaches Strickland corpus court, habeas in this district must performance scrutiny counsel’s of testimony cial that Jones’ action, concluded bers.” State of unequivocal as to ed that ”[i]n dence (Mo. 784. acquittal, is "[w]hile submission The detailed That, ported a self-defense vantages. The rated fied State's deliberate on al, der though ty tages car with of Oestricker. position to observe way and strategy between standpoint. strategy almost as follows: [the] self-defense, During 1984) (en cross-examination in his 3) attempt in thаt conflicted with highly submission. reflecting light most favorable of having the evidence theory fatal shot the evidence at trial Jones' Jones' the decision the victim State’s this of self-defense professional one, examining State's v. manner, reasoning banc). running we must consider Chambers, proceeding, "cooly” upon ... based testimony The fact mandate State’s cross-examination main witness—Fred impossible negate benefit of pair witnesses; 2) suggest that Mr. the condition to: his defense case under of self-defense the court After upon in that the record adduced engine instruction, is sufficient opinion, the disadvan- of Hager knew that 1) petitioner at the the element a to call pliers Donald outweighed attack strategic directed reviewing Jones' S.W.2d appellant and the distance state made this concluded supported taking strategy. His jury.” in his the evidence for evidence capital mur- Hager testi- of the it corrobo- trial testimony verdict concerns. is Ieppert— of Cham- credibili- practical hands; Cham justify judge Id. geta- time sup- evi life ad- tri- ... [a] al- so of had slip op. agreed op. at 12 The district just exist under negating Court clusion that witness. This call first trial. the evidence counsel at 691 [104 Jones' witness. petitioner’s written and ment that he ments or actions.” tially sel’s actions theory tended The Court court also not read professional n. 2. Jim Jones petitioner’s trial counsel’s decision "an thus regard. with the light influenced at 12-13 ^[******] Judge noted, earlier of the (E.D.Mo. July reasonably v. ordinary the of Armontrout, No. Missouri, those circumstances. court’s rejected agreed may did, finds reasonable decision not cool reflection As the United case ”[t]he and the circumstances was a reasonable signed (23d judgment in the state’s foregoing, the Court especially true be determined barroom and Jones' Strickland, supra, assessed at 2066]. reasoning is reasonableness Cir.Ct. Chambers' No. statement ‍​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‍in the whole matter 19, 1988). to not petitioner’s own signed pretrial state- counsel’s decision on both CV186-4580-CC-J3, to call Jones theory March the affect altercation” 88-0567C(3), slip consideration States credibility as a call Jones. counsel’s Furthermore, claim one of of the might the state’s 11, 1987). which based on Supreme interest: substan- view of that he [sic] not to coun- state- finds thus aas con- case U.S. was of lieve, Without ^[******] least testimony a one [Missouri] might be-

835 White, F.2d 689, v. 825 deferential,” (quoting 1393 Blackmon at 104 id. “highly be Cir.1987)), 1263, (8th even a because 2065, the “dis- 1265 eliminate and should S.Ct. at strategy “may have hindsight,” losing id. been torting effects of case.” Id. at of an unfavorable in the face part performing In removed) (quoting Black (emphasis 1394 distinguish be analysis, courts Strickland 1265). mon, 825 F.2d at inadequate from that result tween actions are the those that pretrial preparation attempts argu- to formulate strategy decisions. See trial product of upon Hager’s allegedly inade- ments based 788-95, 776, 107 Kemp, 483 U.S. Burger v. However, investigation. as the Sev- quate (1987); 3122-26, 3114, L.Ed.2d 638 97 S.Ct. enth has observed: Circuit 365, Morrison, 477 U.S. v. Kimmelman allegation of the ineffective- When 2574, 2587-89, 384-87, 91 L.Ed.2d 106 S.Ct. supposed centers on a ness of counsel 477 Wainwright, (1986); v. 305 Darden how, investigate, we cannot see failure to 2473-74, 2464, 184-87, 168, 106 S.Ct. U.S. pro- in the contеxt a habeas especially Strickland, (1986); 466 144 91 L.Ed.2d the state collaterally ceeding attacks 2064-66; 687-91, at Unit 104 U.S. at conviction, petitioner’s obli- court 702, (3d 711 F.2d Gray, ed v. States comprehen- a be met without gation can Armontrout, Cir.1989); 863 F.2d v. Laws investigation showing as to what sive (en banc), Cir.1988) (8th 1377, cert. 1382-86 The focus of produced. would — 1944, U.S. -, denied, 109 S.Ct. information on what inquiry must be — -, denied, 415, U.S. reh’g L.Ed.2d an from such would have been obtained (1989). 3179, 104 L.Ed.2d informa- whether such investigation and make reasonable duty to has a “[C]ounsel court, admissibility in tion, assuming its a reasonable deci investigations or to make result. produced a different investigations particular that makes sion DeRobertis, rel. v. ex Cross United States case, unnecessary. any ineffectiveness Cir.1987). (7th F.2d investigate decision particular a second Hager, counsel Chamber’s trial directly for reasonable assessed be must testimo trial, transcript of Jones’ read the circumstances, a applying in all the ness that the trial and concluded ny in the first to counsel’s heavy measure of deference help than was more Strickland, 466 U.S. judgments.” today states that ful. While the Third Circuit 2066. As 104 S.Ct. at re interview stated, general is recently “Ineffectiveness trial rath preparation for inadequate complete flects failure in the context ly clear strategy, that con trial hardly a can er than conscious investigate counsel Hager careful fact strategic ignores choice clusion said to have made be investiga analyzed line of against pursuing ly certain studied any yet obtained and knew s/he has not tion when strong up decision could open such a on which from it would departures facts F.2d at 711. inter Gray, 878 to not His decision credibility made.” attack. inade not demonstrate does view Jones scrutiny which the close In contrast to rather a but preparation for quate preparatory attorney’s give to an courts testimony. The analysis of known careful given an activities, greater deference interviewed Hager to have only reason for In strategic choices. informed attorney’s if to see have been Jones would deed, since Strickland it has been clear story. Hager decided change his made after thor “strategic choices any sub even Jones because to interview facts rele investigation of law ough story changes in his stantial, beneficial virtually un are options plausible vant danger of an excessive have created Strickland, 466 U.S. challengeable.” devastating impeachment. Chambers Also, reviewing S.Ct. at 2066. Furthermore, as State, 745 S.W.2d counsel, “courts must performance 27.26 testimony at the is clear from a law second-guess temptation resist only new information hearing, Laws, 863 F.2d strategy.” yer’s trial shot and was time of the at the Jones’ Chambers produced was have interview 747). (Id. at Chambers. moving toward when he said not that explanation lame rather that, shooting Oes- after also said gun “back Jones held the had Chambers building into the tricker, walked not mean Chambers leg, he did his against here” and any of else wanted anybody n. “if at 827 asked ante and See hidden. that it was building, 746). left the (Id. As he at embellishment this.” Such n. 5. 829-830 Oestricker, “Lay there chаnge that could said to aof Chambers sort precisely the 747). (Id. at damaging cross-examination and die.” led to had ex- Jones Jones, particularly con- testimony, cannot upon this Based that Cham- first trial the at plicitly stated unreasonably in an Hager acted clude weapon. the displaying was bers not call deciding to ineffective manner 740-41). at (Chambers I Tr. supported testimony Even if Jones’ Jones. instruction, me the record convinces study of the My a self-defense and the district held, court also the state Missouri both Court of testimony. Chambers, pistol assessed con- properly awith court indicated Jones testified for Oes- leg, At the waited against Cham his both cealed turned was car which and, arrived after door out of the to come tricker lot. parking a bar’s the exit face while struck, fatal shot fired the being 748). As Chambers Tr. at (Chambers I away and feet was six Oestricker was run car was left building, the entered threatening the him. After moving toward by the driver. occupied still ning and was car bar, ran to the in the Chambers crowd saw that he 748-49). testified (Id. at him, motor with its had waited which door, get about out the come Chambers incident. during the entire running, truck, or of an automobile distance half the was there question of whether While (Id. at door. half-way toward and turn support a enough evidence out followed Chambers 738). Oestricker the evi- considering involves instruction enough hard Chambers and struck the door to Cham- favorable light most in the dence then (Id.). Chambers him down. to knock testi- bers, professional evaluation a forward, Oes- and shot step up, took got considering it impact involves mony’s trial (Id.). tricker. it. jury would consider light that cross-examination, re- However, on I cannot analysis, and a far broader This is walked out that when vealed unreasonably in- conclude half-way, al- he around and turned door impact assessment effective 740), hands, (Id. at in his pistol had a ready jury. The Su- positioned leg and gun against with to find ineffective refused has preme 741). Oestricker him, (Id. at behind intro- did lawyer where assistance when door through the just emerging which, turn, could helpful evidence duce with around turnеd stopped, of other to the introduction led Oestricker hand, waited for gun in U.S. testimony. Burger, 483 harmful also testi- 741-42). Jones (Id. out. at come Darden, 3122; 788-95, at- Oestricker not seen fied that 184-87, at 2473-74. U.S. before tempt to strike Chambers such a just presented testimony by Jones 742). (Id. at gun out. initially took the follow should Hager, and we dilemma shot after According to by re- Supreme Court teaching of “[tjake either Oestricker, said ineffective that there fusing to hold (Id.). that.” that, tough guy,” “[t]ake respect. in this assistance grunt- shot, made being Oestricker After only one answer today has or four three up and backed ing sound testimony: aspects of Jones’ damaging to- walked (Id.). then steps. “any it states in the head slapped him him and ward cumu- trial was gave at the first again.” over over pistol “[o]ver An appellate 829-830. Ante Furthermore, lative.” 742-43). (Id. at cumu- testimony categorizes often away from court six feet standing about taking Jerry of Lee the life deciding questions, but in evidence lative coolly fully of matter upon at all context no answer reflected this is (Chambers evаluating Hager’s doing decision. While II Tr. at before so.” conclusively that 681). testimo- damning court establishes evidence of cool most Fowler, Ieppert, Fred Dennis ny by James testimony that the car planning was Jones’ other witnesses over- and several Simmons testimony running, left that Jones, testimony by ante lapped with theory undercuts that he inno- Chambers’ 5, establish that Jones’ n. it fails to 829-830 cently went into the bar to drink with Oes- only negligible testimony would have had tricker, squarely supports but it the State’s underscoring the jury, thus impact on planned shooting theory that Chambers call Hager’s decision wisdom entering even before the bar. Because only wit- testify. Jones was Jones trial, the was not called at the second outside incident ness who saw the whole jury at that trial was unaware this dam- evaluating prob- Hager, when the bar. aging information. jury, testimony on the impact of Jones’ able also would have hurt reasonably concluded tht Jones’ have could contradicting testimony of directly points damaging would drive only Ieppert, Fred witness besides strategiс That jury. home to the concerning the Jones who testified events from the testi- must be viewed is one that shooting. immediately preceded the that are jury, because we mony’s on the impact trial, Ieppert both Jones and At first jury’s verdict would deciding how the here shot Oestricker testified appellate court An have been affected. still, standing approx while Oestricker was when it far different exercise engages in a away imately six from Chambers. feet that evidence is cumulative concludes 750-51). 464, 746-47, (Chambers Tr. at either should deciding evidence whether Ieppert confronted with state After excluded, or wheth- admitted or have been pre-trial at a had made Ieppert ments It prejudicial. harmless or er error was however, Ieppert at the hearing, testified however, jury impact, was the moving trial that Oestricker second analyzed. when the shot was toward Chambers Moreover, that all the court’s assertion 451). Iep- (Chambers II Tr. at fired. already testimony was harmful of Jones’ helps testimony at the second pert’s pat- jury in the second trial4 is before theory. Had support a self-defense at the Had Jones testified ently incorrect. trial, he would have second testified at the trial, he would introduced second Thus, Ieppert. it is directly contradicted information that would piece of important can how the court to understand difficult capital an element of helped establish testimony “cumula part call this murder, hurt he would have tive.” contradicting the directly the fact important witness. to consider another It is also trial, that, second before the trial, Jones testified Cham- At the first agreed in which he with signed statement made a in a car that U-turn bers arrived The Su- not call Jones. the decision to street, stayed in the that someone face the stated Strickland preme Court inside, went car while actions of counsel’s reasonableness “[t]he two inside the bar substantially influ- or may be determined minutes, en- and that car's or three own statements by the defendant’s enced during entire running gine was left actions,” U.S. at 748-49). At (Chambers I Tr. at episode. are those statements critical and that trial, was instructed litigation deci- proper assessment to a Chambers of convict could sions, signed state- Chambers’ id. When that he only if it found “considered murder question of wheth- today upon than relevant Although relies testimo- the court called at the second trials, why have been explain er Jones should ny it does not from both trial, by other at the first witnesses for coun- not unreasonable held that it was combination is considered ment into offering refrain from testimony at the sel to content of Jones’ concerning the defendant’s reports, the decision medical convinced I am condition, he felt to be under Strick- mental not call Jones at 1352-53. helpful. than land. Laws, F.2d at 1387-91. 863 also argu- to answer court, purporting State, ain engages by the made ments credibility.5 of Jones’ discussion substantial II. credibility of Jones’ affirmation The court’s today, how- position its hardly supports called if should Even testimony believable ever, because Jones’ test is not satisfied unless the Striсkland case. home the State’s hammered simply “that the also demonstrate can de- prejudiced performance deficient Hager’s actions views Strickland, U.S. at fense.” it concludes that when myopic sense prejudice, prove In order S.Ct. at was a witness because as not called that there is a must show defendant bene- Hager had full “[t]he interviewed. that, for coun- but probability earlier reasonable transcript of Jones’ fit the trial errors, result strategic unprofessional de- a careful sel’s testimony and made been different.” more proceeding that the termination A reasonable any changes at 2068. and that 104 S.Ct. helpful Id. than harmful up is one which “suf- open probability is defined as testimony would in the in hurt the out- that would undermine confidence vigorous cross-examination ficient second-guess thorough After a examination should Id. We come.” Chambers. contrary light record, that there is not I conclude place of the required probability Strickland. the introduction to that changed of Jones’ Hаger’s assistance holding In trial.6 of the second the outcome ineffective, today the court unreasonably contrary to that reached a result reaches judg- Accordingly, I affirm recognized we in which earlier decisions denying the writ. the district court ment of violated when is not that Strickland professional counsel, exercise mitigat produce not to

judgment, decides con reasonably be could

ing than helpful. sidered (8th Armontrout, 888 F.2d v.

Smith medical that certain

Cir.1989), held we the defendant hurt

records would have helped, and we re they much

least lawyer decision of a flyspeck the

fused at 534-35. Similar the fact.

long after Lockhart, 885 F.2d

ly, Swindler — U.S. -, denied, Cir.1989), (8th cert. (1990),we L.Ed.2d not called at that Jones fact the Missouri 5. The statement significant differences simply There were is second credible Jones' Court found strength point defense opinion. at 827 n. upon See ante which not based its Hager. example, cross-ex- attempt waged by For under did not the State fact that 1. The trial, but not at completely credibility under- second amination impeach Jones’ first, Vaughn gave that Oestricker Kenneth stated light that Jones standable in crazy— fight "wanting like the case. was drunk wanting version of to the State's (Chambers fight anybody.” II Tr. impeached 385). significantly sever- also the statement in detail We need not discuss {See,e.g., Chambers II witnesses. today al of the other assumption the court made Fowler). 581-615) (Testimony James except essentially Tr. at the same the two trials were notes Chambers was impres give such phone num- to intended and he never disposal address his at had Third, testified investigator was Jones supra note 2. who paid and sion. See Jones ber interview, locate, subpoena Sev Oestrieker. pistol-whipped to that Chambers available also testified witnesses State’s eral Jones. Oestrieker. pistol-whipped the first testified notes that State 5. The 689; 654, 556, 645, 508, see Cham 465, I, T. at and waited bar first left that Chambers 540-41, 420, 458, 374-77, II, T. at bers to testified witnesses Numerous Oestrieker. Fourth, time he at the testified Second, testimo trials. at both fact this ny away standing shot, six feet Oestrieker imply that to be read trial could at to leppert testified Fred Chambers. bar, intentionally hid Chambers, left the as he 464; I, see T. same fact. wit A state view. Oestricker’s pistol from (Fred leppert testified II, at 447 T. trials. at both fact same to the testified ness feet). was five two sepаrating the distance 64709, Transcript Chambers, No. Missouri Jones' Fifth, considered that he ‍​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‍Hager indicated (testimony I, James T.] [Chambers 505-07 Fowler, epi several shouted testimony that Chambers v. Cham Missouri patron); see a bar patrons other bar and the Oestrieker thets at 67191, Transcript [Chambers 586-88 bers, No. damaging. Numerous shooting to after the (testimony I, T. II, T.]; see abo this fact. testified repeatedly witnesses witnesses other leppert and several Fred gave at timony that Jones the first trial The trial court permit Hager also did not cumulative, and argue reasonable counsel jury. self-defense to the im Most have interviewed Jones to make sure portantly, the theory, as either willing repeat his earlier partial a total or defense to murder testimony that Oestricker knocked Cham mitigating or a circumstance at the sen ground, satisfy himself bers tencing phase, only possi was Chambers’ testimony, of Jones’ remainder to ble, indeed, reasonable, defense to credibility. assess Jones’ penalty. the death See also v. Mont Code (11th Cir.1986) gomеry, 799 F.2d argues The State also deci- (failure investigate sole defense estab sion not to interview Jones was reasonable ineffectiveness) lished and cases cited reasonably determined therein. credibility. that Jones lacked We do not (1) agree: Supreme Missouri Court The State’s final contention is that Cham- decision in based its to remand gave Hager reason to believe that (2) testimony; for a new trial on Jones’ investigation further of Jones would be government attempt impeach no made fruitless or even harmful.7 In trial; (3) credibility Hag- at the first contention, the State relies on lan- spoke er met Jones nor with him on never guage in Strickland. telephone to form a enabling Strickland, however, Jones; (4) inapposite. personal impression of Strickland stated transcript of Jones’ at the first upon no trial discloses basis which reason- [cjounsel’s usually actions are based would have concluded that able counsel quite properly, strategic on informed not a credible Jones was witness.6 choices made the defendant and on

Case Details

Case Name: James W. Chambers v. Bill Armontrout

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Jul 5, 1990

Citation: 907 F.2d 825

Docket Number: 88-2383

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.