http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2011/02/09/the-daily-digest-2911/ Wed, 15 May 2013 21:56:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/2011/02/09/the-daily-digest-2911/comment-page-1/#comment-9147 first look « Capital Defense Weekly Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:56:40 +0000 http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/lawandbiosciences/?p=1697#comment-9147 [...] Dominique Ray v. State, 2011 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 6  (Ala. Crim. App. 2/4/2011) Still working through. “Another failed attempt at claiming IAC for failing to introduce mitigating evidence during capital sentencing. The defendant was convicted of murder during the course of a rape and a robbery. The jury (by a vote of 11-1) recommended he be sentenced to death, which the circuit court followed. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Here, the Defendant unsuccessfully appeals the denial of a post-conviction petition he filed attacking his capital-murder conviction and death sentence. Among other arguments, he claims to have received ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his capital-murder trial because his trial counsel failed to introduce expert mental health testimony. At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the Defendant introduced expert testimony that the Defendant had an “anomalous brain development that causes [him] to suffer severe problems with interpersonal relationships and self control,” and that his IQ is 80, which places him in the level of low mental functioning. To rebut the mental health evidence, the State introduced expert testimony to the contrary, in which the expert opined that there was no need for neuropsychological testing, because the defendant had no history of “head trauma, head injury, [or] neurological disease.” This appellate court found the mitigating evidence weak, at best, and that there was no prejudice to the Defendant in not having had the mental health evidence introduced at trial.” [via Nita A Farahany @ Stanford CLB blog] [...] [...] Dominique Ray v. State, 2011 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 6  (Ala. Crim. App. 2/4/2011) Still working through. “Another failed attempt at claiming IAC for failing to introduce mitigating evidence during capital sentencing. The defendant was convicted of murder during the course of a rape and a robbery. The jury (by a vote of 11-1) recommended he be sentenced to death, which the circuit court followed. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Here, the Defendant unsuccessfully appeals the denial of a post-conviction petition he filed attacking his capital-murder conviction and death sentence. Among other arguments, he claims to have received ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his capital-murder trial because his trial counsel failed to introduce expert mental health testimony. At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the Defendant introduced expert testimony that the Defendant had an “anomalous brain development that causes [him] to suffer severe problems with interpersonal relationships and self control,” and that his IQ is 80, which places him in the level of low mental functioning. To rebut the mental health evidence, the State introduced expert testimony to the contrary, in which the expert opined that there was no need for neuropsychological testing, because the defendant had no history of “head trauma, head injury, [or] neurological disease.” This appellate court found the mitigating evidence weak, at best, and that there was no prejudice to the Defendant in not having had the mental health evidence introduced at trial.” [via Nita A Farahany @ Stanford CLB blog] [...]

]]>