Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia reviews Kim McMichen’s appeal from the denial of his state habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions and death sentences for the murders of his wife and her boyfriend. The court rejects his ineffective-assistance claims concerning forensic experts and mental-health testimony, but vacates the habeas judgment and remands for further proceedings regarding his claim that the State knowingly presented false testimony from a former jail mate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by inadequately seeking funds for forensic experts or by failing to present additional forensic evidence.
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by using Dr. Dennis Herendeen for the competency evaluation rather than preserving his marital-counseling testimony for the criminal trial.
- Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call psychiatrist Dr. Barry Scanlon during the sentencing phase.
- Whether the habeas court properly denied relief on McMichen's claim that the State knowingly presented false testimony from Gibson Williams.
- Whether the false-testimony claim was procedurally defaulted and, if so, whether cause and prejudice excused the default.
Holdings
- McMichen failed to establish constitutionally significant prejudice from the denial of funds for additional forensic experts; the related claims therefore failed.
- Trial counsel did not perform deficiently by using Dr. Herendeen, a psychologist familiar with McMichen, for the competency evaluation; even assuming deficient performance, McMichen failed to show prejudice.
- McMichen failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to call Dr. Scanlon during the sentencing phase.
- Ineffective-assistance claims incorporated only by reference and not specifically argued in the appellate brief were deemed abandoned.
- The false-testimony claim was not barred as res judicata by the direct appeal, and the record showed cause sufficient to excuse the failure to raise it earlier; however, resolution of prejudice and the merits required factual and credibility findings that the habeas court had not made.
Key quotations
“The question of whether McMichen's claim of self-defense and accident was valid thus depended on evidence other than the forensic evidence.” (646)
“Thus, the resolution of this claim and the resolution of the parallel question of whether there is prejudice sufficient to overcome the procedural bar to this claim depend on findings of credibility and fact that have not yet been made.” (650)
“Accordingly, the habeas court's denial of McMichen's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is vacated, and the case is remanded for explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the allegedly-false trial testimony of Gibson Williams and for a new ruling on whether McMichen is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.” (650)
Factual background
McMichen was convicted of murdering his wife, Luan McMichen, and her boyfriend, Jeff Robinson, after a 1990 shooting. He claimed that Robinson attacked him and that he shot Robinson in self-defense and killed Luan accidentally. In habeas proceedings, McMichen presented new expert testimony concerning forensic evidence and mental-health evidence, and alleged that the State knowingly presented false sentencing-phase testimony from former jail mate Gibson Williams about McMichen's attitude toward his wife and his regret at being caught.
Procedural history
McMichen was convicted of two murders and sentenced to death in 1993, and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed on direct appeal in 1995. He filed a habeas petition in 1997, amended it several times, and received an evidentiary hearing in 2001. The habeas court denied relief in an order filed September 24, 2007. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted a certificate of probable cause to appeal, affirmed the ruling in part, vacated the final judgment in part, and remanded for findings and a new ruling on the false-testimony claim.
Remand instructions
The habeas court must make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the allegedly false trial testimony of Gibson Williams and issue a new ruling on whether McMichen is entitled to habeas relief.