# Derrick Quintero and William Eugene Hall, Jr. v. State of Tennessee

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · July 7, 2008

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1052271

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** July 7, 2008
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge J.C. McLin, Jr.
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1052271

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing history and purpose of proportionality review and finding Tennessee's method adequate to identify and invalidate aberrant death sentences

## Opinion text

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
October 24, 2007 Session

DERRICK QUINTERO and WILLIAM EUGENE HALL, JR.
v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Humphreys County
No. 8849; 8850 Robert E. Burch, Judge

No. M2005-02959-CCA-R3-PD - Filed July 7, 2008

The appellants, Derrick Quintero and William Eugene Hall, Jr., were each convicted on two counts
of murder during the perpetration of first degree burglary, three counts of grand larceny, one count
of petit larceny and three counts of first degree burglary. They both received the death penalty for
the murder of one of the victims, a life sentence for the other murder conviction, and an effective
eighty year sentence for the remaining convictions. The appellants were unsuccessful in their direct
appeals. See State v. Hall and Quintero, 976 S.W. 2d 121 (Tenn. 1998). Appellants filed individual
pro se post-conviction petitions and simultaneously joint petitions for writ of error coram nobis.
Appellants alleged various constitutional violations, including the ineffective assistance of counsel
and the existence of newly discovered evidence. Following a joint hearing on the petitions the trial
court denied relief. We affirm the judgments.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

J.C. MCLIN , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID H. WELLES, and JERRY L. SMITH ,
JJ., joined.

Hershell D. Koger, Pulaski, Tennessee, and Kathleen G. Morris, Nashville, Tennessee (on appeal);
Shipp Weems, District Public Defender, Steve Stack, Assistant Public Defender, John E. Herbison
and Paul Buchanan, Nashville, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Derrick Quintero.

Patrick T. McNally, Nashville, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal); Paul J. Bruno, Nashville,
Tennessee (on appeal); Jennifer Davis Roberts, Dickson, Tennessee (at trial); and N. Reese Bagwell,
Clarksville, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, William Eugene Hall, Jr.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Mark E. Davidson, Assistant Attorney
General; Dan M. Alsobrooks, District Attorney General; and Robert S. Wilson and James W. Kirby,
Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION
Background

The appellants were part of a group of eight inmates who escaped from prison in Eddyville,
Kentucky on Thursday morning, June 16, 1988. Three of the escapees were captured near the prison
in Kentucky. Five of the escapees, William Eugene Hall, Jr., Derrick Quintero, James Blanton,
Joseph Montgomery and Ronnie Hudson, eventually made their way to a community in Stewart
County, Tennessee near Kentucky Lake. Several homes in the area were reported burglarized prior
to Monday, June 20, 1988, and the victims in this case were murdered in their home the night of
Monday, June 20. Montgomery and Hudson left the other three escapees and returned to Kentucky
on Sunday, June 19, 1988, and they spent the next few days with Hudson’s family until their arrest
on June 22, 1988. The appellants and Blanton fled Stewart County and were seen in Memphis on
Tuesday, June 21, 1988. Hall was eventually captured in Texas, and Quintero and Blanton were
subsequently apprehended in Mexico.

Quintero and Hall were each convicted on two counts of murder during the perpetration of
first degree burglary, three counts of grand larceny, one count of petit larceny, and three counts of
first degree burglary. They both received the death penalty for the murder of one of the victims, a
life sentence for the other murder conviction, and an effective eighty year sentence for the remaining
convictions. The trial lasted just over six weeks. The appellants were unsuccessful in their direct
appeals. See State v. Hall and Quintero, 976 S.W.2d 121 (Tenn. 1998). Though Blanton was
indicted along with the appellants, he successfully moved to sever his case. Blanton also received
the death penalty for one of his two murder convictions. State v. Blanton, 975 S.W.2d 269 (Tenn.
1998). Blanton died in prison in 1999.

The appellants filed individual pro se post-conviction petitions in May 1999. The trial court
appointed counsel for each appellant, and they subsequently filed amended petitions on behalf of the
appellants in August 2001. Following a joint hearing on the petitions in March and April 2003, the
trial court denied relief. In October 2004, the court entered written orders for each appellant
detailing the testimony heard at the hearing and addressing each of the claims presented in the
written petitions.

The convicting evidence was wholly circumstantial. The summary of facts below is rather
lengthy, but necessary in light of the claims raised by the appellants. Although the appellants
admitted during the post-conviction hearing that they participated in several of the burglaries, they
both denied murdering the victims, breaking into their home or stealing their car. They claimed they
were on their way to Memphis the morning the murders occurred. The appellants proffered the
deposition of Quintero’s father and their own testimony in support of their alibi.

Furthermore, the appellants both filed a joint petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The
basis of the petition was testimony of two fellow death row inmates who stated that Blanton
confessed to them that he acted alone, or with another individual, breaking into the victims’ home
and killing them. According to these inmates, Blanton told them he did not come forward earlier
because he did not want to jeopardize his own case. Blanton died in prison in 1999. The error

-2-
coram nobis petition was not filed until March 31, 2003, the first day of the hearing on the post-
conviction petitions. According to the petition, counsel became aware of these inmates’ statements
in the “summer of 2002.” Although Blanton died in 1999, it is unclear from the record when the two
inmates revealed their information to the appellants. The trial court suspended the statute of
limitations and considered the merits of the petition. The court, however, denied relief on the
petition.

Facts

The following is the supreme court’s summary of the trial testimony:

The proof introduced by the State during the guilt phase of the trial demonstrated that
Myrtle and Buford Vester were murdered in their home in the Leatherwood
community of Stewart County, which is situated on Kentucky Lake and in close
proximity to the Tennessee-Kentucky border. The Vesters were murdered sometime
after their son left their home at 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 19, 1988 and sometime
before their bodies were discovered by their neighbor around 10:00 a.m. on
Wednesday, June 22, 1988.

Along with six other men, the defendants in this appeal, Derrick Quintero and
William Hall, escaped from the Kentucky State Penitentiary at Eddyville during the
early morning hours of June 16, 1988. Three of the escapees [Bobby Sherman, Leo
Sperling, and Floyd Cook] were apprehended in the vicinity of the prison on or
before June 18, 1988. However, the other five escapees, including Quintero, Hall,
James Blanton, Joseph Montgomery, and Ronnie Hudson left the area in a 1966
Chevrolet pick-up truck which they stole from Curtis Rogers who lived about one-
half of a mile from the prison facility. [The truck was located seventeen months after
the escape in a wooded area of Stewart County, Tennessee. It had been completely
covered with branches.]

The Stewart County Sheriff's department was notified at 2:30 a.m. on June 16 that
inmates had escaped from the penitentiary at Eddyville. After news of the escape had
been broadcast to the public, the Sheriff's department received a telephone call from
Zachery Pallay, a resident of the Leatherwood community, warning that Quintero was
familiar with the area and would probably seek refuge there. The Sheriff's
department's [sic] also received several reports of suspicious individuals in the
Leatherwood area including a report of three men attempting to flag down a car.
However, when a rash of burglaries broke out in the Leatherwood community, the
Sheriff's department became convinced that the escapees were in the area. The
burglarized residences in Stewart County were owned by Jim McMinn, Neal Foster,
Essie Settles, Alfred Cherry, Thomas Harris, and John and Virginia Crawford.

Though it is not possible to determine from the record the precise order in which the

-3-
burglaries occurred, the proof demonstrates that five of the six burglaries occurred
before 1:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 19, 1988.

The first burglary was reported and occurred on June 18, 1988. That day, Jim
McMinn of Clarksville, Tennessee, arrived at his cabin in the Leatherwood area at
approximately noon. He left the cabin to go fishing in his boat at around 1:00 p.m.
Upon returning to the cabin at 2:30 or 3:00 p.m., McMinn noticed a box of shotgun
shells lying on the floor and discovered that his loaded .22 caliber pistol was missing
from the bedroom. The telephone in his cabin had been removed from the wall, and
the outside portion of the phone line also had been severed. McMinn went to his
truck and discovered that the windows had been rolled up and the ignition destroyed
with his ax. The telephone from McMinn's cabin was in the bed of the truck.

Following the report of the McMinn burglary on June 18, the Sheriff's Department
initiated an intensive search of the area, utilizing helicopters, four-wheel drive
vehicles, and tracking dogs. At one point law enforcement officers chased some
individuals on foot through the woods, but they were not able to overtake the persons
suspected to be the escapees.

At some point, perhaps during that chase, Hudson and Montgomery became
separated from the defendants and Blanton. Hudson and Montgomery left the
Leatherwood community and drove to Lebanon, Kentucky in a 1982 White Ford
Fairmont they stole from Essie Settles, a resident of the Standing Rock Community,
which is approximately six highway miles from the Leatherwood community.
Montgomery's fingerprint was found on Settles' garage door. Hudson's fingerprint
was found inside the car when it was later recovered. Settles had seen the car in her
garage around 10:00 a.m. on Saturday morning and discovered that it was missing
at approximately 1:30 p.m. on Sunday afternoon. The proof demonstrated that the car
was stolen sometime Saturday night or before daylight on Sunday morning. Burned
matches were found inside the garage indicating that it had been dark when the theft
occurred. In addition, when she watered her flowers around 8:00 a.m. on Sunday
morning, Settles noticed that someone had removed the hose from the outside faucet
during the night. Settles stated that the hose had been connected when she had used
it on Saturday evening around 6:00 p.m.

Hudson and Montgomery arrived at Hudson's brother's apartment in Lebanon,
Kentucky on Sunday, June 19, at approximately 1:00 p.m. They were driving a white
car with Tennessee license plates, which witnesses identified at trial as the vehicle
which had been stolen from Settles. Hudson's brother and a friend accompanied the
two escapees to a secluded area on the river where Hudson and Montgomery hid the
stolen car among the weeds. Around 6:00 or 6:30 p.m., Hudson's brother left the two
escapees in the company of Hudson's mother and sister. The next day, Hudson's
sister, her two children, and Martha Grover picked up the two escapees and

-4-
transported them to Grover's apartment where they stayed until early evening on
Tuesday, June 21. The following day, Wednesday, June 22, Kentucky authorities
apprehended both Hudson and Montgomery near the location where Settles' car had
been hidden. Shots were exchanged prior to the convicts' apprehension. Hudson and
Montgomery had in their possession McMinn's .22 caliber pistol and a .22 caliber
pistol which had been stolen from another resident of the Leatherwood community,
Neal Foster. Two live rounds were recovered from Foster's pistol, and four spent
shells were recovered in the area. While this proof demonstrated that Hudson and
Montgomery were some two hundred miles away in Lebanon, Kentucky when the
Vesters were murdered in Stewart County, Tennessee, it also showed that the
McMinn and Foster burglaries occurred before 1:00 p.m. on June 19.

The Cherry and Harris burglaries were discovered around 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. on June
19, 1988 by Alfred Cherry. Cherry's trailer was located approximately one-half of a
mile from the murder victims' residence. The inside of the trailer was in disarray. A
bed was unmade and wet towels were in the bathroom. The refrigerator light switch
had been taped down to prohibit the light from operating when the refrigerator door
was opened. The hot water tank had been set on high.

Missing from the trailer were two bedspreads, a green thermal blanket, a sleeping
bag, a portable radio, approximately fifteen cassette tapes, a rechargeable flashlight,
a small handsaw, six knives, coffee mugs, various canned goods, a gallon of
homemade wine, two bottles of bourbon, a six-pack of beer, a toothbrush, underwear,
and two paperweights bearing the Cumberland Electric logo. [These paperweights
were found seventeen months later in the bed of the 1966 Chevrolet truck which the
escapees had stolen near Eddyville and driven to the Leatherwood community.]

Cherry did not have a telephone in his trailer. Upon discovering the burglary, he went
next door to call the police on the telephone in the trailer owned by his brother-in-
law, Thomas Harris. Cherry discovered that Harris' trailer had also been burglarized.
The trailer had been ransacked. The refrigerator light had been removed. The sink
was full of dirty dishes, and food was in a skillet on the stove. Wet towels and sheets
were strewn about and cigarette burns were all over the floors. Stolen from the trailer
were all the canned food items, two quilts, silverware, butcher knives, towels, toilet
articles, and a fishing tackle.

When Harris later received his telephone bill, he realized that several unauthorized
long distance telephone calls had been placed from his trailer. Three of the
unauthorized calls had been placed to a number in Springtown, Texas. These calls
occurred on Sunday, June 19, at 3:51 a.m., 8:55 a.m. and 9:19 a.m. Two additional
unauthorized calls were placed to a telephone number in Hopewell, Pennsylvania, at
4:00 a.m. and 9:19 a.m. The telephone number called in Springtown, Texas, was
listed to Bryan Quintero, who is a brother of Derrick Quintero. The telephone number

-5-
called in Hopewell, Pennsylvania, was listed to a Barbara Vasser, William Hall's girlfriend.

At trial, Vasser testified that Hall told her during their first telephone conversation
after the escape that his parole had been denied. Hall would not reveal to Vasser his
and Quintero's location, but told Vasser that there were helicopters in the area
searching for the escapees and that he and Quintero had been separated from Hudson
and Montgomery.

Two knives taken from the Cherry trailer were found at Neal Foster's residence
indicating that it was burglarized sometime after the Cherry and Harris trailers.
Again, however, the burglary occurred sometime before 1:00 p.m on June 19,
because Montgomery and Hudson had in their possession a gun which had been
stolen from the Foster residence when they were apprehended.

However, Foster did not discover the burglary until Tuesday, June 21. The residence
had been ransacked. Food was on a kitchen counter, deer steaks were in the
microwave, and his binoculars were sitting on a kitchen counter. A green ammunition
box, a plastic bag full of old coins, a flashlight, and the holster for his .22 caliber RG
pistol were on the floor of the living room. The hallway floor was littered with a Diet
Pepsi can, a tin can of old coins, a notebook that once had old coins in it, some socks,
a laundry basket with clothes that did not belong to him, and a pair of white tennis
shoes that did not belong to him. Towels were strewn around the house. He found in
his bathroom a pocket knife, towels, a pair of socks, a .22 caliber shell box, and a 20
gauge shotgun shell. The beds were unmade and had items spread on top of them.
The master bedroom dresser drawers were open, and items were scattered all around
the bedroom, including two walkie-talkies, a hacksaw, and a 12 gauge shotgun barrel.
In the front bedroom, he found several hats, matchbooks, a jar of marshmallow
cream, a box of graham crackers, and a small drinking glass.

In a walk-in closet in the residence Foster had kept a .22 caliber pistol, a Glenfield
.22 caliber rifle, a Marlin .30-30 caliber lever action rifle, a 20 gauge shotgun, a
single shot shotgun, and a Remington Model 1100, 12 gauge shotgun. Following the
burglary, he found the 12 gauge shotgun lying on his bed. Someone had attempted
to saw off the barrel and had rendered the gun inoperable. The 20 gauge shotgun was
missing from his house, but a portion of the gun's barrel had been sawed off and left
in Foster's bedroom. Also missing after the burglary were his .30-30 lever action rifle
and ammunition for various weapons, including .30-30 accelerator rifle bullets, .30-
30 caliber rifle shells, 20 gauge shotgun shells, and 12 gauge shotgun shells. In
addition to the ammunition, several coins which Foster had collected, including silver
dollars, were taken in the burglary.

The authorities found several latent prints at the Foster residence, and identified some
of them as belonging to the escapees. A latent left thumb print matching that of

-6-
Quintero was found on a full box of Federal 12 gauge shotgun shells. A latent right
ring fingerprint matching that of Quintero was found on another Federal 12 gauge
shotgun shell box. A right middle finger and a right index fingerprint matching
Blanton's print was found on a Federal field load 12 gauge shotgun shell box. A right
palm print matching that of Quintero was lifted from one of the gun barrels. A latent
right ring fingerprint matching that of Hall was lifted from a Diet Pepsi can.

Though the Crawford burglary was not discovered until after the Vesters' bodies had
been discovered, a glove taken from the Crawford residence was found at the home
of the murder victims, indicating that the burglary actually occurred before the
murder. The Crawford residence was less than a quarter of a mile from the Vesters'
home. John and Virginia Crawford had left their trailer, clean and orderly, around
2:00 p.m. on Sunday, June, 19. Following the burglary, they found their kitchen
ransacked. Canned foods, crackers, and candy bars from the cabinet and refrigerator
had been eaten. Prints were lifted from several items in the trailer. A latent left thumb
print matching that of Hall was found on the bottom of a can of ham. A latent right
index fingerprint left by Blanton was lifted from a Butterfinger candy wrapper found
inside the refrigerator. The Crawfords identified two gloves found at the trailer, one
white jersey and one brown jersey, as belonging to Mrs. Crawford. A patch on one
of the gloves had been sewn on by Mrs. Crawford. Mr. Crawford testified that a
flashlight had also been taken from the trailer. One of the gloves found at the
Crawfords' trailer matched a glove found outside the Vesters' front bedroom window.
A fiber analysis of the two gloves indicated that they were likely originally sold
together as a pair.

With respect to the timing of the murder, the proof showed that late on Monday
evening, June 20, John Corlew and Arthur Jenkins arrived at the Leatherwood boat
dock, launched their boat, and night fished in the Leatherwood Bay. Between 11:00
p.m. and 12:00 a.m. they heard five gunshots emanating from the direction of the
Vesters' residence. Corlew testified that he first heard two gunshots that were fairly
clear, and after a pause, he heard two additional shots, another pause, and one final
shot. Corlew testified that the first two shots and the second two shots sounded as if
they were from different weapons. Mr. Jenkins testified that the two initial shots
sounded like repercussions from a pistol. Both Jenkins and Corlew heard a total of
five gunshots.

The victims, Buford and Myrtle Vester, were last seen alive around 6:00 p.m. on
Sunday June 19 by their son Wayne. He, along with his twelve-year-old son, had
arrived at his parents' home for a weekend visit on the evening of Friday, June 17. He
had picked up groceries for his parents including Pepsi colas, lunch meat, bread, and
milk. Wayne Vester left his parents home on Sunday, June 19, at approximately 6:00
p.m. At that time, the Vesters were alive and well. Wayne attempted, unsuccessfully,
to reach his parents by telephone once on Monday, June 20, and twice on Tuesday,

-7-
June 21. Concerned, Wayne called their neighbor, Howard Allor, who lived
approximately one quarter of a mile from the Vesters, but Allor had not seen them
since the preceding Friday morning. When Wayne was still unable to reach his
parents on June 22, he again called Allor and asked him to check on them. Allor
drove to the Vesters' residence and discovered their dead bodies. He attempted to
telephone the Sheriff from their residence, but the telephone was not functioning, so
he returned home and reported the murders to the authorities.

David Hicks, Sheriff of Stewart County, was notified of the Vester murders at
approximately 1:00 or 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 22. The Tennessee Bureau of
Investigation (“T.B.I.”) conducted the primary investigation of the crime scene. The
only entrance to the Vester residence was a screen door located at the side of the
house opposite to the victims' bedrooms. The screen door had not been damaged.
However, the front window was open, and the screen from the front window was
lying on the ground near Myrtle Vester's bedroom window which was located at the
back of the house. Underneath the front window was a concrete block which
apparently had been taken from the front of a shed located at the back of the house.
A cloth glove which matched a glove found at the Crawfords' residence was found
on the ground beside the concrete block. An unopened Pepsi cola can lay next to the
walkway to the screen door of the house. The packages of Pepsi cola that Wayne
Vester had brought his parents were missing from the porch. The Vesters' maroon
1985 Pontiac Bonneville also was missing. The wires to the telephone connection
box outside the Vesters' residence had been damaged and the line was dead. A live
20 gauge Federal shotgun shell with [a] number 6 bird shot was found lying near the
electrical box. A spent 20 gauge number 4 shot Federal shotgun shell casing was
found near the shed approximately 18 feet from Mr. Vester's back bedroom window.

The windows to the victims' bedrooms were located along the back of the house.
Buford Vester's bedroom window frame was visibly bent. The screen covering the
window had a hole in it which indicated that Mr. Vester was shot at least once from
outside the house. Some [of] the glass louvers were broken, and shards of glass were
found lying on the bed. Mr. Vester's body was found on the floor next to his bed. The
covers were drawn back, and blood was on both the pillow and the bed. Number 4
and 5 bird shot pellets were retrieved from Mr. Vester's room. Two shot shell filler
wads were found beside Mr. Vester's body, and a 20 gauge plastic shot wad was
recovered from beside his head. A plastic shot sleeve, one shot shell, a plastic shot
wad, and several shot pellets, all either number 4 or 5 bird shot, were recovered from
Mr. Vester's body.

The victims were in separate bedrooms joined by a bathroom. Myrtle Vester's body
was found lying in a pool of dried blood on the floor of her bedroom next to the
bathroom. Mrs. Vester had been shot three times, once with a 20 gauge shotgun,
once with a high-powered rifle, and once again with either a shotgun or a high-

-8-
powered rifle. She also had been stabbed thirteen times. A copper-jacketed bullet was
recovered from her body. Blood was found on Mrs. Vester's bed, and a considerable
amount of blood was found on the bathroom floor. Blood was splattered on both the
bathtub and the commode, and the bottoms of Mrs. Vester's feet also were covered
in blood. The screen covering Mrs. Vester's bedroom window also had a hole in it,
indicating that at least one shot had been fired from outside. The open and unbroken
condition of the glass louvers indicated that the high-powered rifle or shotgun had
been near the window when it was fired. Shot was sprayed all over the house,
especially the kitchen. All of the shot pellets found in the house were either number
4 or 5.

On the victims' sofa authorities found a portion of The Tennessean, dated Monday,
June 20, 1988. The local mail carrier testified that the victims did not receive The
Tennessean by mail. A live 20 gauge shotgun shell with number 7.5 shot was found
lying on the floor in the front bedroom next to a ransacked jewelry box.

Dr. Charles Harlan, the medical examiner, performed an autopsy on each victim and
testified that the Vesters had died within two hours of consuming dinner. He stated
that the victims had been shot a total of five times, and a minimum of three different
weapons had been used to murder them.

Mrs. Vester had sustained three gunshot wounds. Gunshot wound A, located at the
right portion of Mrs. Vester's chest just below her collarbone, measured
approximately a quarter of an inch and was basically round in shape. This wound
resulted when a copper jacketed bullet entered Mrs. Vester's body and lodged in her
left arm. Wound B resulted from a shotgun blast and was located in the upper arm.
This wound measured 3.4 inches by 1.8 inches, was jagged, with an irregular edge,
and had multiple associated tangential abrasions. Wound C resulted from either a
high-velocity rifle or shotgun. This gunshot blast had severed the two bones in Mrs.
Vester's right forearm, leaving her hand and wrist attached to her body by a piece of
tissue, consisting of only skin, muscle, and fat. Dr. Harlan could not determine the
order in which these three gunshot wounds were inflicted.

Mrs. Vester also had sustained thirteen stab wounds, one to the middle of her back
and twelve to her head, neck, and shoulder region. A majority of the stab wounds
were inflicted to the left side of her head and neck. Dr. Harlan surmised that the
puncture wounds were made by a squared object with a sharp edge, such as a kitchen
or hunting knife. Two of the stab wounds severed her right and left common carotid
arteries. The right carotid artery was 90 percent severed, and the left was 10 percent
severed. Dr. Harlan testified that either the injuries to her carotid arteries or the
gunshot injury to her right forearm would have been fatal. Dr. Harlan determined that
Mrs. Vester could have survived the brutal attack for up to 15 minutes.

-9-
Mr. Vester had sustained two gunshot wounds. Shotgun wound A was located at the
head and neck juncture. The total dispersal pattern of shotgun pellets was 13 inches.
Wound A caused significant injury to his left lung, aorta, and pulmonary artery.
Shotgun wound B was to Mr. Vester's right breast and caused trauma to his right lung
and to his liver. Dr. Harlan recovered shotgun pellets and a shot column from Mr.
Vester's chest and abdomen. Dr. Harlan opined that Mr. Vester could have survived
from four to twelve minutes after sustaining the gunshot injuries.

On June 21, 1988, around 8 a.m., employees of the Memphis Funeral Home observed
three men, in a maroon Pontiac which was later identified as the victims' car, enter
the funeral home parking lot and park the car approximately 250 feet from the
building. Two employees of the funeral home testified that one man got out of the
front seat, took his tank top off, and put on three additional shirts. The two other men
also exited the car. None of the witnesses could make a positive identification of the
three men. The witnesses testified that all three men were white and about the same
height, but two of the men were approximately 180 pounds and had darker hair. They
stated that all three men had facial hair. One funeral home employee described the
three men as having beards and stated that one had long hair.

The three men remained in the parking lot for approximately five to eight minutes.
Then, after one of them took something out of the trunk, the three men walked
towards a hospital across the street from the funeral home. One of the men turned,
walked back to the car, and appeared to have placed an item back into the car. He
then joined the two other men, and then all three walked away. The funeral home
employees assumed that the three men were working on a construction project at the
hospital. However, when the car had not been removed by Thursday, the funeral
home employees contacted the Memphis Police Department.

On the morning of Thursday, June 23, the Memphis Police Crime Scene Squad
responded to the call from the Memphis Funeral Home. The police found a 1985
maroon Pontiac Bonneville in the funeral home's parking lot. The vehicle matched
the description of the victims' vehicle. The keys were in the car's ignition. The
officers found a sawed-off 20 gauge shotgun containing one live round under the
floor mat behind the driver's seat which was later identified as the weapon stolen
from the Foster residence, and as the weapon from which a spent shell found outside
the Vesters' residence had been fired. Foster was able to identify the weapon by its
serial number; however, the gun also had Foster's full name carved into it. The police
also discovered under a floor mat a .30-30 caliber cartridge which matched
ammunition that had been taken from the Foster residence. From a crumpled
Budweiser beer can which also was found under the back seat police were able to lift
three latent prints belonging to Blanton. No other prints were found in the car. The
officer noted that the extremely hot temperatures in Memphis at the time the car was
found made it difficult to lift intact prints. Other items retrieved from the vehicle

-10-
included a Ray-O-Vac flashlight, similar to one taken from the Crawford residence,
electrical tape, thirteen 20 gauge shotgun shells, three 12-ounce Pepsi colas, one 12-
pack of Pepsi colas, a portable electric air compressor, a Black & Decker car vacuum,
and a brown umbrella.

Curtis Jones, who was a security guard at the Memphis Greyhound bus station,
testified that he worked Tuesdays and Wednesdays at the bus station in June of 1988.
The bus station, located in downtown Memphis was approximately one mile from the
Memphis Funeral Home. His job was to prevent loitering at the bus station. Mr.
Jones sat in a booth and observed people who came inside to determine whether they
purchased tickets. Periodically, he would walk around and ask people whether they
had tickets or if they were waiting for someone to arrive.

Mr. Jones recalled three men entering the bus station either Tuesday, June 21, or
Wednesday, June 22, between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. Two of the men sat down and
watched television. One of the two seated men spoke to a man seated nearby. The
third man, who had darker skin and appeared Hispanic, used a telephone. Mr. Jones
approached the two seated men and asked them whether they had tickets. A man,
whom he identified as Blanton, told him that they would leave as soon as their friend
finished using the telephone. The three men remained in the station five to ten
minutes. Later that same day, the Memphis police stopped by the bus station with a
photographic line-up of the eight escapees. Jones responded that Blanton and Hall
had previously been at the station. Later in the week, Jones spoke with T.B.I. Agent
Stout. Jones identified Blanton and Hall from a photographic line-up and made an
in-court identification of Hall as one of the men at the bus station.

The Blue Movies West adult bookstore and entertainment center was located across
the street from the bus station. Shirley Denise Morrow testified that she worked as
a cashier in the bookstore in June of 1988. On Tuesday, June 21, the day before her
birthday, three men entered the bookstore around 9:00 or 10:00 a.m. Two of the men
were white, and one appeared Mexican. The men traded a few silver dollars and half
dollars for tokens. Morrow also purchased some of the silver dollars and half dollars
for herself.

The men went to the back of the establishment to watch movies. Darlene Christof,
a dancer at the establishment, testified that three “scruffy” men entered her booth on
June 21. Two of the men were white, and the other appeared either Hispanic or
Mexican. Ms. Christof informed the men that only one was allowed to remain in the
booth. Two of the men left. From a photographic line-up, she identified the man who
remained in her booth as Quintero. Quintero later gave her several silver dollars and
tried to sell her a class ring and a man's wedding band.

The men then returned to the front of the establishment approximately fifteen to

-11-
twenty minutes later. They attempted to sell Morrow what appeared to be a class ring
and a wedding band. Morrow declined and suggested they try a pawn shop. One of
the men indicated that they did not have any identification and offered Morrow fifty
dollars if she would allow them to stay in the movie house until their transportation
arrived. Morrow declined their offer. Christof then came out from the back of the
establishment and pretended to use the telephone. When Christof commented that the
three men resembled the escapees from the Kentucky prison, they left. Morrow then
contacted the police.

When shown a pre-trial photographic array of the eight escapees, Morrow identified
Blanton, Quintero, and Hall as the three men who had visited the bookstore. Morrow
turned over to the authorities the six silver dollars she had purchased from the men,
and later, Foster identified the coins as those stolen from his residence. Morrow also
made an in-court identification of both Quintero and Hall.

Lt. Thomas Pryor, an employee at the Eddyville penitentiary, testified that Quintero
had long hair, a moustache, long side burns and a goatee prior to the escape. Lt. Pryor
stated that he had never seen Hall with a beard.

Hall was eventually captured in El Paso, Texas. Both Blanton and Quintero were
captured in Mexico near El Paso. Barbara Vasser, Hall's girlfriend at the time,
testified that her mother called the Pennsylvania State Police after Hall called her for
a third time following the escape. Afraid for Hall's safety, Vasser notified the
authorities that she had agreed to wire money to him at the Western Union on North
Stanton Street in El Paso, Texas. Hall was apprehended by agents of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (“F.B.I.”) when he entered the Western Union in El Paso at
approximately 2:20 p.m. on July 6, 1988.

On July 10, 1988, Quintero and Blanton were apprehended by Mexican officials at
the Santa Fe Hotel in Juarez, located just across the border from El Paso, Texas, and
transported across the international bridge. F.B.I. agents took custody of both
Quintero and Blanton from Mexican officials at a border checkpoint. Found in
Quintero's possession when he was taken into custody was an old wallet bearing an
imprint of Neal Foster's driver's license.

Based upon the proof summarized above, the jury convicted both Hall and Quintero
of two counts of murder during the perpetration of first degree burglary, three counts
of grand larceny, one count of petit larceny and three counts of first degree burglary.

During the sentencing phase, the State introduced proof that both Quintero and Hall
had previous convictions for crimes involving the use or threat of violence. The State
showed that Quintero had been previously convicted of two charges of escape in the
first degree and one charge of first degree robbery. The State also presented proof

-12-
that Hall had previous convictions for two separate assaults, wanton endangerment
in the first degree, and aiding and abetting in threatening the life of the President and
Vice President of the United States of America.

Finally, the State introduced additional photographs and testimony concerning Mrs.
Vester's body. Mrs. Vester was found lying in her bedroom just outside the bathroom.
The State introduced photographs depicting the amount of blood on the bathroom
floor and depicting the blood on the bottoms of Mrs. Vester's feet. The State also
introduced a photograph of the front of Mrs. Vester's body to demonstrate to the jury
the severity of her injuries and the brutality of the attack.

In mitigation, Quintero presented the testimony of his uncle and aunt, Paul and Josey
Quintero, who said that Quintero's parents drank constantly. Quintero's father would
stay away from home for long periods of time, and his mother had extramarital
affairs. Quintero was hungry for love and affection when he visited his uncle and
aunt's home. Paul Quintero testified that Quintero was always eager to seek his
approval and never gave him any trouble. Quintero's parents did not discipline their
children unless they were angry or drunk, at which time they would beat the children.
Testimony also indicated that Quintero never had clothes which properly fit him, and
as a result, he was ridiculed by the other children at school.

Paul and Josey Quintero testified that they had attempted to remain in contact with
Quintero since learning of the criminal charges. They related that Quintero had
obtained his GED in prison and was also enrolled in refrigeration and air
conditioning classes. They believed that Quintero had improved himself and would
make something productive of his life.

Quintero's cousin, Angela Alva, testified that she and Quintero were at one time very
close. She also related how Quintero's parents had abused alcohol, and testified that
Quintero had kept company with his older brother, Roderick, who was a bad
influence and not a good role model. According to Alva, Quintero was a follower,
and Roderick was aggressive.

A video deposition was shown of Helen Mimms Johnson, Quintero's first grade
teacher. Johnson testified that Quintero was mischievous but never mean. He was
held back a year and had trouble being attentive in class. Quintero was never very
clean and always seemed exhausted when he came to school. Johnson never met
Quintero's parents because they never attended any parent-teacher meetings.

Angela Holland and her 15-year-old son, Roderick Kent Quintero II, testified.
Holland had been married to Quintero's brother for approximately three years.
Holland and her son had maintained contact with Quintero and said that he had been
influential in helping his nephew stay out of trouble.

-13-
In mitigation, William Hall presented the testimony of his older brother, Robert Hall,
a prison minister. Robert said that defendant Hall was born in Paducah, Kentucky.
Their parents divorced when defendant Hall was two years old. Their father worked
on a barge and was gone for extended periods of time. Their mother died of throat
cancer when defendant Hall was four, and at that point, Hall went to live with his
father and stepmother. Hall's stepmother was at one time addicted to codeine.

According to Robert, the Hall children were not disciplined nor taught right from
wrong but were sometimes beaten. Defendant Hall began getting into trouble in grade
school. He began drinking alcohol in his pre-teens, and by his early twenties, he had
begun abusing drugs. Robert testified that William Hall was a follower, not a leader.

For a time following his parole in 1982, defendant Hall had lived with Robert and his
wife Ester in Pennsylvania. He worked with Robert at a tire shop and attended church
with Robert and Ester. Robert testified that Hall had turned to God and changed his
life. Hall lived with Robert and Ester for eight months. Hall, however, later moved
into a trailer near his place of employment and began drinking. Eventually, he
returned to Kentucky. The last time Robert and Ester had seen Hall was at his
stepmother's funeral in 1987. They speak with him weekly by telephone, however.

Barbara Vasser also testified. She had met Hall when he had lived with his brother
in Pennsylvania. Vasser said that Hall's life had changed after he accepted Christ. She
and Hall were engaged but never set a date because Vasser was only seventeen years
old at the time. Vasser testified that she and Hall were friends off and on between
1982 and 1988. Vasser said she had assisted the authorities because she had been
afraid for Hall's safety. Vasser had not remained in contact with Hall after his apprehension.

Dr. Kenneth Anchor, an associate professor of psychology at Vanderbilt and a
clinical psychologist, testified that he prepared a psychological evaluation of Hall in
1991. He testified as to the background information conveyed by Hall during the
interview. Hall grew up in Paducah, and his formal education ended after the ninth
grade. He later earned his GED while incarcerated. Hall began using drugs and
alcohol at age eleven and was addicted to Valium by age fourteen. He was placed in
juvenile detention several times and was sent to a youth development center. Hall
worked at different jobs while a young adult, but he had mostly been in and out of
prison since age seventeen. Hall informed Dr. Anchor that he had experienced two
head injuries. He fell off a porch as a baby and was struck in the head with a baseball
bat when he was fourteen.

Dr. Anchor testified that Hall was cooperative and responsive during the interview.
Hall did not offer any excuses or attempt to blame others. There was no indication
of malingering. Moreover, Hall was enthusiastic about his plans to pursue college

-14-
courses in computers and data processing while incarcerated.

Hall scored a 99 on his I.Q. test which placed him in the 48th percentile. Dr. Anchor
testified that although Hall has a reasonable amount of intelligence, he has some
difficulty utilizing it. Hall experiences cognitive interference which is frequently seen
in people who have habitually abused drugs and alcohol. Dr. Anchor found Hall's
judgment, reasoning, and problem-solving skills to be “unstable.” According to Dr.
Anchor, that finding is consistent with a history composed of head injuries and
substance or polysubstance abuse.

Dr. Anchor concluded that Hall is seriously maladjusted and suffers from organic
personality syndrome. Dr. Anchor stated that persons with test profiles similar to
Hall's usually have a strong sense of worthlessness and inferiority. Hall feels a deep
sense of shame, embarrassment, and humiliation for many of his past actions. Dr.
Anchor opined that Hall's psychological maladjustment can be treated effectively
with counseling or psychotherapy. At the time of trial, Dr. Anchor stated that Hall did
not present a danger either to himself or to others in a prison setting. Dr. Anchor
opined that Hall's prognosis was good assuming he abstained from future substance
abuse. Dr. Anchor concluded that the prospects for social, educational, and
vocational functioning were satisfactory.

In rebuttal, the State presented the testimony of Dr. Samuel Craddock, a clinical
psychologist at Middle Tennessee Mental Heath Institute. Dr. Craddock interviewed
Hall and disagreed with Dr. Anchor as to the degree of danger Hall poses. Dr.
Craddock further testified that he had not seen any data to support a finding that Hall
suffered from an organic personality syndrome.

Based upon this proof, the jury found five aggravating circumstances which were not
outweighed by the mitigating circumstances and, therefore, sentenced the defendants
to death for the murder of Myrtle Vester and to life imprisonment for the murder of
Buford Vester.

Hall, 976 S.W.2d at 124-32.

Post-Conviction Evidence

Ronnie Cauthern, an inmate on death row in Tennessee, knew James Blanton prior to his
death in 1999. Cauthern testified to statements Blanton made to him about the crimes in this case.
According to Cauthern, Blanton told him that Hall and Quintero were not present when Blanton
killed the victims. Blanton said “if anything were to happen regarding the execution of [Hall and
Quintero], he would step up and stop it.” However, he also said he would not say anything “at that
time, because it would jeopardize his own case.” Blanton had previously been convicted of murder,
and according to Cauthern, he bragged about the killings.

-15-
Terry Lynn King, another death row inmate, also testified that Blanton told him Hall and
Quintero were not present when the murders took place. Blanton “was somewhat troubled of [sic]
whether he was going to testify at [Hall and Quintero’s] post-conviction hearing,” but when King
informed Blanton that would be his only opportunity to help Hall and Quintero he decided he would
testify on their behalf. According to King, Blanton “felt really bad” that Hall and Quintero were on
death row for something he did.

King described the crimes as told to him by Blanton. Blanton, Montgomery and Hudson
thought they had been spotted after breaking into a trailer, so they went to tell Hall and Quintero
what happened. Hall and Quintero had set up a separate camp from the other three escapees.
Quintero told Blanton they were going to meet his friend, Zach, later that night. After Blanton and
the other two thought they had been seen breaking into a trailer, all five of the escapees broke into
another home looking for guns and more supplies. Blanton told King that Quintero sawed off a
shotgun, but that they all fled the house when they thought they saw a police officer. Hall did not
have a weapon in his hands when they fled, but Quintero had a rifle. Quintero and Hall ran off in
a different direction than Blanton, Montgomery and Hudson. Later that night, Blanton, Montgomery
and Hudson tried to stop a couple of cars on a roadway but eventually ran off into the woods after
they saw a patrol car.

The night after all five escapees fled from the house where they stole the guns, Blanton went
to the location where Quintero said they would meet his friend Zach. Zach eventually appeared and
told Blanton that he drove Quintero and Hall to meet Quintero’s father in Nashville earlier that day.
Zach asked Blanton where the other two were, Montgomery and Hudson, and Blanton told him how
they became separated after seeing the police car. Blanton asked Zach for a ride out of the area, but
Zach was reluctant to aid Blanton. However, Zach apparently told Blanton where he could find a
car and some money to steal. Zach took Blanton to the Vester’s home. Blanton told King that the
man “put up a fight” so he “had to kill him.” Zach was with Blanton at the time, but Blanton did not
explain Zach’s role in the murders, if any. Blanton rendezvoused with Hall and Quintero in
Memphis at the bus station, which was their plan if they became separated.

King testified that he did not know Zach’s last name. During his testimony, King referred
to “these people’s house,” but he only mentioned that a man was killed. He never mentioned a
woman having been killed. Nor did he mention the number or type of weapons used. King stated
that the only information he received about the facts of this case came from Blanton. He testified
he never read the appellate court opinions. King also testified that he never talked to Cauthern about
the matter.

Kathleen Bernhardt had an encounter with Quintero and five of his fellow escapees in a
church in Kentucky on Thanksgiving in 1983. Bernhardt was by herself practicing the piano when
Quintero and the other men entered the church. Bernhardt testified that one of the men approached
her from behind and held a rag over her mouth. However, she said Quintero shook his head at the
man indicating to him to remove his hand from Bernhardt’s mouth. The men took some food from

-16-
the refrigerator and asked Bernhardt for the keys to her car. The men tied her to a chair. She
testified, however, that none of the men treated her with disrespect. The men left a little money for
the food and asked Bernhardt not to call the police until an hour after they were gone.

Jo Hall, a juror in the trial of this case, testified that her husband was the sheriff in
Humphreys County from 1976 until 1980. However, she testified that this fact did not have any
bearing on her decision as a juror. She stated that the facts introduced at trial surrounding the killing
of Mrs. Vester was the predominant reason she voted for the death penalty. In deciding to vote for
death, Hall stated she did not make a distinction between the two appellants' roles in the murders.
Hall recalled that defense counsel attempted to place the blame on another individual, but Hall
believed the evidence cleared this individual. She could not recall a particular name, but she testified
that the name Zach Pallay sounded familiar.

The deposition of Celerino Quintero, appellant Quintero's father, was read into evidence. Mr.
Quintero was unable to travel to Tennessee because of his medical condition. Mr. Quintero had
lived at the same address in Spring Town, Texas since 1981 or 82. In the early morning hours on
Sunday, June 19, 1988, Mr. Quintero received two calls from Hall. During the first call, Hall asked
Mr. Quintero if he had seen his son in the last day or so. Hall stated that he and Quintero became
separated. During the second call, Hall stated that he had since found Quintero. When asked why
his son did not call him instead of Hall, Mr. Quintero testified he did not know. Hall did not say
where Quintero was when Hall made the phone calls. During the second call, Hall stated they had
escaped from prison and asked Mr. Quintero to meet them at “the old truck stop in Nashville.” Mr.
Quintero left Texas that morning at approximately 8:30 a.m., drove about fourteen hours and arrived
at the truck stop around midnight. Mr. Quintero fell asleep after he arrived, but was awakened
before sunrise Monday morning by his son, Hall and Zach Pallay.

Quintero told his father they had to meet someone at the Greyhound bus station in Memphis.
Mr. Quintero insisted that he drive them to Memphis, rather than Pallay. Mr. Quintero did not think
much of Pallay because of things that happened when his son and Pallay were younger. When Mr.
Quintero asked his son why Pallay drove them to Nashville, Quintero said there was no one else he
could call and he did not want Mr. Quintero to be seen in the Leatherwood community with Texas
license plates. When they arrived in Memphis, Mr. Quintero dropped off the appellants about seven
or eight blocks from the station. Mr. Quintero wanted to take the appellants back to Texas with him
but they informed Mr. Quintero they were supposed to meet someone in Memphis.

Mr. Quintero did not learn of the murders until after he returned home to Texas. Mr.
Quintero testified he was never contacted prior to trial by either of the appellants’ attorneys or
investigators. According to Mr. Quintero, though he would have testified on his son's behalf, his son
was adamant that he not get involved in the matter. Although he knew a trial was scheduled, Mr.
Quintero stated did not know the actual date of the trial. Mr. Quintero admitted that his son
contacted him numerous times from prison after he was arrested for the murders in this case.

-17-
Appellant Quintero testified on his own behalf at the hearing. He had previously been
convicted of armed robbery in 1979 and two separate escape charges in 1983 and 1984. Quintero
did not testify at the trial in this case, and he stated the decision was not his but rather a "unilateral
decision" made by his attorneys. According to Quintero, his attorneys never discussed with him the
option of testifying. Based upon his previous experiences testifying at trials, his other attorneys
would not prepare him in advance but would simply call him to the stand during trial. Quintero said
he was surprised when his attorneys did not call him to testify before the close of evidence. Quintero
testified that the sheriff was administering cold medications to him at jail during the time of the trial.
He further testified this medication made him groggy during the actual trial and he did not realize
until it was too late that his attorneys rested their case.

Quintero testified that his attorneys only visited him twice in prison prior to trial. Quintero
testified his attorneys informed him they could not receive collect calls from him in prison due to
office budget concerns. He stated that he spoke with his attorneys on the phone approximately ten
times. He said his attorneys attempted to convince him to plead guilty and testify against Hall and
Blanton in exchange for a life sentence. His attorneys apparently told him that the evidence against
him was overwhelming. However, according to Quintero, they never informed him of the date or
time of the murders as known by the prosecution or asked him whether he had an alibi.

Quintero assumed his attorneys would be in contact with his family, and he was surprised
to learn that they did not call his father. Quintero acknowledged, however, that a mitigation
specialist interviewed his family. He claims the only investigation his attorneys were doing was
related to mitigation, not the guilt phase of the trial. Quintero testified his attorneys told him that
the budget concerns of the office prevented them from investigating the case personally, so they had
to rely on the investigation of Hall's counsel. Quintero told his attorneys about the facts surrounding
the Bernhardt incident, but they did not investigate the matter. The appellant told his attorneys
Pallay was lying when he testified at trial that he knew Quintero since he was six years old because,
according to Quintero, Pallay did not meet Quintero until 1979. However, Quintero said his
attorneys did not respond.

Quintero testified that he respected the elderly, and that he would not have harmed the
victims in this case. He said, “I’d probably shoot whoever was trying to shoot her [Mrs. Vester].”
When they first arrived in the Leatherwood community, which was a retirement community,
Quintero instructed the other escapees not to harm anyone because the police “would never stop
looking for us.” If he had testified at trial, Quintero stated he would have emphasized that he would
not have hurt the victims in this case. If he encountered anyone during the burglaries which were
committed, he stated he would have tied them up like he did Ms. Bernhardt.

Quintero recounted the events surrounding his escape from prison in Kentucky, as he would
have testified at trial. Although Quintero was getting close to his parole date, he decided to join the
escape. When asked why he would do such a thing, he did not have a good response. Quintero had
between five and six hundred dollars on his person. Accordingly, he stated there was no reason for
him to hurt anyone over money. Quintero believed he was the only escapee with any money. Prior

-18-
to the escape, he obtained new clothes and some food and had his hair and beard cut. He knew
Blanton was in prison for murder prior to their escape. And he also knew that Blanton and Hall did
not get along. Quintero stated that he, Montgomery and Hudson were “partners” and that after the
escape the three of them planned to stick together. However, five of the escapees, Quintero, Hall,
Blanton, Montgomery and Hudson, ended up stealing a truck together.

Quintero thought they were heading to Missouri after they stole the truck. He stated he was
surprised to learn they wound up in Clarksville, Tennessee. Quintero grew up in Clarksville, and
he was afraid someone might recognize him. He decided they should travel to the Leatherwood
community because it was a wooded area and he knew Zach Pallay lived there. He met Pallay in
1979 shortly before they were both convicted of robbery. The five escapees hid the stolen truck in
the woods and then looked for an unoccupied trailer or cabin to break into for food and camping
supplies. Quintero testified they broke into the Harris trailer around noon on June 16, 1988. Inside
the Harris home, the five escapees cooked food. Someone took a shower. After about an hour, they
took some supplies and returned to the stolen truck.

After nightfall on the 16th, Montgomery, Hudson and Blanton left the campsite while
Quintero and Hall stayed behind. The three men returned to the campsite about two hours later with
more supplies they stole from the Cherry residence, which was next door to the Harris’ home.
Quintero testified he never went into the Cherry residence. Quintero became upset with
Montgomery for unnecessarily breaking into the Cherry residence and possibly drawing attention
to their presence in the area. When Quintero awoke the morning of the 17th, he and Hall decided to
leave the other three escapees because of the animosity that developed between Quintero and
Montgomery. Quintero found a spot near a pond to set up a new camp. He testified it was near the
marina Pallay’s parents managed. It was during this time that Quintero suggested to Hall they try
to make it to Mexico. Quintero decided to try and contact Pallay to ask him to drive them to meet
Quintero’s brother in Nashville or Memphis. He remembered Pallay liked hanging around that same
pond back in 1979.

After sunset on June 17, 1988, while Quintero and Hall were at the new campsite, they saw
Pallay near the pond drinking beer and smoking a joint. Quintero introduced Hall to Pallay and
mentioned the fact that there were three other escapees nearby. Pallay learned about the prison break
from the media coverage. Pallay agreed to meet Quintero and Hall at the pond the following night,
Saturday, June 18, 1988, and help them get to Memphis to meet Quintero's brother, Brian. There
was a contingency plan for them to meet Sunday night, the 19th, if Pallay did not show on the 18th.

The other three escapees showed up at Quintero and Hall's campsite Saturday afternoon and
informed Quintero and Hall that the three of them had been spotted by a fisherman. The three
escapees brought their supplies with them, and all five men hid their combined supplies in a ravine
near Quintero and Hall's campsite. Quintero stated the five escapees then ran into the woods and
came upon the Foster residence. Quintero testified they were looking for guns because they thought
the police might be looking for them at this point. When asked why he needed a gun, Quintero
stated: "Because I was . . . being hunted. And I was going to escape. You know, I was at war. I had

-19-
- You know, this gets in my personal political beliefs, but I didn't have a problem with the people,
society in general. I was at war with the - with the government. You know, the police
administration. That's what promulgated all of the escapes, you know, the result - my mistrust of
authority and the abuse of authority and - and those kinds of things." Quintero testified he would
have no qualms shooting a police officer who was aiming a gun at him.

After they broke into the Foster house, Quintero learned for the first time that the other three
had previously broken into the McMinn house. According to Quintero, that's where the other three
escapees were spotted by the fisherman. Inside the Foster house, Quintero grabbed a 12 gauge
shotgun and sawed off the barrel. However, he stated he rendered the weapon inoperable when
sawing off the barrel. He also sawed off the stock and barrel of a 20 gauge shotgun which Blanton
gave him. Quintero testified he wore brown jersey gloves while handling the guns and suggested
to the other men they should do the same. Quintero stated Hudson and Montgomery grabbed a .22
caliber rifle and a .30-30 caliber rifle. Hall did not take a gun. Quintero told Blanton that he and
Hall still planned to escape to Mexico and he provided Hall and Blanton with his parents and uncle's
phone numbers in case they became separated again. Quintero told Blanton the plan was to meet in
Memphis at the Greyhound station. While inside the Foster home, the escapees drank some sodas
and cooked and ate some food.

Quintero testified he looked out the window of the Foster house and saw a sheriff deputy’s
car pull into the driveway. He yelled "police" and all five men fled. On the way out of the house,
Quintero grabbed a .22 caliber rifle and a box of ammunition. Quintero testified he ran off into the
woods and stayed there by himself Saturday night, the 18th. He did not meet Pallay that night as
planned. The next morning, Sunday the 19th, Quintero stated he went to find Hall at their rendezvous
spot. After he met back up with Hall, Quintero hid the .22 rifle in a drainpipe. He testified that he
did not believe he would need the gun any more because he had not seen any other law enforcement
officers after leaving the Foster home. He stated the reason they went looking for weapons in the
first place was because the other three men said they had been spotted by someone.

Quintero and Hall met with Pallay Sunday night, the 19th. Pallay told them he would be back
to pick them up the next morning, Monday, June 20, 1988. Quintero and Hall hid in the woods
Sunday night. Pallay showed up the next morning in a red and white pickup truck which had a
camper-top attached to the bed. They arrived in Nashville around dawn on Monday, June 20.
Quintero testified that Hall had telephoned Quintero's father from the Harris residence on June 19,
and Quintero's father told Hall he would drive to Nashville to meet them. According to Quintero,
his father is the one who decided they should meet in Nashville. "Pop took charge of that, you know.
. . And he said, come to Nashville, rather than go to Memphis like we had originally planned. You
know, it was - Basically, I was just going to let him - touch bases with him and, then, continue on
to Memphis." Quintero testified that his father, not Hall, suggested meeting at the truck stop in
Nashville.

According to the plan they devised with Blanton, Quintero and Hall would wait for him for
two days in Memphis. Quintero testified that by the time they arrived in Nashville he had four days

-20-
worth of growth on his beard. He also testified that Hall looked clean-shaven because of his inability
to grow facial hair. Quintero stated that the sun had risen by the time they arrived in Nashville.
Although Quintero planned to have Pallay drive him and Hall to Memphis, his father insisted on
driving them because of his distrust of Pallay. Quintero stated he was worried about getting his
father involved. However, he testified his father knew nothing about the murders at this time. They
arrived in Memphis at approximately 11:00 a.m. Quintero testified his father drove them past the
Greyhound station and dropped them off about a half mile away in a homeless park. Quintero
testified that he placed a phone call to Texas from the bus station on the 20th. He told the person who
answered the phone to let his brother, Brian, know that he would call him back in the next day or so.

Quintero testified that they met Blanton at the bus station at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 21,
1988. Quintero said he called his brother again from the bus station that day. After the security
guard told them to leave the station, they went across the street to an adult oriented business
establishment. When the employees of that business recognized who they were, they left and stayed
in a nearby abandoned building off Beale Street. Quintero testified they inquired about work at a
carnival in town so they would fit into the crowd. At some point, they were confronted by the police
near the carnival. The officer said they fit the description of the three escapees, but they informed
the officer they were carnival workers and he let them go. Quintero testified he called his brother
again the night of the 22nd from an oyster bar on Beale Street. His brother drove to Memphis the next
day, June 23, 1988, to pick up Quintero, Hall and Blanton.

On cross-examination, Quintero testified he did not tell his trial attorneys his version of the
facts. Instead, he "wanted to hear what they had to say." When asked whether he informed his
attorneys about his alleged alibi, Quintero testified he did not because "they got me to a point I just
didn't trust them anymore. I didn't have no faith in them, the system." When questioned further,
Quintero stated neither of his attorneys ever asked him if he had an alibi or anything else about the
case. In response to the question, "So you made a conscious decision not to tell your lawyers about
this alleged alibi," Quintero responded, "Well, I guess - I guess it boils down to that; yeah. A stupid
decision, I guess, but it was - it was conscious, I guess." According to Quintero, neither he nor his
attorneys knew the actual date or time of the murders.

Quintero stated that mitigation was the only matter in which his attorneys were interested.
He said he cooperated with his attorneys in that respect. Although he stated he was not interested
in the mitigation aspect of his case, Quintero believed he should assist his attorneys in gathering
information about his background. He assumed investigation into the actual facts of the case was
being done independently by his attorneys. Quintero testified he had a better rapport with the
mitigation expert in his case and that he was thus able to better communicate and provide
information to him. He said he adamantly communicated to his attorneys that he did not kill the
victims.

Quintero testified he has read a transcript of the evidence from his trial. Quintero was
subpoenaed to testify in Blanton’s trial, but he stated his attorneys advised him not to testify.
According to Quintero, he did not see Blanton again after June 18, 1988, until they met in Memphis.

-21-
Quintero first told someone about his alibi in 1999 when he filed the instant post-conviction
proceeding. When asked why he sat next to his attorneys at trial for seven weeks and not once tell
them he was not present on the date the murders occurred, Quintero responded that he “never did
really understand when the Vesters were killed.” Quintero testified he remembered trial testimony
from the fishermen who heard gunshots the night of June 20, 1988, as well as evidence that the
Vesters’ newspaper, dated June 20, 1988, was found inside their house. However, when questioned
on cross-examination, “And that didn’t strike you as, hey, wait a minute, I wasn’t there,” Quintero
did not respond.

Quintero testified on cross-examination that he stole the gloves he was wearing from the
garage of the Foster house. Quintero testified he never went into the Crawford home. When asked
whether his testimony, that he would not hesitate shooting an officer who pointed a gun at him,
would have "won you points and favors in front of the jury," Quintero stated that his comments about
that "didn't have anything to do with what I was on trial for."

Quintero stated he did not call anyone in his family from the Leatherwood community and
he stated he did not direct Hall to call anyone. He testified that his parents and brother Brian lived
in separate residences on the same property in Texas, and that his parents did not have a telephone
at that time. Quintero testified about his prior record, which included one guilty plea for armed
robbery and two convictions following jury trials for escape, and acknowledged that he “had pretty
good experience - or a lot of experience - in court in the criminal process” and was familiar with his
rights.

Appellant Hall also testified on his own behalf during the post-conviction hearing. Hall was
represented by Attorneys N. Reese Bagwell and Jennifer Roberts at trial. Hall testified that he did
not meet with Roberts until the arraignment, which occurred almost a year after she was appointed
to represent him, and that Bagwell was not present. According to Hall, Roberts did not meet with
him again until six months later. Hall stated that Roberts did not have any capital case experience
at the time of her appointment in his case. He further testified that he independently met with each
of his attorneys approximately four times prior to trial and two times together. Hall’s impression of
his attorney’s responsibilities was that Bagwell took charge of the case while Roberts “was there to
talk to me and keep me company.” According to Hall, on more than one occasion Bagwell asked
the court to relieve him as counsel because his law practice was suffering financially due to the
amount of time he was spending on Hall’s case.

Hall remembered accompanying his attorneys to the T.B.I. facility to view the evidence. Hall
remembered Bagwell informed him they believed that the murders occurred between June 18 and
22, 1988. Hall testified that neither of his attorneys discussed with him the possibility of an alibi
defense. Hall further testified that he did not learn that the victims were murdered on June 20th until
he read the supreme court’s opinion. Hall testified that he was in Nashville on June 20, 1988.
Further, he confirmed the testimony of Quintero detailing their escape, the time they spent in the
Leatherwood community, as well as their trips to Nashville and Memphis. Hall testified that he did
not arm himself after they broke into the Foster residence.

-22-
When his counsel asked why he did not inform his trial attorneys about his possible alibi,
Hall testified he did not know when the victims were murdered. Hall said he questioned Bagwell
why he was not charged with the burglary of the Crawford residence even though the can of ham
with his fingerprint was found there. Bagwell mentioned to him “something about a movable object
theory” which Hall stated he did not understand. Hall told his attorneys he did not burglarize the
Crawford residence. He also informed them he did not kill the victims, burglarize their house, or
steal their car. Hall testified he was never in the Vesters car. Hall also testified he cannot grow a
full beard.

Hall testified that Bagwell discussed with him the option of testifying, but that Bagwell
ultimately concluded it was not a good idea. Hall stated he did not realize the ultimate decision
about whether or not to testify was his; he trusted Bagwell and “figured he knew what he was talking
about.” Hall knew if he testified his criminal record would be placed into evidence, and he testified
at the hearing below that he did not want his record before the jury. However, Hall testified that
Bagwell never informed him there were ways to possibly limit the questions the prosecutor could
ask about his past crimes or soften the impact evidence of his previous convictions would have on
the jury. According to Hall, Bagwell told him “things were under control” and that Hall “didn’t have
nothing [sic] to worry about.” Bagwell informed him the prosecutor did not possess any evidence
implicating Hall for the murders, however, he told him the telephone call to his girlfriend and his
fingerprints would be damning evidence of the burglaries.

During cross-examination, Hall acknowledged having prior experiences with lawyers and
the criminal justice system. Hall testified he was previously involved in at least five criminal court
proceedings. Hall’s attorneys moved to sever his case from Blanton. As part of the motion, Hall
signed an affidavit stating that he and Blanton were separated on June 18, 1988, and that he would
not testify if called as a witness in Blanton’s trial. Hall testified that after the escapees fled the Foster
residence on June 18, 1988, he went back to the abandoned truck and subsequently broke back into
the Harris home. Hall stated he called Quintero’s father early the next morning to ask if Mr.
Quintero had heard from his son. He testified Mr. Quintero was asleep during the first call so he
agreed to call back later in the morning. Hall also telephoned his girlfriend in Pennsylvania. He
stated he left the Harris house after daybreak and found a spot to hide out in the woods near the pond
where he and Quintero were to meet. Hall said Quintero met him sometime around dark later that
day.

Hall reiterated on cross-examination that he did not realize he had an alibi because he did not
know when the murders were committed. He stated he did not remember the fishermen testify that
they heard gunshots the night of June 20, 1988. Hall testified he did not pay attention during much
of the testimony at trial because he was either talking to Attorney Roberts or tired after talking all
night to fellow female inmates. When questioned whether it was his choice not to pay attention
during trial, Hall stated, “Well, I was - I don’t know if it was much of a choice, I just - I got - I was
doing something else.”

-23-
One of the jurors testified he remembered seeing the two appellants brought into the
courtroom in shackles. Another juror testified the jury could not determine for which murder each
appellant was responsible. This juror also testified that the inmate barber who testified about the
appellants’ haircuts and facial hair lost credibility when he acknowledged wanting to change his
name to “Oogateeboogatee.” Another juror testified that evidence about Quintero’s encounter with
Ms. Bernhardt, where no violence occurred, “probably would have” made a difference. However,
on cross-examination, this juror also stated evidence about Quintero’s previous escapes would have
influenced his decision to vote for the death penalty.

Attorney Jennifer Roberts graduated from law school and was licensed to practice law in
1987. She was appointed in December 1989 to represent appellant Hall in this capital murder trial.
Roberts testified that this was her first murder trial; she believed she was not qualified to serve as
either lead or co-counsel. Roberts filed a motion to withdraw from the case. The trial court,
however, denied the motion and appointed qualified counsel to assist. The fee claim she submitted
for compensation in this case totaled $16,335.00. Roberts testified that she lost money in her regular
practice due to the amount of time she devoted to this case.

Roberts testified that Reese Bagwell was lead counsel and that she considered her role as “a
gopher-type, doing what I was told.” Roberts identified several motions for expert services prepared
by Bagwell and she acknowledged that the certificate of service reflects that copies were forwarded
to the prosecutor and counsel for Quintero. Roberts drafted the initial motion for new trial. She
testified that she began experiencing “communication problems” with Bagwell after the conviction
and she later learned that a motion for new trial had not been filed despite the looming deadline. She
received a copy of the motion filed by Quintero’s attorneys and copied some of the issues they
presented. Roberts stated she did not undertake an independent review of the transcript of evidence
to identify issues which pertained to Hall.

During the preparation of the brief on appeal to this Court, Roberts testified that Bagwell did
not maintain contact with her. “I just assumed that Mr. Bagwell had a vast amount of experience
in this and tried a wonderful case, in my estimation, and I thought that he was handling it.”
However, Roberts testified that approximately two days before the brief was due Bagwell contacted
her and asked her to prepare the brief. Evidently, though Bagwell received extensions on the due
date and informed Roberts she did not have to worry about anything, Bagwell was not working on
the brief. Roberts recalled that this Court ordered Bagwell to appear before a panel to show cause
why he should not be held in contempt for failing to timely file a brief. Bagwell ultimately filed a
brief that was a copy of the one prepared by Quintero’s attorneys. Roberts testified that a number
of the issues Bagwell included in the brief were not relevant to their client’s case. Roberts prepared
and filed the appellate brief in the supreme court. Again, Roberts testified that Bagwell was
supposed to prepare the brief, but she discovered near the due date that it had not been filed and
Bagwell failed to respond to her communications. She stated she did not have sufficient time to do
any independent research so she merely assimilated in the supreme court brief those issues which
were filed in the brief before this Court. Roberts did not claim compensation for work on appeal
because she “didn’t do anything.”

-24-
Roberts testified that she attended portions of Blantons trial, which occurred before the trial
in this case. She did not remember filing a bill of particulars or a notice of alibi on behalf of Hall.
Nor did Roberts remember discussing with Hall the State’s request for a notice of alibi. However,
Roberts stated she gained knowledge about the State’s theory on the time of death from Blanton’s
trial. Roberts testified that the defense theory at trial was to attempt to highlight the State’s inability
to prove which defendant killed which victim. Roberts did not remember whether Bagwell directly
asked Hall if he had an alibi.

Roberts did not recall discussing with Bagwell whether or not they should challenge the
medical examiners opinion regarding how long the victims survived after the infliction of the
wounds. Roberts testified she was surprised when Ben Spencer, who testified about the length of
the appellants’ hair, stated during cross-examination in court that he had changed his name to
“Oogateeboogatee.” She agreed that Spencer’s credibility was lost at that point. However, Roberts
did not remember discussing the need to call a dermatologist or other expert. Roberts remembered
Hall being in leg shackles during trial, but she stated his hands were not cuffed and they attempted
to make sure his legs were hidden from the jury’s view.

Roberts testified that Hall “was not real keen on the fact of having anybody involved” in his
trial, but she stated that Hall “would have been the one that [sic] would have told me about” asking
his brother to testify at sentencing. Roberts also testified that she had the primary responsibility of
securing and questioning the expert witness during sentencing.

Roberts testified on cross-examination that she was able to gain advice from her law partners,
who were more experienced attorneys and had tried capital and non-capital murder cases, throughout
the duration of her representation in this case. She also testified that she did not claim compensation
for all of the work she actually performed. Roberts testified they had three days of motion hearings
before trial, and the trial lasted six weeks and two days. She stated that the trial “was absolutely
excruciating for [her] and everybody else that was involved in it.”

According to Roberts, neither defense team was surprised at trial by the testimony of the
fishermen who heard gunshots on the night of June 20, 1988. She believed she was even aware of
that fact before the Blanton trial. Roberts stated they were provided open-file discovery by the
prosecutor; “In going through it, I didn’t find anything that y’all had that we didn’t have.” Roberts
also obtained a synopsis of the proposed testimony of all of the State’s witnesses prior to trial, even
though she testified that “I don’t think that y’all intended for me to get that stuff, but I got it
nonetheless.” Roberts testified it was unusual for the prosecution to allow defense counsel, along
with the defendants, to view evidence and interview experts at the T.B.I. laboratory. Roberts also
remembered her and Bagwell discussing with the trial judge, ex parte, the need for expert services.
Roberts testified that, based on the fact that the trial was being held in rural Humphreys County, they
did not see the need for a jury expert.

-25-
When Roberts was asked what she could have done differently in this case, she responded,
“At the beginning, I don’t know of a lot that I could have done different.” But in retrospect, Roberts
stated she would have taken more of a lead “rather than sitting back” and “using it as a learning
experience.” She admitted, though, that her strategy might have been different given the fact that
the end result after a six week trial was not favorable. Roberts testified that hindsight is always
twenty-twenty. Roberts also stated that she could have taken more of an active role in the appellate
briefing process. According to Roberts, Bagwell had an impeccable reputation and was a very
competent trial attorney. Roberts stated that she never had any problems communicating with
Quintero’s attorneys.

Roberts testified that she met with Hall several times prior to trial and that she was always
available for him to call. When Roberts was questioned during cross-examination whether Hall ever
mentioned a potential alibi, the following exchange took place:

Prosecutor: Okay. He never mentioned anything about an alibi?

Roberts: The conversations that I had with Mr. Hall concerning the facts and
circumstances of this case were very limited.

Prosecutor: Okay. Would he not cooperate?

Roberts: Yes, he cooperated with everything that I asked him to do.

Prosecutor: So, why they were limited?

Roberts: I - that’s something that he would have to - have to -

Prosecutor: Well, I’m asking -

Roberts: - respond to.

Prosecutor: - you, now?

Roberts: I don’t know. I don’t know why they were limited.

Prosecutor: Well, would he cooperate with you?

Roberts: Yes, sir. If I asked him -

Prosecutor: Would -

Roberts: If I asked him a question, he would answer it.

-26-
Prosecutor: Okay. But otherwise, he wouldn’t volunteer any information?

Roberts: No, sir, I didn’t ask him to volunteer any information.

Prosecutor: So he never told you about an alibi?

Roberts: I - I don’t recall that I asked him did he have an alibi.

Prosecutor: No, my question was: Did he tell you that he had an alibi?

Roberts: Not to my recollection that that was not a discussion that [Hall] and I ever
had.

Prosecutor: And why didn’t you discuss that with him?

Roberts: I don’t know. I - I - I - I hate to say it this way, but [Hall] took a lot of his
cues and what information that he gave me from - from [Quintero].

Prosecutor: Okay.

Roberts: You know, they - he and - [Hall, Quintero and Blanton] had a - had a - At -
At the very beginning, it’s my recollection that they had a common plan that
they wanted us to present. And I got the information that [Hall] wanted me
to get. And - And we had a mutual understanding that I took what he gave
me - the information that he gave me - and I didn’t press him on - on the
other issues. It’s - Like, with his family issues. I mean, they’re just - he - he
wasn’t forthcoming with information about his family.

Roberts never conducted an independent interview with Quintero. Regarding the common
plan that Roberts testified the three co-defendants maintained, even after Blanton’s case was severed
her impression was that Hall and Quintero “were not going to have any different story about the
events that went on. They had a common goal.” According to Roberts, if either Hall or Quintero
had an alibi and the other did not, neither was going to “cross each other.” After Blanton’s case was
severed, Roberts discussed with Hall the possibility of severing his case from Quintero’s but Hall
“specifically said, no, do not do it.” Roberts testified they argued to the jury that, because there was
evidence of so many different burglaries, there being no specific time-line established by the State,
and no specific evidence who killed each victim, the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Hall was in the Vester’s home versus burglarizing another house at the time of the murders.

Shipp Weems, District Public Defender for the 23rd Judicial District, was appointed to
represent Quintero at trial. Weems had been practicing law since 1976. Weems testified that at the
time of his appointment in this case he and his three assistants each carried an open caseload of
approximately 800 cases each. Weems was assigned to seven capital cases during that time. Weems

-27-
had previous experience trying capital cases. Weems stated his office did not have the resources
available to handle that many cases at once. Weems testified the court knew about his caseload, but
he recognized it was his job to defend those cases. His office did not employ a separate investigator
during that time, as that position was filled by another attorney due to the caseload. Weems
remembered requesting services for an investigator in other capital cases, which requests were
denied, but did not remember specifically filing a similar motion in this case.

Weems testified that he never spoke with Quintero’s father. Although he stated that he
would have liked to interview Mr. Quintero, he said the reason he did not was lack of time and
resources. Weems believed he met with Quintero in prison more than two times prior to trial.
Weems did not recall any conversations he had with Quintero about an alibi. Weems, however,
acknowledged the procedure for filing a notice of alibi. Though he stated none was filed in this case,
he also stated that this was something that would not have been ignored.

According to Weems, counsel did not investigate the facts or circumstances surrounding
Quintero’s previous convictions. In retrospect, he stated he would have been obligated to investigate
that information. Acknowledging his office’s budget concerns during the period of his
representation of Quintero, Weems testified that his office did not accept collect telephone calls.
Weems testified that budget restraints adversely affected his ability to adequately prepare his cases
for trial.

Weems did not believe they presented a strong mitigation defense at sentencing. Weems
testified that Mr. Quintero’s testimony combined with the testimony of Ms. Bernhardt potentially
could have made a difference in this case, which was based on circumstantial evidence. However,
during cross-examination, Weems agreed that the prosecutor could have made the argument that,
because Quintero was apprehended after tying up Ms. Bernhardt, he would not have made the same
mistake again with the victims in this case.

Weems admitted that the prison barber’s credibility was lost when he revealed his name
change, but he also stated he did not think the court would have granted funding at that point in the
trial for an independent dermatologist to testify on their behalf. According to Weems, even the State
did not learn about the name change until they received documents from the guards from the
Kentucky prison who transported the inmate to trial.

Weems remembered making a request for a fingerprint expert to evaluate the State’s expert
after the trial court apparently changed its mind and allowed the State’s expert to testify. However,
Weems also remembered that this occurred on a Friday during trial and the court only allowed them
until Monday to obtain the experts services. According to Weems, they could not accomplish that.
Weems raised the issue in the motion for a new trial but did not remember why he did not present
the issue on appeal.

Weems testified that counsel for both appellants would normally meet the morning before
trial to discuss issues, but he recalled that Bagwell usually arrived late. The mitigation specialist for

-28-
whom Weems received funding met with Quintero a number of times prior to trial. Weems did not
call him as a witness because he was not satisfied with his work product. However, Weems did not
believe the trial court would approve funding for another mitigation specialist. Weems testified they
decided to leave the former sheriff’s wife on the jury, despite her position on the death penalty,
because they wanted independently thinking, educated women on the panel.

Weems stated that, although he did not necessarily ask all of his clients if they had an alibi,
he would expect those who did to inform him of such. He never heard Quintero mention evidence
of an alibi in this case. Weems commented on his defense strategy: “[B]ecause the case was
circumstantial, we were basically employing the fact that they couldn’t prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt.” After Blanton’s case was severed, Weems advised his client it would be “a horrible, horrible
mistake for him to testify at that trial.” Weems identified the affidavit Quintero signed when
Blanton’s trial was severed. In the affidavit, Quintero stated that he did not see Blanton in Stewart
County after approximately 11:00 p.m. on June 18, 1988. Weems testified, though, that he did not
ask Quintero to provide him a time-line of his whereabouts between June 18 and June 22, 1988.
Further, Quintero stated in the affidavit that he would assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify
at Blanton’s trial.

Zachary Pallay testified at trial. Quintero called Pallay to testify at the post-conviction
hearing. Pallay stated at the time of the crimes in this case he had shoulder-length hair, but no beard.
Pallay believed at the time that he was a suspect for the murders. Pallay learned about the
prisonbreak on the radio. He stated that if the appellants had come to his house he would have asked
them to leave, and further stated he would not have hesitated shooting them if they did not comply.
Pallay testified he knew the Vesters “very well.” Pallay testified during the hearing that he did not
see Quintero in June 1988, and he had never seen Hall before. He did not know when the victims
died, and he stated that he did not drive Quintero and Hall to Nashville.

Danny Warren, Deputy Sheriff with the Humphreys County Sheriff’s Department,
transported the appellants to and from the jail during the trial. The appellants were transported in
shackles. However, their handcuffs and shackles were removed before the jury entered the
courtroom. Likewise, the appellants were placed back into their handcuffs and shackles at the end
of the day only after the jury left the courtroom. Deputy Warren testified that the appellants were
never escorted in handcuffs or shackles in the presence of the jury.

The State called Attorney Steve Stack to testify at the hearing. Stack was Weems’ co-counsel
for Quintero at trial. Stack tried two previous capital murder cases. Stack confirmed Weems’
opinion about the mitigation investigator. Stack testified that he met with Quintero a number of
times before trial. Stack also advised Quintero against testifying at Blanton’s trial. Stack testified
that he investigated the facts of this case. Stack remembered the appellants being restrained in
shackles at the conclusion of the guilt phase of the trial.

The State called Attorney Roberts as a rebuttal witness. She testified about her involvement
in numerous other major felony cases prior to her appointment in this case. During cross-

-29-
examination, Roberts testified they argued that the items on which Hall’s fingerprints were found
were moveable items that could have been brought to the scene after he touched them somewhere
else. Roberts testified that during trial the judge changed his mind about the admissibility of the
fingerprint evidence but permitted defense counsel to obtain an independent examination over a
weekend. Roberts stated that any such examination in that short of a period of time was impractical.
Though the issue was presented in the motion for new trial, Roberts stated the same was not raised
on appeal because Bagwell simply copied Quintero’s brief which did contain the issue.

Roberts testified that Bagwell presented a time-line to the jury during closing argument
explaining that it was possible that Hall could have been burglarizing another home when the victims
were killed. Roberts reiterated that Hall instructed his attorneys he did not want to implicate either
Quintero or Blanton; “they were in it together and their stories were going to stay the same.” As
Roberts stated, attempting to place Pallay in Memphis together with Quintero and Blanton would
have gone against Hall’s directive to counsel. Although Blanton moved to sever his case from the
appellants, Roberts stated that Blanton’s attorneys recommended severance and Blanton merely
heeded their advice.

Deborah Wolkhaner testified that she is a certified master social worker with a master’s of
science degree in social work, with a clinical concentration. After describing her training and
experience, Wolkhaner stated that she had been retained by Hall during post-conviction to
investigate potential mitigation evidence. She met with Hall on a number of occasions and spoke
with his family in Kentucky.

Wolkhaner expressed her belief that the initial motion to withdraw filed by counsel
contributed to a lack of trust between Hall and trial counsel. After obtaining a release, Wolkhaner
obtained Hall’s school records (elementary through completion of his GED), medical records from
childhood through incarceration, birth records, biological mother’s death records, and marriage and
divorce records. She also reviewed records of Dr. Anchor and Dr. Craddock. She cautiously
approached Hall and the family to gain their trust and confidence. Wolkhaner interviewed Robert
Hall (appellant’s brother), Barbara Hall (appellant’s sister), Patricia Burton McNeill (appellant’s
half-sister), Barbara Cook (appellant’s niece), Bob Steele (pupil personnel coordinator at the
elementary school), and Tammy Tate. Her interviews with these individuals helped develop a
picture of Hall’s life. She was not able to locate Hall’s father.

Wolkhaner testified that Hall’s life revealed poverty, malnourishment, loss and abandonment,
divorced parents, and instability in the home. His stepmother was addicted to heroin, Valium and
codeine. Hall’s life had a theme of alcohol and substance abuse. According to her investigation, at
age fifteen Hall went to live with a lesbian couple who wanted him to father a child for them. On
one of Hall’s birthdays, a brother purchased a Valium for him.

During examination by Quintero’s counsel, Wolkhaner agreed that evidence a person had
passed up an opportunity to be violent to an elderly person would have supported the position that
someone did not seek or provoke violence. She further described the purposes and benefits of a

-30-
mitigation specialist. On cross-examination by the State, Wolkhaner affirmed that her responsibility
was to reveal Hall’s problems. She stated that she attempted to check both sides of every story.
Wolkhaner admitted she did not review documents about particular inmate incidents wherein Hall
assaulted another individual. She further had no information about various incidents involving
violence while incarcerated. Wolkhaner opined that Dr. Archer did an incomplete job because he
only brought Robert Hall into the life cycle proof.

After much discussion about Hall’s life and what Wolkhaner did or did not know, Wolkhaner
testified that a thorough mitigation investigation could reveal evidence useful to the defense at the
penalty phase of a trial. She said that while this type of evidence does not excuse conduct, it shows
the jury that these social factors have effects on an individual’s sense of self and their development.

Dr. Murray Wilton Smith, a medical doctor who specializes in addictionology, testified on
behalf of Hall. During his career, he has treated approximately ten thousand patients who have
problems with alcohol and drugs. He formerly ran the program at Baptist Hospital, but at the time
of the hearing served as medical director at New Life Lodge in Dickson, Tennessee.

Dr. Smith testified that he evaluated Hall, examined Hall’s records and conferred with Ms.
Wolkhaner and Dr. Auble concerning Hall. He testified that Hall began using drugs at an early age,
around nine or ten. By the time Hall was twelve or thirteen, he was using alcohol and Valium in
large amounts. This drug use adversely affected Hall’s mental development. Hall’s emotional
maturation was arrested so that he became a “perpetual adolescent.” Dr. Smith testified that persons
in Hall’s situation tend to be impulsive and tend not to consider the consequences of their behavior.

Hall ceased using drugs upon his incarceration and his mental and emotional maturation
process recommenced while he was incarcerated. His only role models were other inmates. Dr.
Smith testified it is important to explain to a jury about the process of addiction because the general
public does not understand addiction and believes that drug use in this situation is a voluntary choice.

On cross-examination by Quintero, Dr. Smith testified that NyQuil is 60 to 70 percent
alcohol and Benadryl is an antihistamine. The products will impair judgment and make a person
drowsy. On cross-examination by the State, Dr. Smith testified that it was his understanding that
Hall had been “clean” for about five years prior to the murders in this case. He testified that Hall’s
model of what people did in his environment was to control things by violence. He stated that under
stress, people tend to go back to their basic survival strategies.

Dr. Pamela Auble, an expert in neuropsychology, testified on Hall’s behalf. Dr. Auble
administered Hall a number of psychological tests and evaluated the results thereof. None of the
results indicated that Hall was malingering or exaggerating his problems. Hall, she testified, was
operating in the average range of intelligence.

Dr. Auble testified that she was familiar with Dr. Kenneth Anchor, the psychologist who
testified as Hall’s mitigation witness at trial. She reviewed Dr. Anchor’s report and trial testimony.

-31-
She also reviewed the testimony of the State’s expert, Dr. Samuel Craddock. Dr. Auble’s findings
were consistent with early abuse of drugs. She found Hall to be impulsive. Dr. Auble opined that
Hall wanted to get along with people but had trouble trusting them. Dr. Auble found no indication
of brain damage or organic brain problems.

Dr. Auble disagreed with Dr. Anchor’s evaluation that Hall suffered from Organic
Personality Syndrome. Dr. Auble testified that her testing and evaluation of Hall was more extensive
than that of Dr. Anchor. Dr. Auble testified that, in her opinion as a neuropsychologist, Dr.
Craddock’s diagnosis of Hall was more accurate than that of Dr. Anchor. She testified that Dr.
Craddock had access to more information about Hall than did Dr. Anchor and that it was the
responsibility of counsel to ensure that the expert is furnished with the appropriate materials and
records. Dr. Auble testified that Dr. Anchor was suspended from practice roughly a year after the
trial in this case. Dr. Auble thought she was contacted by Quintero’s trial counsel but she did not
remember the specifics, including whether the contact was before or after the trial.

Pat McNeill, Hall’s half sister, is seventeen years older than Hall and did not live in the home
with her mother and family when Hall was born. McNeill testified that the family lived in extreme
poverty. They had no running water and no inside restrooms. Hall’s father, McNeill’s stepfather,
worked on a boat and was frequently away from home. Hall and his mother had a close relationship.
She described Hall as “mamma’s baby,” and explained that he did not wander far from his mother.
Hall’s parents were divorced when Hall was approximately three years old, but his father moved in
with a lady down the street. McNeill testified that when the kids attempted to visit their father, he
would chase them away. Their mother developed throat cancer and passed away. According to
McNeill, their mother did not want to tell the children about her cancer right away. After their
mother died, the children when to live with their father.

On cross-examination by the State, McNeill explained that very few people had running
water at the time, though some had cisterns. The family did have electricity and used outhouses.
She was asked about her stepfather, Gene Hall, but did not know if he was dead or alive.

Barbara Newton, Hall’s sister, lived in the same house much of Hall’s life. Newton
explained that everything was fine at home until their mother died, at which time everything “went
down hill.” Newton admitted that she was recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction. Her
stepmother was an addict and often provided drugs for the children. Hall also became addicted to
drugs. She knew nothing of Hall’s prison escape and the murders in this case until co-workers
mentioned something about it. However, she did not know about the trial and indicated no one
contacted her about testifying. On cross-examination, Newton stated that her brother, Robert Hall,
knew her telephone number.

Barbara Cook, the daughter of Barbara Newton and niece of Hall, testified that Hall lived
with them for a while when she was younger. Cook described Hall as more of a brother than an
uncle, and indicated he protected her from everything. Cook testified that she had no knowledge of

-32-
Hall’s trial but indicated she would have cooperated had she been contacted. She did acknowledge
that she read about the escape in the newspaper, but made no attempt to contact Hall.

John Oliva, an attorney practicing law in Nashville, Tennessee, testified on Hall’s behalf.
After stating his credentials, Mr. Oliva described his trial experience, including his work on capital
cases. Hall offered Mr. Oliva as an “expert attorney” for the purpose of establishing the standard
for attorneys practicing criminal law in Tennessee. In preparation for his testimony, Oliva reviewed
much of the trial record. Oliva explained that upon reviewing the records and having heard the
testimony of trial counsel for Hall, he concluded that the work performed by trial counsel fell below
the established standard. When asked about the basis of the standard, Oliva cited the standards
promulgated by the American Bar Association. Giving specific references to various guidelines,
Oliva opined that under each guideline, trial counsel failed to meet their duty. He also opined that
counsel fell below the standard established by the United States and Tennessee Supreme Courts.

Dr. Patty Van Eys, a clinical psychologist who specializes in the area of child maltreatment
and child psychopathology, also testified on Hall’s behalf. Dr. Van Eys stated there are stages of
health development in childhood. In Hall’s early years, she noted several disruptions of attachment,
including divorce and his mother’s death. She specifically referenced a letter from Hall’s mother
indicating that Hall was pulled from her arms when he learned about her cancer. She further referred
to records that Hall was malnourished as a child. Dr. Van Eys stated that following the loss of his
mother, Hall was forced into the home of his father and step mother. His father was noticeably
absent from the home and his stepmother was addicted to several substances. On cross-examination,
Dr. Van Eys admitted that she had not spoken with Hall. Instead, she based her evaluation on
communications with Dr. Auble and Ms. Wolkhaner.

Thomas Watson, an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, testified as an expert
witness on Bagwell’s performance. In reviewing Bagwell’s invoice for services in Hall’s case,
Watson testified that he did not meet with Bagwell on the three occasions listed on Bagwell’s
invoice. In fact, Watson testified that he never met with Bagwell and never discussed the case with
him. Paul Morrow, also an attorney licensed to practice law in Tennessee, testified that he was a
member of the Capital Case Resource Center during the late 1980's and early 1990's. Morrow
testified that he did not confer with Bagwell about Hall’s case on the three occasions listed on
Bagwell’s invoice. Morrow kept his files from the Capital Case Resource Center and there was no
indication from his files or his memory that he had ever discussed Hall’s case with Bagwell.
Morrow testified that if Bagwell had called him, he would have referred him to other attorneys in
the Center because Morrow’s speciality was post-conviction proceedings.

Writ of Error Coram Nobis

As noted above, the appellants filed a joint petition for a writ of error coram nobis on the day
that the post-conviction hearing commenced. The appellants alleged the existence of newly
discovered evidence in the form of testimony from two fellow death row inmates, Ronnie Cauthern
and Terry Lynn King, stating that Blanton confessed that the appellants were not present at the scene

-33-
when he killed the victims in this case. The appellants argued that this evidence may have resulted
in a different verdict had it been presented at trial. Though the appellants missed the one year filing
deadline, the trial court concluded that due process required consideration of the merits of the
petition.

The concept of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, which was developed in the
common law, is now codified in Tennessee by statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26-105. Relief
may be granted under the statute “for subsequently or newly discovered evidence relating to matters
which were litigated at the trial if the judge determines that such evidence may have resulted in a
different judgment, had it been presented at the trial.” § 40-26-105(b). However, as our supreme
court observed, “[t]he writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy known more for its denial
than its approval.” State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 666 (Tenn. 1999). According to the mandate
of the statute, “relief obtainable by this proceeding shall be confined to errors dehors the record and
to matters that were not or could not have been litigated [earlier].” § 40-26-105(b). Moreover, the
appellant must show that he or she “was without fault in failing to present certain evidence at the
proper time.” Id. Reaffirming its holding in Mixon, the supreme court recently stated the following
regarding the standard to be applied when a trial court reviews a petition for a writ of error coram
nobis:

[T]he trial judge must first consider the newly discovered evidence and be
"reasonably well satisfied" with its veracity. If the defendant is "without fault" in the
sense that the exercise of reasonable diligence would not have led to a timely
discovery of the new information, the trial judge must then consider both the
evidence at trial and that offered at the coram nobis proceeding in order to determine
whether the new evidence may have led to a different result.

State v. Vasques, 221 S.W.3d 514, 527 (Tenn. 2007) (emphasis in original). The decision whether
to grant or deny relief rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Hart, 911 S.W.2d
371, 375 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

A petition for a writ of error coram nobis must be filed within one year of the date the
judgment becomes final in the trial court. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d at 671. However, our supreme court
recognized that due process considerations may require tolling of this limitation period. See
Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100, 101 (Tenn. 2001). In Workman, the court weighed the
government’s interest in preventing stale and groundless claims against the appellant’s interest in
having a hearing on the alleged grounds of newly discovered evidence that may establish actual
innocence of a capital offense. Id. at 103. Noting the delay in obtaining the evidence was not
attributable to the appellant, the court reasoned that due process afforded the appellant a "reasonable
opportunity after the expiration of the limitations period to present his claim in a meaningful time
and manner." Id. (internal quotations omitted).

In the instant case, the trial court stated that “the proffered evidence, if believed, would
establish the actual innocence of” the appellants. Although the trial court concluded that the statute

-34-
of limitations should not bar consideration of the petition, the court did not comment on the obvious
delay in presenting the evidence. According to the written petition, the appellants did not become
aware of the evidence until the “summer of 2002.” As noted above, the error coram nobis petition
was filed on March 31, 2003. We do not find this to be such an inordinate delay as to have
precluded the trial court from considering the petition. See Workman, 41 S.W.3d at 103 (thirteen
month delay in filing petition after discovery of evidence did not exceed the reasonable opportunity
afforded by due process). Nor do we find that the statute of limitations prevented the trial court from
considering the merits of the petition. Id. (“Weighing these competing interests in the context of this
case, we have no hesitation in concluding that due process precludes application of the statute of
limitations to bar consideration of the writ of error coram nobis in this case.”). The State did not
object to the trial court’s consideration of the petition, thus any objection raised on appeal regarding
the statute of limitation is deemed waived. See Harris v. State, 102 S.W.3d 587, 593 (Tenn. 2003);
Calvin O. Tankesly v. State, No. M2004-01440-CCA-R3-CO, 2005 WL 2008203 at *6 (Tenn. Crim.
App., Aug. 19, 2005). We now review the trial court’s denial of error coram nobis relief under an
abuse of discretion standard. Hart, 911 S.W.2d at 375.

The proof in support of the error coram nobis petition in this case was presented
simultaneously with the post-conviction proof, and the trial court ruled upon both petitions in
consolidated orders for each appellant. However, the nature of the separate petitions and the burden
of proof required for the requested relief are different. Because a writ of error coram nobis is an
“extraordinary procedural remedy,” Mixon, 983 S.W.2d at 672, the relief obtainable is confined to
errors outside the record and to matters which were not or could not have been litigated during the
trial or post-conviction proceedings. § 40-26-105(b); Arthur L. Armstrong v. State, No. M2005-
01325-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 1626726 at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jun. 8, 2006). While the facts are
necessarily intertwined, as both petitions relate to the same trial proceeding, and the requested relief
is similar, the courts must review each petition independently under the applicable law governing
the statutory remedies. We discuss later in the opinion the issues presented in the post-conviction
petition.

The trial court ruled on the error coram nobis petition before considering the grounds for
relief presented in the post-conviction petition. The testimony of Terry Lynn King and Ronnie
Cauthern is summarized above. The trial court examined this evidence in light of the proof
presented at trial. However, the court correctly did not reference any of the proof presented in
support of the post-conviction petition. In reviewing the merits of the error coram petition, the
courts are bound to look only at the evidence presented at trial and that offered in support of the
coram nobis petition to determine whether the new evidence may have led to a different result.
Vasques, 221 S.W.3d at 527.

The trial court made the following ruling on the petition:

[Appellants] would have the Court believe the testimony of inmates Cauthern and
King that Blanton, before he died, stated to them that Blanton would testify to
exonerate [the appellants]. They testified that Blanton would not so testify during his

-35-
life because it would damage his own appeal. It may be safely assumed that
Blanton’s case would be on a similar time line as that of [the appellants]. Had
Blanton been alive and testified to exonerate [the appellants], it still would have
damaged his own post-conviction case. In short, the motive for Blanton to remain
silent would still exist if Blanton were alive. [The appellants] would have the Court
believe that Blanton, a twice-convicted murderer, would have sacrificed his own case
(and possibly his life) to aid [the appellants] and to insure that justice was served.

Also, Blanton’s supposed statement to inmate King was to the effect that Blanton
alone killed Mr. Vester from inside the house when Mr. Vester resisted Blanton’s
efforts to steal the Vester’s car. Neither inmate indicated that “Zack” assisted in
committing the murders, only that he was present. These inmates’ recitation of
Blanton’s supposed statement do not conform to the evidence of the Vesters’
murders. To believe this statement, this Court would have to accept the fact that
Blanton killed the Vesters using two different firearms and a knife. One inmate
testified that Blanton mentioned an “old man” while the other testified that “they”
resisted and he had to kill “them.” King testified that Blanton killed the “old man”
in order to steal his truck when in fact it was a car that was stolen. The supposed
statement of Blanton simply does not square with the known facts.

Even assuming by some miracle that Blanton had testified at [the appellants’] hearing
as the inmate witnesses related his statements to them, Blanton would have been
devastated on cross-examination using the known facts of the murders to such an
extent that his entire testimony would have been unbelievable.

The Court finds that the proffered testimony would not have altered the result of [the
appellants’] trial. There is no “reasonable probability” that the result of the
proceeding would have been different.

The trial court clearly was not “reasonable well satisfied” with the veracity of King’s and
Cauthern’s testimony. Under the governing standard, the court could have ended its inquiry after
reaching that conclusion. Nothing in the record suggests that the trial court abused its discretion in
this respect. The error coram nobis petition states that, “[i]n the summer of 2002, post-conviction
counsel for William Hall was informed that post-conviction counsel for Derrick Quintero had
obtained statements from inmates that exonerated their clients.” Blanton’s statements to Cauthern
and Hall were necessarily made prior to his death in 1999. While considering the truthfulness of this
alleged newly discovered evidence, this Court cannot ignore the fact that well over two years passed
before either Cauthern or King revealed the information to the appellants or their counsel. Though
Cauthern testified that Blanton was hesitant to jeopardize his own case by confessing, this concern
was obviated by Blanton’s death. The timing of the discovery of this proffered evidence is
suspicious. Although this does not affect the timeliness of the petition itself, it does bear upon the
Court’s consideration of the veracity of the testimony.

-36-
Assuming the trial court was “reasonably well satisfied” that the newly discovered evidence
was truthful, its conclusion that the evidence would not have altered the verdict is otherwise
reasonable. As recounted above, the trial court discussed the variances between the details of
Blanton’s statements to King and Cauthern and the evidence introduced at trial: Blanton apparently
stated he alone killed both victims even though the evidence demonstrated that three different
weapons were used; Blanton apparently told King he killed an “old man” while he told Cauthern he
killed “them”; and Blanton mentioned that he killed Mr. Vester during a struggle when evidence at
trial showed he was shot from outside the home. Although the appellants argue that the variances
can be explained, we agree with the trial court’s finding that the testimony of Cauthern and King
would not have resulted in a different verdict. Moreover, Blanton supposedly informed King that
Zach Pallay accompanied him to the Vester residence. However, Pallay testified at trial that he had
no involvement in the crimes committed against the Vesters. Pallay’s testimony would have directly
contradicted that of King and Cauthern, who would have been subject to cross-examination on the
matter.

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief on the error
coram nobis petition. The appellants, therefore, are entitled to no relief on this issue.

Post-Conviction Burden of Proof and Standard of Review

The appellants’ post-conviction petitions are governed by Tennessee’s Post-Conviction
Procedure Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-30-101 to -122. To obtain post-conviction relief, an
appellant must show that his or her conviction or sentence is void or voidable because of the
abridgment of a constitutional right. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-103. The appellant must
establish the factual allegations contained in his petition by clear and convincing evidence. See
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-110(2)(f). Evidence is clear and convincing when there is no serious or
substantial doubt about the accuracy of the conclusions drawn from the evidence. Hicks v. State,
983 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tenn. Crim. App.1998).

Once the trial court rules on the petition, its findings of fact are conclusive on appeal unless
the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Nichols, 90 S.W.3d 576, 586 (Tenn. 2002) (citing
State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn.1999)); Cooper v. State, 849 S.W.2d 744, 746 (Tenn.
1993). An appellant has the burden of establishing that the evidence preponderates against the trial
court's findings. Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572, 579 (Tenn. 1997). This Court may not re-weigh
or reevaluate the evidence or substitute its inferences for those drawn by the trial court. Nichols, 90
S.W.3d at 586. Furthermore, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value to be afforded
their testimony are questions to be resolved by the trial court. Bates v. State, 973 S.W.2d 615, 631
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1997).

However, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are regarded as mixed questions of law
and fact. State v. Honeycutt, 54 S.W.3d 762, 766-67 (Tenn. 2001); Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 461. As
such, the trial court’s findings of fact underlying a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel are
reviewed under a de novo standard, accompanied by a presumption that the findings are correct

-37-
unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. See Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 458
(Tenn. 2001) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d)). A trial court’s conclusions of law, such as whether
counsel’s performance was deficient or whether that deficiency was prejudicial, are reviewed under
a de novo standard, with no presumption of correctness. Id.

Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Sixth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” U.S. Const.
amend. VI. This right to counsel is “‘so fundamental and essential to a fair trial, and so, to due
process of law, that it is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.’” Gideon
v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 340 (1963) (quoting Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 465 (1942)).
Inherent in the right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446
U.S. 335, 344 (1980). “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether
counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial
cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686
(1984); see Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269, 277 (6th Cir. 2000).

The Supreme Court has adopted a two-prong test to evaluate a claim of ineffectiveness:

First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This
requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not
functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.
Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the
defen

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1052271. Public record. Not legal advice.