# Jessie Dotson v. State of Tennessee

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · March 23, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6326272

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** March 23, 2022
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Presiding Judge John Everett Williams
- **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/6326272

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a petitioner seeking post-conviction relief has the burden of proving factual allegations by clear and convincing evidence
- explaining that in making an offer of proof, the party should have the exhibit marked for identification only and not otherwise introduced
- noting that questions regarding whether the defendant was in custody, interrogated, or confessed of his own volition are primarily factual issues binding on the appellate court, whereas the trial court’s application of law to the facts is reviewed de novo

## Opinion text

03/23/2022
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
August 17, 2021 Session

JESSIE DOTSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County
No. 08-07688 James C. Beasley, Jr., Special Judge
___________________________________

No. W2019-01059-CCA-R3-PD
___________________________________

The Petitioner, Jessie Dotson, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his post-
conviction petition, in which he challenged his six convictions for first degree
premeditated murder and three convictions for attempted first degree murder and his
resulting sentences of death for each of the first degree murder convictions plus 120
years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that (1) he received ineffective assistance of
counsel at trial and on appeal; (2) the Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) and
the Chief Justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court improperly vacated the post-conviction
court’s orders granting the Petitioner’s request for funding of experts; (3) the convictions
and death sentences were the result of juror misconduct; (4) the State and the trial court
committed various errors; (5) the Petitioner’s convictions and death sentences and
Tennessee’s execution method are unconstitutional; and (6) cumulative error warrants
relief. Upon reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, and the
applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

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

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. KELLY
THOMAS, JR., and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

Justyna Scalpone, Post-Conviction Defender; and Andrew L. Harris (at hearing and on
appeal), Kelly Gleason (at hearing), and Christopher M. Minton (on appeal), Assistant
Post-Conviction Defenders, for the appellant, Jessie Dotson.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée Sophia Blumstein,
Solicitor General; Courtney N. Orr, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District
Attorney General; and Stephen Jones, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In March of 2008, the Petitioner shot and killed his brother, Mr. Cecil Dotson, Sr.;
his brother’s fiancé, Ms. Marissa Williams; his brother’s friend, Mr. Hollis Seals; and Mr.
Seals’s girlfriend, Ms. Shindri Roberson, while at his brother’s home. The Petitioner
then attacked his brother’s five children with kitchen knives and wooden boards. Mr.
Cecil Dotson’s four-year-old son, Cemario, and two-year-old son, Cecil II, died as the
result of injuries sustained from the attack. His nine-year-old son, C.J., five-year-old son,
Cedrick, and two-month-old daughter, Ceniyah, survived the attack.1

A jury convicted the Petitioner of six counts of premeditated first degree murder
and three counts of attempted first-degree murder. The jury sentenced the Petitioner to
death for each of the first degree murder convictions. Following a separate sentencing
hearing, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner as a Range II, multiple offender to forty
years for each conviction of attempted first degree murder to be served consecutively to
each other and to the death sentences. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the
Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See State v. Dotson, 450 S.W.3d
1, 11-12 (Tenn. 2014).

The Petitioner timely filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The Office
of the Post-Conviction Defender (“OPCD”) was appointed to represent the Petitioner and
filed an amended petition. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court
issued a lengthy written order denying relief. This appeal ensued.

Trial Proceedings

We summarize the evidence presented at trial as it relates to the issues raised in
the post-conviction proceedings.

1
Consistent with the Tennessee Supreme Court’s opinion on direct appeal, we use given names
and abbreviated forms of given names when referring to the child victims. See State v. Dotson, 450
S.W.3d 1, 12 n.2 (Tenn. 2014). The Court noted that the use of the child victims’ given names did not
compromise their privacy because the record reflected that the surviving children’s surnames were
changed following the commission of the crimes. Id.
-2-
A. Guilt Phase

1. Discovery of the Victims

Following the Petitioner’s release from prison in August 2007, he began living
with his sister, Ms. Nicole Dotson, at her apartment in Memphis, while working with his
father, Mr. Jessie Dotson Sr., as a painter. Id. at 12. The Petitioner’s family referred to
him as “Junior.” Id. Ms. Nicole Dotson testified that the Petitioner held a “grudge”
against his family for failing to visit him more often while he was in jail and that the
Petitioner expressed his feelings to her on a daily basis. Id. at 29. She stated that she was
too frightened of the Petitioner to ask him to move out of her apartment. Id. The
Petitioner’s father testified that the Petitioner and Mr. Cecil Dotson had a normal
relationship but that it bothered the Petitioner whenever Mr. Cecil Dotson told others that
the Petitioner had recently been released from jail. Id. at 30.

On Saturday, March 1, 2008, the Petitioner, his father, and his half-brother, Mr.
William Waddell, went to Mr. Cecil Dotson’s Memphis home, which he shared with Ms.
Williams and his children. Id. at 12. The Petitioner’s father recalled seeing a “powder
blue” revolver, which was the type of firearm that did not eject shell casings, on the
counter at the home. Id. at 30. Mr. Cecil Dotson moved the gun, commenting that the
children might mistake it for a toy, and told the Petitioner that he had moved the gun. Id.
Mr. Waddell stated that the Petitioner had a black and silver gun that evening, instead of
the blue revolver that he ordinarily carried. Id. at 31. The Petitioner’s father left during
the early evening, and Mr. Waddell left at 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. Id. at 12.

At 10:00 or 10:30 p.m., the Petitioner and Mr. Cecil Dotson went to the home of
Ms. Sheila Jones, the Petitioner’s girlfriend, but left upon learning that Ms. Jones was not
there. Id. at 26. Ms. Keaira Jones, Ms. Sheila Jones’s daughter, testified that both the
Petitioner and Mr. Cecil Dotson appeared intoxicated. Id. Between 10:30 and 11:30
p.m., the Petitioner, Mr. Cecil Dotson, and Mr. Seals went to the apartment of Mr. Willie
Boyd Hill, Jr. Id. at 27. Mr. Hill, Mr. Seals, and Mr. Cecil Dotson were members of the
Gangster Disciples, while the Petitioner was a member of the Crips gang. Id. Mr. Seals
had recently been released from jail and came to retrieve a pistol he had left with Mr.
Hill. Id. Mr. Seals retrieved a P-232 Sig Sauer, .380-caliber handgun, which could hold
up to eight rounds, consisting of seven-rounds in the magazine and a single round in the
chamber. Id. Mr. Seals took the loaded gun and left with the Petitioner and Mr. Cecil
Dotson. Id.

At around midnight on March 2, 2008, Mr. Cecil Dotson, the Petitioner, and Mr.
Seals went to the home of Ms. Stacey Young, a friend of Mr. Cecil Dotson. Id. at 29.
Mr. Cecil Dotson told her that he would return after dropping off Mr. Seals and the
-3-
Petitioner, but Mr. Cecil Dotson never returned. Id. At approximately 12:30 a.m., Mr.
Cecil Dotson, the Petitioner, and Mr. Seals went to the apartment of Ms. Erika Smith,
Cecil II’s mother, and Mr. Cecil Dotson spoke to her in the parking lot. Id. After the
men left, Ms. Smith called Mr. Cecil Dotson multiple times. Id. During the last call at
approximately 2:00 a.m., Ms. Smith overheard Mr. Cecil Dotson and the Petitioner
arguing and using profanity. Id.

Between 3:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m., the Petitioner returned to the home of Ms. Sheila
Jones and Ms. Keaira Jones. Id. at 26. Ms. Keaira Jones allowed the Petitioner to enter
the apartment, and she returned to her bedroom. Id. Approximately five minutes later,
the Petitioner knocked on her bedroom door and asked to talk to her. Id. She was putting
her son to sleep and told the Petitioner that she would speak to him shortly. Id. She
heard water running in the bathroom and fell asleep without speaking to the Petitioner.
Id. Ms. Sheila Jones returned home at approximately 5:00 a.m. and found the Petitioner
lying in her bed. Id. at 27. They went to sleep and got up at 10:30 or 11:00 a.m., and she
drove the Petitioner to Ms. Nicole Dotson’s apartment. Id. After the Petitioner and Ms.
Sheila Jones left, Ms. Keaira Jones noticed bleach spots on the brown rug in the
bathroom. Id. at 26. A bottle of Clorox bleach was in the hallway and was not stored in
its usual place. Id.

The Petitioner’s father arrived at Ms. Nicole Dotson’s apartment the next morning
to pick the Petitioner up for work, but the Petitioner was not there. Id. at 12. His father
instructed Ms. Nicole Dotson to tell the Petitioner to contact him if he wanted to keep his
job. Id. Later that evening, the Petitioner called his father and explained that he had not
called earlier because his girlfriend had hidden his cell phone during an argument. Id.
He did not explain why he missed work. Id. The Petitioner and Mr. Waddell went to
dinner that evening, and the Petitioner asked Mr. Waddell if he wanted to pick up Mr.
Cecil Dotson. Id. at 12-13. Because Mr. Waddell had been unable to reach Mr. Cecil
Dotson via telephone numerous times throughout the day, they did not go by Mr. Cecil
Dotson’s home. Id. at 13.

Ms. Smith had not spoken to Mr. Cecil Dotson since the early morning hours of
March 2nd, and no one had come to the door of his home when she knocked that
afternoon. Id. Although the door was partially open and the radio was playing, Ms.
Smith did not see anyone or hear the children. Id. On the morning of March 3rd, Ms.
Smith learned that Mr. Cecil Dotson had not shown up for work and that family members
had not heard from him. Id. She was unable to reach him by telephone and called the
police. Id.

Officer Randall Davis, the first officer to arrive, could “‘smell the dead bodies’” as
he walked into the front door. Id. A firefighter, who arrived later, confirmed that when
-4-
he approached the house, he “‘could smell the blood in the air’” and described it as “‘[a]
thick, spoiled smell like it had been there a while.’” Id. Officer Davis noted that the
storm door was closed and that the interior door was partially open, and he saw a
person’s foot lying on the floor inside. Id. Upon entering the house, he discovered the
four adult victims, all of whom appeared to have sustained multiple gunshot wounds and
were deceased. Id. A paramedic later confirmed that the adult victims were deceased
and noted that the blood on the victims appeared to have dried. Id. at 14.

Officer Davis and other officers continued to search the house. Id. at 13. There
was blood throughout the house, but none of it appeared to be fresh. Id. Officer Davis
discovered C.J. in the bathtub of the hallway bathroom with a knife embedded in his
head. Id. Initially, Officer Davis believed C.J. was deceased but then noticed C.J.’s eyes
twitch. Id. A firefighter who attended to C.J. and transported him to an ambulance saw
cuts on C.J.’s face and a “sawzall blade” sticking out of the top of his head. Id. at 14.
The bathroom was “‘a mess,’” with “‘blood everywhere.’” Id. An emergency medical
technician (“EMT”) testified that upon entering the bathroom, C.J. “‘turned his head and
the next thing we saw was one of the most horrible things I’ve seen, it was a knife stuck
embedded in his skull and it was just stuck there. And it absolutely is the worst thing
I’ve ever seen in my life.’” Id. The EMT noted puncture wounds on C.J.’s abdomen and
superficial cuts to his neck. Id.

Officer Davis discovered Cemario, who was deceased, in a bedroom on the left
side of the hallway (“bedroom two”). Id. at 13. He discovered Cecil II and Cedrick, both
of whom he believed were deceased, in another bedroom (“bedroom one”). Id.
Emergency medical personnel determined that Cedrick was still alive and transported
him in an ambulance. Id. at 14. Another officer discovered Ceniyah, who was still alive,
and removed her from the home. Id. at 13.

2. Crime Scene Evidence

Sergeant Anthony Mullins of the Memphis Police Department’s Homicide Bureau,
who was accepted by the trial court as an expert in general crime scene investigation and
bloodstain pattern analysis, testified regarding his observations of the crime scene and the
collection of evidence by the crime scene processing team. Id. at 15. He described the
crime scene as horrific and said it was the worst he had ever worked. Id. The adult
victims sustained multiple gunshot wounds, and all of the adult victims except Mr. Seals
sustained at least one gunshot wound to the leg. Id. A nine-millimeter firearm and a .380
caliber firearm were used in the shooting, but neither firearm was located at the scene.
Id. Officers recovered spent bullets throughout the living room and two nine-millimeter
and three .380 caliber spent cartridge casings on the living room floor. Id. A sealed
Ziploc bag containing eleven nine-millimeter and five .380 caliber spent cartridge casings
-5-
was located underneath a jacket on the love seat, and Sergeant Mullins concluded that the
perpetrator or perpetrators collected the shell casings after the shootings in order to
remove them from the scene. Id.

Special Agent Cervinia Braswell, a forensic scientist with the Tennessee Bureau of
Investigation (“TBI”), analyzed the eight .380 caliber cartridge casings and the thirteen
nine-millimeter cartridge casings. Id. at 37. She concluded that all of the .380 caliber
casings were fired from the same gun and that all of the nine-millimeter casings were
fired from the same nine-millimeter firearm. Id. She noted that a .380 caliber firearm
typically holds eight rounds, with seven rounds in the magazine and one round in the gun,
and that a nine-millimeter firearm typically told thirteen rounds, with twelve rounds in
the magazine and one round in the gun. Id. She testified that a single person could have
fired all thirteen rounds from the nine-millimeter firearm and all eight rounds from the
.380 caliber firearm within a short period of time. Id.

Mr. Cecil Dotson sustained several gunshot wounds, including multiple wounds to
the front of his body and to his lower legs and one wound to his neck and to the bottom of
his foot. Id. at 15. A different gun was used to shoot his legs than the gun used to shoot
his neck. Id. Sergeant Mullins believed several of the wounds were inflicted close in
time to or after Mr. Cecil Dotson’s death. Id. Officers collected fibers from Mr. Cecil
Dotson’s chin and mouth that were consistent with a pillow having been placed over his
face when he was shot, and officers collected a pillow in the living room through which a
bullet had passed. Id. Mr. Cecil Dotson was in a kneeling position in front of the sofa
with his torso on a sofa cushion and a bag of marijuana in his left hand. Id. Sergeant
Mullins believed Mr. Cecil Dotson’s body had been staged after the shooting. Id. at 16.
He explained that Mr. Cecil Dotson would not have sustained the gunshot wounds to the
front of his body while in the position in which he was discovered, and he likely would
have been facing the shooter when the first shot was fired. Id. Sergeant Mullins further
explained that the bag of marijuana was too large for Mr. Cecil Dotson to close his
fingers around and that he would have dropped it had he been holding it during the
shooting. Id.

Ms. Roberson was “in a seated position on the floor, with her back to the sofa, her
legs extended, and her head to the side, between the sofa and the loveseat. Her shirt was
pulled up, exposing her breasts, and her pants were pulled down, exposing her lower
body from her waist to her knees.” Id. Sergeant Mullins noted little blood on the floor
beneath her body and stated that thick coagulated blood on a nearby sofa cushion was
consistent with the type of blood loss from a gunshot wound similar to a wound sustained
to Ms. Roberson’s leg. Id. Sergeant Mullins believed Ms. Roberson had been pulled
from the sofa to the floor near the time of or after her death. Id. Her pants were
“saturated with blood, and bullet holes in her pants corresponded to the location of the
-6-
gunshot wounds to her legs, indicating that her pants were covering her legs when she
was shot and were pulled down afterwards.” Id. A clear plastic bag containing what
appeared to be crack cocaine was found on the outer portion of her vagina, and Sergeant
Mullins noted that the bag appeared to have been placed on her body. Id.

Ms. Williams was slumped over onto Ms. Roberson on the floor with her legs
across Ms. Roberson’s legs. Id. Sergeant Mullins noted that the carpet was stained with
blood on the side opposite the direction in which Ms. Williams was leaning. Id. at 17.
He stated that based upon the position of Ms. Williams’s legs across Ms. Roberson’s
legs, Ms. Williams’s body was staged after Ms. Roberson was positioned on the floor.
Id.

Mr. Seals was located across the front door and near a door connecting the kitchen
and the living room, and his pants were pulled below his knees. Id. Sergeant Mullins
noted a pool of blood on the carpet near Mr. Seals’s body with a “void” area where the
carpet was not bloodstained. Id. He stated that the “void” indicated that unstained area
was covered when the blood pool was formed and that the carpet was stained with blood
on the opposite side of Mr. Seals’s body. Id. “Based on the bloodstains, the distance
between them, and the location of Mr. Seals’s legs one atop [of] the other, Sergeant
Mullins believed that Mr. Seals’s body may have originally been lying in the area of the
‘void’ and may have been rolled from that area when his pants were pulled down and his
wallet removed.” Id.

Officers located a loaded twelve-gauge sawed-off shotgun on a stack of clothing in
the living room, a little more than an arm’s length away from Mr. Cecil Dotson, and
officers found additional live rounds of shotgun ammunition under the sofa. Id. at 16.
Blood was found on the end of the shotgun barrel, and Ceniyah was a minor contributor
to the DNA from the blood. Id. Sergeant Mullins testified that the gun was positioned on
the clothing after the shooting because no blood spatter was on the clothing beneath the
gun and the victim to whom the blood belonged was found in another area of the home.
Id.

Sergeant Mullins testified that the sharp force and blunt force injuries sustained by
the children “were inflicted with kitchen knives and wooden boards the perpetrator found
in the home.” Id. at 17. Officers located five knife blades throughout the home, one of
which was lodged into C.J.’s head. Id. The word, “Faberware,” a brand of kitchen
knives, was on one of the blades. Id. Officers located an intact knife handle and what
appeared to be broken pieces of another knife handle, and “Sergeant Mullins believed the
perpetrator removed the knife handles from the blades after the assaults.” Id. A
silverware tray was overturned on the kitchen floor. Id. Officers also located
bloodstained and broken pieces of wood throughout the house. Id. Sergeant Mullins
-7-
stated that “the perpetrator’s use of guns, knives, and boards already present in the home
demonstrated the perpetrator’s familiarity with the home.” Id.

Sergeant Mullins offered extensive testimony regarding the large amount of blood
spatter throughout the home. Id. at 17-19. He stated that “the large amount of blood
spatter found in the bathroom and bedrooms one and two was consistent with a prolonged
‘one-on-one struggle’ rather than a more rapid execution of the children.” Id. at 17. He
identified numerous areas of cast-off spatter throughout the bathroom, indicating multiple
blows with either a wooden board or a knife. Id. at 18. He noted dripped blood caused
by an actively bleeding victim on the toilet tank and down the toilet bowl. Id. He also
identified a bloody partial palm print on the tile wall as a transfer stain, and the print was
later matched to Cemario. Id. at 17-18. Sergeant Mullins believed more than one victim
was assaulted in the bathroom based on the dripped blood and Cemario’s bloody palm
print. Id. at 18. Officers recovered three green beads similar to the beads found in Cecil
II’s hair, which Sergeant Mullins testified could have fallen out during an attack of Cecil
II in the bathroom. Id.

Cemario was discovered in bedroom one face down on the floor in a pool of
blood. Id. Officers discovered two wooden boards and broken pieces of braided hair on
the floor, which Sergeant Mullins said would have broken off as a result of a forceful
blow to Cemario’s head. Id. at 18-19. Based on the broken braids and the pool of blood
beneath Cemario’s head, Sergeant Mullins believed Cemario suffered a fatal blow while
lying on the floor of bedroom one. Id. at 19. Sergeant Mullins believed Cemario also
was assaulted in the bathroom, explaining “‘[t]he level of violence delivered to [Cemario]
couldn’t have happened in [bedroom one] without some additional blood evidence. So
there has to be some movement after the fact.’” Id.

Cecil II and Cedrick were found in bedroom two. Id. Sergeant Mullins testified
regarding the blood spatter in bedroom two, which he stated indicated that multiple blows
were delivered in the room. Id. More green hair beads like those in Cecil II’s hair were
on the floor beneath the bed. Id. Officers discovered a knife blade bent into an “S” shape
with blood on it inside a pillowcase, and Sergeant Mullins believed the blade was bent
when the handle was removed. Id. Officers found a second knife blade between the
mattress and the wall and a bloodstained wooden board inside the room. Id. Sergeant
Mullins testified that a perpetrator could have prevented the children from escaping by
standing in the doorway of the living room because the children would have been
required to travel through the living room to reach an exterior door. Id.

Sergeant Mullins believed the perpetrator spent a considerable amount of time
staging the crime scene following the murders. Id. He stated that the perpetrator was
familiar with the home and comfortable enough to remain in the home to alter the scene.
-8-
Id. at 20. He noted that “knowledge of gangs and drug activity would have been useful in
staging the crime scene.” Id. Based on his experience, he did not believe gang members
would have gone to the scene unarmed, used weapons found in the home to commit the
offenses, and then remained inside the home following the murders. Id. He was
“unaware of any gang-related homicides in which women were murdered and children
were assaulted and killed with knives and boards.” Id.

Blood samples taken from the scene were sent to the TBI for analysis. Id. at 36.
Each of the samples matched one of the victims, but none of the samples matched the
Petitioner. Id. The Petitioner’s DNA was not on any of the other items from the crime
scene that were collected and analyzed. Id. at 37.

3. The Petitioner’s Initial Statements and the Investigation into Whether the Offenses
Were Gang-Related

Ms. Nicole Dotson, along with the Petitioner and their cousin, Ms. Tammy
Randolph, went to the scene on the evening of March 3rd. Id. at 30. Ms. Nicole Dotson
testified that the Petitioner told her not to speak to the media and that they likely would
blame him for the murders due to his criminal history. Id. When Mr. Hill and “Trell,”
another acquaintance, arrived at the scene, the Petitioner became angry and told his sister
that he believed the two men committed the murders. Id.

On the following day, Sergeant James Terry Max and Sergeant Joe Stark
interviewed the Petitioner, who was at that time only considered a possible witness. Id. at
20. The Petitioner stated that he was at Mr. Cecil Dotson’s home with his family on the
evening of March 1st. Id. The Petitioner informed the officers of the various places
where he, Mr. Cecil Dotson, and Mr. Seals visited after leaving the home. Id. at 21. The
Petitioner stated that Mr. Cecil Dotson and Mr. Seals dropped him off at his girlfriend’s
apartment at approximately 2:15 or 2:30 a.m., after which he did not see them again. Id.

The officers asked the Petitioner whether Mr. Cecil Dotson had any enemies, and
the Petitioner told them about an argument between Mr. Cecil Dotson and Mr. Hill about
two weeks prior to the interview. Id. The Petitioner stated that the argument began after
Mr. Hill’s girlfriend called the police from her apartment which she shared with Mr. Hill
after seeing Mr. Cecil Dotson slap Ms. Smith. Id. When officers arrived, Mr. Cecil
Dotson told them that there were drugs inside the apartment. Id. The Petitioner stated
that Mr. Cecil Dotson and Mr. Hill were members of the Gangster Disciples and that
gang members were prohibited from calling the police on other gang members. Id. The
Petitioner stated that Mr. Hill wrote up Mr. Cecil Dotson for a violation of the rule
through “Doc Holiday” and that Mr. Cecil Dotson failed to attend the meeting held by the
gang to determine his guilt. Id. The Petitioner also stated that following the murders,
-9-
Mr. Hill called “Doc Holiday” and asked him what had occurred and who had committed
the murders. Id. at 22.

The police had not been investigating gang members as possible suspects prior to
the Petitioner’s statement. Id. Sergeant Max subsequently spoke to Mr. Cedric Atkins,
who had earlier reported hearing that Mr. Cecil Dotson had stolen $300,000 from a drug
dealer. Id. Sergeant Max also interviewed a confidential informant, who stated that he
heard Mr. Cecil Dotson had stolen $50,000 from “Doc Holiday,” a member of the
Gangster Disciples. Id.

Both Mr. Hill and Ms. Smith confirmed at trial the incident during which Mr.
Hill’s girlfriend called the police on Mr. Cecil Dotson, who then reported to the officers
that marijuana was inside the apartment where Mr. Hill also lived. Id. at 27-29. Mr. Hill
informed “Cato,” who then informed “Doc Holiday,” the “coordinator” of the Gangster
Disciples over the Orange Mound area in Memphis. Id. at 28. Mr. Hill discussed the
matter with “Doc” and “Dread,” the chief of security over the area, who told Mr. Hill to
issue a “write-up” or disciplinary notice to Mr. Cecil Dotson. Id. Possible punishments
for a write-up included anything from beatings to a “death violation.” Id. Mr. Hill
explained that, generally, a death violation only applied to the individual gang member
and not to everyone associated with him. Id. He stated that gang members could have
gotten Mr. Cecil Dotson alone if they had wanted to kill him and that they would not
have waited until 2:00 a.m. to do so. Id. Mr. Hill had never heard of gang members
involving innocent women and children in the punishments. Id. He said that if the gang
members had entered a home to kill someone, they would have been armed and would
have not run out of bullets. Id.

Mr. Hill testified that he never issued a write-up against Mr. Cecil Dotson. Id. He
stated that “Dread” and “Doc” were close friends with Mr. Cecil Dotson and would not
have harmed him. Id. Mr. Hill heard that when “Cato” and “Doc” approached Mr. Cecil
Dotson about a gang violation, Mr. Cecil Dotson told them to “shove it” and refused to
accept the discipline. Id. Mr. Hill also heard that “Doc” had slept with Ms. Williams,
and Mr. Hill testified that Mr. Cecil Dotson and “Doc” had a disagreement over drywall
work that Mr. Cecil Dotson had completed at “Doc’s” apartment. Id. When Mr. Hill
went to the crime scene, he called “Cato” and asked if he and “Doc Holiday” were
involved in the murders, and “Cato” denied any involvement. Id. at 27.

Prior to his death, Mr. Cecil Dotson told his and the Petitioner’s father that he was
worried that members of the Gangster Disciples might harm him because he was trying to
leave the gang. Id. at 30. Mr. Cecil Dotson asked his father to move in with him because
he believed gang members would not harm him if his father was living with him. Id. His
father lived with him for about one month. Id. Mr. Cecil Dotson’s father moved out after
- 10 -
family members advised him that he likely would be killed if he interfered in Mr. Cecil
Dotson’s situation with other gang members. Id.

“Members of the Gangster Disciples reportedly became angry upon learning that
the gang had been implicated in the murders of women and children.” Id. at 22. The
mother of the Petitioner, Mr. Cecil Dotson, and Ms. Nicole Dotson discovered that her
door had been kicked in by gang members. Id. The Petitioner, his mother, Ms. Nicole
Dotson, and her children moved in with a cousin. Id. Ms. Nicole Dotson contacted the
police after she received calls on her cell phone that appeared to originate from her
apartment. Id. Officers were assigned to protect the home where the Petitioner and his
family were staying. Id. When the marked police car arrived, the Petitioner “became
agitated and ‘frantic.’” Id. The Petitioner expressed a belief that he was the target of the
police investigation and that the police were attempting to “‘pin’” the offenses on him,
and he said that he did not intend to go to jail for an offense he did not commit. He
declared that “[t]hey should ‘just bury [him] with [his] brother.’” Id. The Petitioner
pointed a gun at his head. Id.

The Petitioner’s cousin told the two police officers who were outside the home
that the Petitioner threatened to commit suicide if the officers entered the home. Id.
Officer Laneeze Stepney spoke to the Petitioner on a cell phone, after which the
Petitioner agreed to allow the officers to enter the home. Id. at 22-23. The Petitioner told
the officer, “‘[E]verybody think[s] I did it. I’ve been all on the news and the police
saying I did it….’” Id. at 23. Upon entering the house, Officer Stepney retrieved the gun
from the Petitioner and attempted to calm the Petitioner, “who was acting ‘real nervous
like he had a lot on his mind.’” Id. The officers placed the Petitioner and his family in
protective custody and moved them to a safe house. Id.

4. The Children’s Testimony and the Petitioner’s Confession

Memphis Police Department Deputy Director Toney Armstrong, a lieutenant with
the Homicide Bureau at the time of the murders, and Lieutenant Walter Davidson, the
case coordinator, decided to quarantine the surviving children at the hospital and not
release their identities because they had not yet identified the perpetrator and wanted to
prevent additional attacks. Id. at 14. Family members were not allowed to contact the
children from March 3rd through March 8th. Id.

C.J., Cedrick, and Ceniyah were transported to LeBonheur Children’s Hospital
where Dr. Michael Muhlbauer performed surgery on each of them. Id. at 23. Dr.
Muhlbauer offered the following testimony regarding each of the children’s injuries:

- 11 -
C.J. had trauma and swelling to his forehead, part of a steak knife sticking
out of his head, and a six-to-seven-inch laceration in his scalp that extended
down his forehead. C.J.’s skull was severely fractured, and large pieces of
his skull had been driven inward with a blunt force object. C.J. also had
either a “glancing” stab wound or two separate stab wounds on the back of
his arm and chest, a superficial laceration across his neck, a laceration on
his right hand, and a laceration on his left thumb. Dr. Muhlbauer said that
without medical intervention C.J. would not have survived the injuries he
sustained.

Dr. Muhlbauer testified that Cedrick exhibited significant facial
trauma and was “essentially semicomatose” when he arrived at the hospital.
Cedrick had sustained injuries that were, in Dr. Muhlbauer’s opinion,
consistent with having been beaten with boards, including multiple
fractures to his face, mid-face, and the lower portion of his skull, a
fractured nose which had been pushed inward, and a small skull fracture
with bruising on the back of his brain. In addition, Cedrick sustained stab
wounds to one eye, his forehead, and his neck. Dr. Muhlbauer testified that
Cedrick would not have survived without medical intervention.

Dr. Muhlbauer testified that Ceniyah arrived at the hospital with
significant head trauma, which included a large cut in her scalp that
exposed her bone. The right side of Ceniyah’s skull had been pushed or
crushed in with a blunt object, resulting in an “open-depressed skull
fracture.” A CT scan revealed that the covering of Ceniyah’s brain was
“probably cut” and that her brain was mildly bruised. Dr. Muhlbauer
testified that Ceniyah’s injuries were consistent with being struck with
boards. She also had stab wounds to her left lower extremity. Dr.
Muhlbauer said that absent medical intervention, Ceniyah would not have
survived these injuries.

Id. (footnote omitted).

On March 5, 2008, two days after C.J.’s surgery, Lieutenant Caroline Mason
attempted to interview him. Id. at 23-24. However, C.J. was “‘in and out’ of
consciousness, cursing, ‘talking crazy,’ and screaming out names, including ‘Cassandra’
and ‘Roderick.’” Id. at 24. Although Ms. Williams had a sister named Cassandra,
officers determined that she was not involved in the offenses. Id. On March 7th,
Lieutenant Mason interviewed C.J. after a nurse called officers and reported that C.J. was
awake and rational. Id. C.J. identified “Uncle Junior,” the Petitioner, as the perpetrator.
Id. After listening to the recording of the interview, Deputy Director Armstrong ordered
- 12 -
officers to transport the Petitioner to the Homicide Bureau and assigned Lieutenant
Mason and Sergeant Max to interview him. Id.

The Petitioner, “who was under arrest at that time, was advised of his rights,
signed a written waiver, and agreed to speak with the officers.” Id. He essentially
repeated his prior account of the events, varying in only one or two respects. Id.
Lieutenant Mason testified that during the interview, the Petitioner told her and Sergeant
Stark that “he didn’t want to talk to us anymore, to get somebody else in there for him to
talk to.” Lieutenant Mason and Sergeant Max left the interview room, and Deputy
Director Armstrong decided to attempt to interview the Petitioner. Id.

Deputy Director Armstrong

watched the [Petitioner’s] body language as he talked to the [Petitioner]
about how horrific the crimes were. He said the [Petitioner] seemed
“really, really tight, like he was doing everything he could not to talk to
me.” According to Deputy Director Armstrong, the [Petitioner] gave one-
or-two-word answers to questions and would not engage in open
conversation. Deputy Director Armstrong said that “[m]ost of the time if I
asked him a question, he would nod his head or shake his head. But you
could tell he was doing everything he could not to engage me in an open
conversation as to where we had open dialogue back and forth with each
other.”

Deputy Director Armstrong said that, when he entered the interview
room, he knew that the [Petitioner] was very familiar with the criminal
justice system and that the [Petitioner] had only recently been released from
prison. When Deputy Director Armstrong asked the [Petitioner] whether
he believed in God and in heaven and hell, the [Petitioner] said that he did.
Deputy Director Armstrong stated that the [Petitioner] was “struggling to
try to maintain his composure” and at times during the interview leaned
forward as if he wanted to make a statement but would then lean back.
Deputy Director Armstrong said that he could tell the [Petitioner] was
hiding something.

At one point, Deputy Director Armstrong allowed the [Petitioner] to
grab his hands, attempting to convey to the [Petitioner] that he knew
something was weighing heavily on the [Petitioner’s] mind. Although it
appeared to Deputy Director Armstrong as if the [Petitioner] were about to
speak to him, the [Petitioner] refused to engaged in conversation and asked
to go to the restroom. Deputy Director Armstrong allowed him to go.
- 13 -
When the interview resumed, Deputy Director Armstrong asked the
[Petitioner] what his family called him, and the [Petitioner] replied,
“Junior.” He asked the [Petitioner] if anyone else in his family was referred
to as “Junior,” and the [Petitioner] said, “[N]o.” In response to questions,
the [Petitioner] also told Deputy Director Armstrong that no one else in his
family looked like him and no one in the family had ever confused him
with someone else in the family. When the [Petitioner] was asked whether
a member of his family would be referring to him if the person used the
name “Junior,” the [Petitioner] said yes.

Deputy Director Armstrong then played the tape recording of C.J.
stating that he had been stabbed by his “Uncle Junior.” According to
Deputy Director Armstrong, the [Petitioner] became visibly upset and
appeared as if he were about to cry. The [Petitioner] then told Deputy
Director Armstrong that he and Cecil went somewhere to get a gun, began
arguing, and continued to argue during the drive back to Cecil’s house.
The [Petitioner] said that when they returned to Cecil’s home, the argument
escalated. When Cecil reached for a shotgun, the [Petitioner] began
shooting, using both his gun and Ms. Williams’s gun. The [Petitioner] said
that he then attempted to “get rid” of the children because they had seen
him. The [Petitioner] stated that he “stuck them,” using the knives from the
kitchen drawer.

According to Deputy Director Armstrong, the [Petitioner] began to
cry and appeared as if “he had gotten the weight of the world off his
shoulders. But it was almost like I’m defeated.” Deputy Director
Armstrong testified that when he began to question the [Petitioner] in
greater detail about what had occurred in the house, using his knowledge of
the crime scene to frame the questions, the [Petitioner] asked for an
attorney, and the interview ceased. The [Petitioner] also asked to speak
with his mother….

Id. at 24-25.

Officers retrieved the Petitioner’s mother from the safe house and transported her
to the police station, where she spoke to the Petitioner. Id. at 25-26. She held the
Petitioner’s hands and asked him what was happening and whether the police were
“‘trying to put it on him.’” Id. at 26. The Petitioner initially did not respond but then told
her that he “‘did it.’” Id. His mother asked him “‘why the babies,’” and the Petitioner
responded that they had seen him. Id. The Petitioner stated that he and Mr. Cecil Dotson
had argued all day and that Mr. Cecil Dotson had a gun. Id. Although Mr. Cecil Dotson
- 14 -
did not point the gun, he was “‘swinging it.’” Id. The Petitioner said he began shooting
once Mr. Cecil Dotson put the gun down and that the Petitioner later rode a bicycle away
from the scene to his girlfriend’s home. Id. The Petitioner’s mother testified that she
“‘asked him [why] the kids and he said they saw me. And I said but the baby, the baby.
He didn’t say nothing, just shook his head. And I got up and told him I love him and I
left.’” Id.

Officers subsequently located C.J.’s yellow bicycle in a shed behind Ms. Jones’s
home. Id. Neither the blood of any of the victims nor the Petitioner’s DNA was found
on the bicycle. Id. None of the victims’ blood was on the Petitioner’s clothing seized
following his arrest. Id. at 37.

C.J. testified at trial that he was watching television in his sister’s bedroom when
he heard a gunshot. Id. at 31. C.J. said he

walked out of his sister’s room and into the hallway. C.J. recalled peeking
into the living room and seeing “my Uncle Junior point a gun toward my
daddy,” who was not saying anything. C.J. testified that he saw “some
smoke and sparks come out [of] the gun” and then looked down on the
ground” and “saw [a] dude on the floor[ ],” who was wearing a black shirt
and black pants.

C.J. testified that when he heard another gunshot, he “peeked”
through the door, walked into the hallway, and saw the [Petitioner]
shooting at a woman who was on the arm of the couch. C.J. did not
recognize the woman, but he recalled that she was telling the [Petitioner]
that she loved him, but the [Petitioner] “just kept on shooting.”

C.J. said that he then returned to his sister’s room and sat down on
the bed. Hearing footsteps coming toward the door, he turned and saw the
[Petitioner] holding a “handheld knife,” which C.J. described as the type
that opens and closes. C.J. said that when the [Petitioner] cut him on his
neck, he told the [Petitioner] that he loved him, but the [Petitioner] replied,
“[N]o, you don’t.” C.J. then lay down on the bed, and Cecil II began
crying. C.J. heard the [Petitioner] then say to Cecil II, “[D]on’t worry
about it, you ain’t going to get hurt.”

C.J. testified that he tried to retrieve the telephone from the hallway
to call the police, but before he could do so, he saw the [Petitioner’s] feet in
the doorway and heard the [Petitioner] ask him what he was doing. When
C.J. told the [Petitioner] that he was going to call the police, the [Petitioner]
- 15 -
said he would kill C.J.’s parents and Cecil’s friends if C.J. did so. C.J.
recalled asking the [Petitioner] if he could use the bathroom and noticing
that the [Petitioner] had a “kitchen knife” in his hand. C.J. recalled the
[Petitioner] allowing him to go to the bathroom, but stated that the
[Petitioner] “ma[d]e [him] put [his] head in the tub.” When he had done so,
the [Petitioner] tried to stab C.J. in the chest, but C.J. put his hand up to
block the blow, and the knife went into his head instead.

C.J. recalled seeing his mother, Ms. Williams, in the doorway of the
bathroom saying that she did not want to die. The [Petitioner] asked her for
Cecil’s cellphone and car keys, and Ms. Williams replied that the keys
likely were in Cecil’s car. C.J. recalled the [Petitioner] then saying to Ms.
Williams, “sorry because I ain’t let your husband or your husband’s friends
get away with it and the kids.” Then C.J. heard what he described as a
“huge fall on the ground.”

C.J. testified that he next saw the [Petitioner] walking in the hallway
with a garbage bag and another kitchen knife, going into C.J.’s sister’s
bedroom. C.J. heard someone yelling and heard the [Petitioner] saying
“shut up.” C.J. then heard Cemario ask to use the bathroom and saw blood
dripping from Cemario’s head onto the rim of the toilet seat. He said that
Cemario asked the [Petitioner] if he could return to his room and the
[Petitioner] said that he could. Next, C.J. said, the [Petitioner] went into the
kitchen, grabbed another knife, and entered the bedroom of C.J. and his
brothers. C.J. said he saw Cemario lying on the bed and the [Petitioner]
stab Cemario, who then fell on the floor. C.J. said he heard “rambling” in
the hallway near the laundry room, as if the [Petitioner] were attempting to
move something out of the way. C.J. then fell asleep in the bathtub and
heard nothing more that night.

C.J. testified that when he awoke, he saw firemen in his bedroom
looking at Cemario. One of the firemen came into the bathroom and got
C.J. out of the bathtub. C.J. was transported to the hospital by ambulance.
C.J. said that no one was with the [Petitioner] during the attacks and that
the [Petitioner] acted alone. By the time of trial, more than two years had
passed since C.J. identified the [Petitioner] as the lone perpetrator of the
crimes. During that time, C.J. had not wavered in his identification of the
perpetrator.

However, C.J. also testified at trial that he had told “Ms. Pat” in a
previous interview that on the same night that the “bad thing” happened, a
- 16 -
woman named “Cassandra” knocked on the door and said that she needed
to use the bathroom. She and some other people, including a man wearing
a mask with “[a] little bit of blood” on it, entered the house. C.J. had never
seen the man before, but he recalled Cecil referring to the man as
“Roderick.” C.J. did not recall who allowed “Roderick” to enter the house,
although he acknowledged that he had previously told “Ms. Pat” that Cecil
allowed “Roderick” to enter the house and that he was mad at Cecil for
doing so. C.J. testified that “Roderick” said something to Cecil about the
gang and also told Cecil, “[Y]ou got too big, boy.” According to C.J.,
“Roderick” fired a gun at Cecil and said, “[N]ever stop playing with the
gang boy, … you never know what would happen, boy.”

On redirect examination, C.J. again identified the [Petitioner] as the
person who stabbed him in the head, shot his parents and their friends, and
hurt his brothers and baby sister.

On recross-examination, C.J. testified that he saw a fight in the
living room between Cecil and the man in the mask and again maintained
that the man was shooting at Cecil. He also agreed that he had met with
“Ms. Caroline” and “Ms. Pat” at “Ms. Pat’s” office, and had said, when
they asked him how he knew some of the things he told them, that his
“granny” had told him.

Id. at 31-32.

Cedrick, who was eight years old at the time of trial, testified that the Petitioner
“stabbed him on the nose, forehead, and wrist and that no one else was with” the
Petitioner. Id. at 32. According to Cedrick,

the attacks occurred at night but before he had eaten dinner. He did not
recall hearing gunshots that night and also did not recall seeing the
[Petitioner] shoot anyone. He said that no one had told him that the
[Petitioner] shot anyone. Cedrick testified that the [Petitioner] got the knife
he used to stab them from his car, but he could not remember the color of
the [Petitioner’s] car. Cedrick said that, although he had not seen the
[Petitioner] stabbing his parents, he recalled that his parents and their
friends were stabbed. Cedrick said that when his parents were killed, all of
the children, other than one of his brothers and the baby, were locked in his
sister’s bedroom. Cedrick stated that his brother had told him that Ms.
Williams was injured while she was in the living room changing the baby’s
diaper.
- 17 -
Cedrick testified that he heard Ms. Smith on the telephone calling
the police, and he recalled that [Ms.] Nicole [Dotson], whom he referred to
as “Auntie Foxy,” was also present when they were attacked. Cedrick
acknowledged previously telling “Ms. Pat” and C.J. that his father never
should have opened the door. Cedrick explained that a fight began after his
father opened the door, and he remembered many people fighting that
night, and specifically recalled a man, whom he did not know, fighting with
his father and his father’s friends. Cedrick also remembered C.J. sneaking
out of the house after the [Petitioner] had stabbed him and riding on his
bicycle to his grandmother’s home. Cedrick testified that he had sneaked
up on his “Uncle Jessie,” got on his own bike, and also rode away to his
grandmother’s home. Cedrick recalled that when he and C.J. left, everyone
was still alive in the house and [they] were talking, singing, and having fun.

On redirect examination, Cedrick said that he had been in his sister’s
room when the [Petitioner] stabbed him, and he also recalled telling “Ms.
Pat” that the [Petitioner] stabbed him. On recross-examination, Cedrick
testified that he had talked to “Ms. Pat” after he had been living with his
family for a period of time and after he had listened to others discussing the
homicides and attacks.

Id. at 32-33.

Dr. Lisa Funte, a Shelby County medical examiner and expert in forensic
pathology, performed the autopsies of Ms. Williams, Ms. Roberson, and Cecil II. Id. at
33-34. Dr. Miguel Laboy, another medical examiner in the Shelby County Medical
Examiner’s Office, performed the autopsies of Mr. Seals, Mr. Cecil Dotson, and
Cemario. Id. at 33-35. Dr. Funte testified at trial regarding the autopsies of all six
deceased victims. Id.

Mr. Seals died as the result of multiple gunshot wounds, including one to his
mouth, one of his midline upper chest area, and one to the side of his chest near his right
armpit. Id. at 33. Ms. Williams sustained five gunshot wounds: one to the left side of
her head, one to the right side of her chest, one to her left leg, one to her right thigh, and
one to the left side of her abdomen. Id. Ms. Roberson sustained four gunshot wounds:
one to her right thigh, one to her left knee, one to her left calf, and one to her left thigh.
Id. at 34. Dr. Funte testified that based upon the wound pattern on Ms. Roberson’s legs
on her jeans, she was wearing the jeans when she was shot, and her clothes were
rearranged later. Id. Mr. Cecil Dotson sustained eight gunshot wounds: one to his head,
one to his neck, one to his chest, one to his right thigh, two to his left thigh, one to his left
- 18 -
leg, and one to his left foot. Id. According to Dr. Funte, “fiber found in the area around
the entry of the gunshot wound to Cecil’s head was consistent with the shooter placing a
fiber-filled pillow over Cecil’s face and firing the gun through the pillow.” Id.

Nine-millimeter and .380 caliber bullets and jackets were recovered from the
bodies of the adult victims. Id. at 37. No gunshot residue was found on the clothing of
Mr. Cecil Dotson, Ms. Roberson, or Ms. Williams. Id. at 38. Special Agent Braswell
testified that the lack of gunshot residue “meant either that the shooter was far enough
away from the victims when the gun was fired that it left no residue, or that an object,
such as a pillow, had been placed between the gun and the victim.” Id. Gunpowder
particles were on the bullet holes in Mr. Seals’s shirt. Id. Special Agent Braswell
estimated that the gun was at least two feet and no more than four feet away from Mr.
Seals when it was fired. Id.

Dr. Funte testified that “Cecil II died of multiple sharp force injuries, including
multiple incised and stab wounds to his head, torso, and extremities.” Id. at 34. Cecil II
sustained seven stab wounds that penetrated and fractured his skull, as well as

a puncture-style stab wound to the right side of his head, two puncture-style
stab wounds to his left cheek, two incised wounds on the left side of his
face near his eye, an incised wound to his right ear, beginning at the top of
his ear and continuing along the inside of the ear, a group of incised
wounds of varying lengths and an incised wound leading to a stab wound
on his torso, multiple incised and stab wounds on his back, and a mixture of
sharp force and blunt force injuries on the left side of his torso.

Id. at 34-35. Cecil II also sustained multiple blunt force injuries resulting in abrasions
and contusions, including an abrasion on the right side of his head that almost formed the
outline of a rectangle and was consistent with him being struck on the right side of his
head with a board. Id. at 35. Dr. Funte stated that based on the nature of Cecil II’s
injuries, he attempted to fend off his attacker. Id. Cecil II possibly could have survived
had he received medical treatment within an hour of receiving his injuries, although it
was not “‘necessarily probable.’” Id.

Cemario died of blunt force and sharp force injuries. Id. He sustained

blunt force trauma to his head, with lacerations and bruises, multiple linear
depressed fractures of the calvarium and the base of his skull, deep scalp
and subarachnoid hemorrhage, and multiple contusions to his brain. Dr.
Funte also noted areas of abrasions and lacerations on Cemario’s head, as

- 19 -
well as an incised wound above his left ear that tore part of his scalp away
from his skull.

Id. Cemario also sustained

incised wounds to his head, neck, and right hand. A stab wound to his
chest went all the way through his body, injuring his left lung and
hemidiaphragm, as well as his stomach, spleen, and liver. Cemario also
sustained linear abrasions and bruises on his left arm, abrasions on his
forehead, an abrasion and bruising on his right ear, a gaping incised wound
to his neck, abrasions on his right arm, and an incised wound on his ring
finger, which was consistent with Cemario having attempted to defend
himself by holding up his hand or grabbing the knife.

Id.

5. The Defense Proof

The defense presented the testimony of Mr. Cedric Atkins, who said that
approximately one and one-half weeks prior to the murders, Mr. Cecil Dotson told him
that he owed about $300,000 to the “‘mob.’” Id. at 38. Mr. Atkins testified that he
relayed this conversation to a police officer after the murders and maintained that he
never demanded money from the officer in exchange for the information. Id. Mr. Atkins
did not recall asking the officer what was “‘in it for [him].’” Id.

Sergeant Stark testified that following the murders, he interviewed Mr. Waddell,
who stated that Mr. Hill had told him that the victims were tortured and that Mr. Cecil
Dotson’s fingers were severed. Id. Mr. Waddell also stated that Mr. Cecil Dotson and
“Doc” had a “‘falling out.’” Id.

Dr. Nancy Aldridge, a psychotherapist and expert in the forensic evaluation of
children, testified regarding her concerns about the manner in which the interviews of
C.J. and Cedrick were conducted. Id. at 39. She noted that C.J. was interviewed on four
or five different occasions, including shortly after he was found, and that he gave
different statements about what had occurred. Id. She also noted that the formal forensic
interviews were not held until more than five months after the murders, which increased
the potential that the children had been exposed to information about the crimes from
other family members. Id. Dr. Aldridge testified that C.J.’s initial account in which he
named “Cassandra” was “‘possibly’” reliable because those who observed the interview
said C.J. appeared to relive the trauma while giving the statement and the interviewers
appropriately used open-ended questions. Id. Dr. Aldridge stated that a child’s memory
- 20 -
becomes less clear with the passage of time and that a child who continues to be
questioned after providing an answer may provide a different answer, thinking that the
initial answer was unacceptable. Id.

Dr. Aldridge stated that C.J. and Cedrick appeared to be prepared for their
testimony at trial in that they appeared to know what questions were going to be asked
ahead of time and what their answers would be. Id. at 40. Dr. Aldridge testified that
“although the reliability of C.J.’s testimony was an issue for the jury, she questioned its
reliability because C.J. seemed to agree with whatever question was asked of him.” Id.
She noted the potential for contamination of their memories based upon the time period
that had elapsed between the murders and the trial. Id. She acknowledged on cross-
examination that she was unaware of whether C.J.’s identification of the Petitioner as the
attacker was incorrect but noted that she had “‘concerns.’” Id.

The Petitioner testified that the murders were committed by unknown assailants as
he was hiding under the bed in the master bedroom. Id. He stated that earlier that night,
Mr. Cecil Dotson had argued with a man in a parking lot while Mr. Seals was at Mr.
Hill’s apartment retrieving a gun. Id. The Petitioner stated the argument involved the
incident during which Mr. Cecil Dotson reported to police that there was marijuana inside
the apartment where Mr. Hill lived. Id.

The Petitioner testified that after making several stops, they returned to Mr. Cecil
Dotson’s home where the Petitioner and the four adult victims gathered in the living
room. Id. at 40-41. Mr. Cecil Dotson asked Ms. Williams to put clean sheets on the bed
in the master bedroom because he planned to allow Ms. Roberson and Mr. Seals, who
had recently been released from jail, to use the master bedroom. Id. at 41. The Petitioner
stated that he volunteered to change the sheets and that he heard two or three gunshots
while in the master bedroom. Id. Although he had a blue .44 caliber handgun, he hid
under the bed when he heard screaming. Id. He heard a few gunshots at first, followed
by more gunshots seconds later. Id. The Petitioner stated that after several minutes, he
left his hiding place and returned to the living room where he found the victims’ bodies.
Id. He said he believed everyone in the house, including the children, were deceased, and
he rode away on a bicycle that was behind a door in the living room. Id. at 41-42. He
stated that he rode the bicycle to Ms. Jones’s home where he vomited in the bathroom.
Id. at 42. He then used bleach to clean the vomit from the sink, dropping some of the
bleach on the floor. Id.

The Petitioner explained that he did not report what he had witnessed to the police
because, “‘Y’all done heard testimony about the gangs. I’m in a gang. We don’t call the
police. It’s just that simple. We don’t call the police. It’s not part of what we do. If I
call the police, I’ll be just like my brother.’” Id. He testified that he did not tell the truth
- 21 -
when initially questioned by the police because he “‘[doesn’t] talk to police.’” Id. The
Petitioner testified that prior to his interview with Deputy Director Armstrong,

he had been in the Homicide Bureau for hours and was handcuffed to a
table. The [Petitioner] said that Deputy Director Armstrong played a tape
recording of C.J. identifying him as the perpetrator but did not play earlier
taped interviews of C.J. identifying other individuals. The [Petitioner]
stated that after playing the recording, Deputy Director Armstrong began
screaming about the [Petitioner’s] family and said that he was tired of
“playing games.” According to the [Petitioner], Deputy Director
Armstrong said he knew the [Petitioner] was “bullshitting” and that he was
“sick of it.” The [Petitioner] said that Deputy Director Armstrong began
“pounding” on the table and demanding to have answers “now.”

Id.

The Petitioner denied that he was telling the truth to Deputy Director Armstrong
and his mother when he admitted to shooting the adult victims and attacking the children.
Id. He explained that

when he was interviewed on March 7th, he had not slept since the
homicides were discovered on March 3rd and that he had cried and had
been depressed about what had happened. The [Petitioner] stated that he
asked to see his mother approximately three times during the interview, but
Deputy Director Armstrong told him that he would not be allowed to see
anyone until the [Petitioner] told him what he wanted to know. The
[Petitioner] said that, earlier on March 7th, he had told other officers that he
did not kill the victims. The [Petitioner] insisted that his statement to
Deputy Director Armstrong admitting his guilt was not true, and he
proclaimed his innocence of the crimes, stating that he did not kill Cecil or
any of the other victims.

Id. at 42-43.

On cross-examination, the Petitioner admitted that he did not call 9-1-1 after
discovering the victims and that he did not report the crimes to anyone the following day.
Id. at 43. He also admitted that he had lied to family members about the last time that he
had seen Mr. Cecil Dotson. Id. He did not attempt to use the cordless phone in the
master bedroom to call for help. Id. He remained under the bed for approximately thirty
minutes and denied hearing the children scream or hearing anyone hitting the children
with boards. Id. He stated that when he entered the living room, Ms. Roberson was in
- 22 -
the position in which she was discovered by police. Id. The Petitioner said that he saw
C.J. lying in the bathtub but that he did not “‘pay attention’” to the knife in C.J.’s head
and did not check to determine whether C.J. was alive. Id.

With regard to his confession to Deputy Director Armstrong, the Petitioner
testified that

he was in the interview room with Deputy Director Armstrong for four or
five hours, and the [Petitioner] maintained that he had confessed only after
Deputy Director Armstrong screamed at him and threatened him. The
[Petitioner] explained:

He didn’t pound on the table. It was he asked me when he
played the tape and after he played the tape, he played the
tape what, [twelve, thirteen] times. And after he played it
[twelve] to [thirteen] times, after I still told him I didn’t do it,
that’s when he said I’ll kill your mother f***ing ass myself,
you cold-hearted murdering killing mother f***er.

According to the [Petitioner], Deputy Director Armstrong then said: “I got
something for you. I’m going to throw your ass on that 4th floor and I’m
going to let them kill your mother f***ing ass.”

Id.

With respect to his meeting with his mother, the Petitioner testified that

he had leaned across the table and told his mother, “[T]hey trying to put
this on [me].” His mother asked for the names of those who were trying to
do this so that she could get him help. The [Petitioner] said that he told her
he did not know their names and that they were watching him. The
[Petitioner] said that he and his mother then grabbed each other’s hands,
that he told his mother not to worry, and then admitted to committing the
offenses. The [Petitioner] acknowledged that he told his mother that he and
Cecil began arguing and that, after Cecil put down his gun, he had begun
shooting. The [Petitioner] also recalled both his mother asking him how he
got away from the house and his response that he rode away on a bicycle.
The [Petitioner] agreed that he had told his mother that he killed the
children because they saw him. However, the [Petitioner] insisted that he
lied to his mother and that his trial testimony was truthful.

- 23 -
Id. at 43-44.

The jury convicted the Petitioner of six counts of premeditated first degree murder
for the deaths of Mr. Cecil Dotson, Ms. Williams, Mr. Seals, Ms. Roberson, Cemario,
and Cecil II. The jury also convicted the Petitioner of three counts of attempted
premediated first degree murder for attacking C.J., Cedrick, and Ceniyah.

B. Penalty Phase

During opening statements in the penalty phase, counsel for the Petitioner argued
that based upon the Petitioner’s age, he would never be released from prison even if the
jury imposed a sentence of less than death. Counsel noted that there were structures in
place to help defendants “be better and live lives in prison.” Counsel also asked the jury
to consider the Petitioner’s background in determining an appropriate sentence.

The State relied upon the proof submitted during the guilt phase of the trial and
introduced three additional photographs of Cemario and Cecil II as evidence of the
heinous, atrocious, and cruel aggravating circumstance. The parties stipulated that the
Petitioner previously had been convicted of second degree murder, which qualified as a
felony involving the use of violence to the person.

The State presented victim impact evidence through the testimony of Ms.
Williams’s mother and Mr. Seals’s aunt. Ms. Williams’s mother testified that she had
adopted her surviving grandchildren and was raising them and that, as a result, she had
lost her job and was struggling financially. She and her family were in counseling as a
result of the offenses. Mr. Seals’s aunt testified that Mr. Seals had three children, whom
he loved and was supporting at the time of his death. She stated that Mr. Seals’s death
deeply affected her because he was like a younger brother to her before his mother died
and she acted as a mother figure to him following his mother’s death.

The defense presented the testimony of Ms. Glori Shettles, a mitigation specialist,
regarding the Petitioner’s family history and background. She stated that prior to
becoming a mitigation specialist, she worked as a parole officer and became familiar with
the prison system in Tennessee. She offered testimony regarding the different
classifications and tasks that could be assigned to a prisoner based upon the prison where
he or she was assigned.

Ms. Shettles testified that she gathered all available records regarding the
Petitioner, spent a great deal of time with the Petitioner, who was “open” about his
background, and interviewed several family members, who were willing to provide
information but were not willing to testify. According to Ms. Shettles, the Petitioner’s
- 24 -
parents were married in 1972 when his mother was fifteen years old and his father was
nineteen years old. Their first child, Ms. Nicole Dotson, was subsequently born. The
Petitioner’s father joined the Army and was stationed in Florida where the Petitioner was
born. At some point, the Petitioner’s mother and Ms. Nicole Dotson returned to
Memphis, and Ms. Nicole Dotson became very ill, after which the Petitioner’s father left
his station and returned to Memphis. The Petitioner’s father served about three years in
the Army and received an honorable discharge. He was unable to find employment in
Florida, so he moved his family back to Memphis.

Upon their return to Memphis, the Petitioner’s mother began leaving the children
at home, and his father became jealous of her. She returned from a church trip to New
Orleans with a boyfriend and told the Petitioner’s father that she no longer wanted to be
married to him. They remained married for a period, during which time the children
witnessed their parents arguing and the Petitioner’s father being physically abusive to his
mother. By this time, Mr. Cecil Dotson, who was three years younger than the Petitioner,
was born. The Petitioner’s mother saved up money and left with the children without
telling the Petitioner’s father. She did not contact the Petitioner’s father until four or five
months later. The Petitioner, who was about six years old, and the other children did not
know what had happened to their father. The Petitioner and his siblings had little contact
with their father during their childhood. When the Petitioner was nine years old, his
mother began a relationship with the father of her next two children. The man treated the
Petitioner, his siblings, and his mother well, but the relationship ended.

Ms. Shettles noted a great amount of instability in the family, stating that the
family moved often and that the Petitioner attended ten different schools. The Petitioner
was diagnosed with a learning disability in reading and math, and he was enrolled in
resource classes as a result. He also had disciplinary problems at school and at home.
According to school mental health records, the Petitioner received individual counseling
and benefited from it. The records also indicated that his mother canceled appointments
to meet with school mental health officials or would not be home when home visits were
scheduled. The Petitioner repeated the fourth grade twice, not due to poor grades but due
to excessive absences. The Petitioner and his siblings were teased at school because they
did not have proper clothing, so the Petitioner would not go to school. He was socially
promoted in other grades.

The Petitioner became involved in the juvenile court system when he was fifteen
years old and was arrested several times. His mother reported being unable to control
him, and job corps was recommended but was not followed through. His mother
attended juvenile court proceedings involving the Petitioner on many occasions. On one
occasion, Ms. Nicole Dotson, who was about two years older than the Petitioner, attended

- 25 -
a juvenile court proceeding involving both the Petitioner and Mr. Cecil Dotson because
their mother was unable to attend.

The Petitioner’s mother often was not at home, and Ms. Nicole Dotson cared for
her brothers. The food was locked up in the home so that the Petitioner and his siblings
did not have access to it. The family often went to the home of the Petitioner’s maternal
grandmother for Sunday dinner, and the Petitioner and Mr. Cecil Dotson took money
from her purse. Ms. Shettles testified that although they did not tell people why they
were taking the money, they were doing so in order to purchase food. They were
punished severely for taking the money, and the Petitioner’s grandmother told his mother
that the Petitioner and Mr. Cecil Dotson were no longer welcome in her home.

The Petitioner withdrew from school at the age of sixteen while in the eighth
grade. For a three-month period, the Petitioner lived with his cousin and her mother, and
several relatives lived nearby. The Petitioner was happy while living there, but his
mother asked him to return home to help care for her three young children. The
Petitioner worked as a security guard for a very short period of time at the age of
eighteen, and Ms. Shettles stated this was the only legitimate job that he ever held.

At the age of nineteen, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to second degree murder and
received an eighteen-year sentence. Ms. Shettles detailed the restrictions and various
punishments for violating rules in prison. She said that the Petitioner had many write-ups
during the first few years, most of which were for non-violent acts, but that he also had
one write-up for a violent act. The Petitioner was denied parole on two different
occasions before he was granted parole after serving fourteen years in prison. Ms.
Shettles detailed the various programs completed by the Petitioner while in prison.

While the Petitioner was in prison, his mother and her husband visited him on one
occasion, and no other relatives ever visited him. He spoke to his father “a couple of
times” on the telephone. Ms. Shettles noted that the Petitioner has family members who
care for him, including a son, a personal friend, and a friend of his grandmother.

On cross-examination, Ms. Shettles acknowledged that when the Petitioner was
younger, he often was in trouble at school and at home and that he had been suspended
from school so often that the school system refused to allow him to continue his
enrollment. She noted that several of the Petitioner’s adjudications in juvenile court
involved weapons and that his school and juvenile court records referenced problems
with his brother. Ms. Shettles was aware that the Petitioner became a member of the
Crips gang while in prison. She recalled that while in prison, the Petitioner and four
other inmates were accused of cutting another inmate during a gang-related altercation.

- 26 -
On redirect examination, Ms. Shettles testified that the Petitioner also witnessed
violence as a child, including physical fights between his parents. When he was
seventeen years old, he saw his mother place her baby in scalding hot water. The
Department of Children’s Services investigated the incident and concluded the matter to
be unfounded. The Petitioner maintained that the incident occurred.

During closing arguments, counsel for the Petitioner requested that the jury
consider the Petitioner’s background, as well as any residual doubt, and to impose a
sentence of life without parole. At the conclusion of the closing arguments, the trial court
instructed the jury regarding the following mitigating circumstances: (1) any lingering or
residual doubt as to the Petitioner’s guilt; (2) the Petitioner was raised in a dysfunctional
family; (3) he suffered childhood neglect; (4) his parents separated when he was six years
old, and his father was not a part of his life; (5) the Petitioner experienced numerous
changes of residences and schools throughout early childhood; (6) he was retained twice
in the fourth grade due to truancy and was absent from school many times; (7) he was
diagnosed with a learning disability; (8) his mother was not compliant with scheduled
meetings and failed to appear at juvenile court hearings on several occasions; (9) he
witnessed what he believed to be intentional physical abuse of his younger brother by his
mother; and (10) any other mitigating facts raised by the evidence.

At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury returned sentences of death for
each of the first degree murder convictions. With regard to the murder of Mr. Cecil
Dotson, the jury found the following three aggravating circumstances set forth in
Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i): (2) the Petitioner previously was
convicted or one or more felonies involving the use of violence; (3) he knowingly created
a great risk of death to two or more people, other than the victim murdered, during the act
of murder; and (12) he committed mass murder. With regard to the murders of Ms.
Williams, Mr. Seals, and Ms. Roberson, the jury found the same three aggravating
circumstances applied to Mr. Cecil Dotson’s murder, as well as the following two
additional aggravating circumstances: (6) the murder was committed for the purpose of
avoiding, interfering with, or preventing the lawful arrest or prosecution of the Petitioner
or another; and (7) the murder was knowingly committed while the Petitioner had a
substantial role in committing, or attempting to commit, or was fleeing after having a
substantial role in committing or attempting to commit any first degree murder. See
T.C.A. § 39-13-204(i)(6), (7). With regard to the murders of two of the minor children,
the jury found the same five aggravating circumstances applied to the first degree
murders of Ms. Williams, Mr. Seals, and Ms. Roberson, as well as the following two
additional aggravating circumstances: (1) the victim was less than twelve years old and
the Petitioner was eighteen years or older; and (5) the murder was especially heinous,
atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that
necessary to produce death. See T.C.A. § 39-13-204(i)(1), (5).
- 27 -
During a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to
forty years as a Range II, multiple offender for each of his convictions for attempted first
degree murder to be served consecutively to each other and to the death sentences. The
Petitioner appealed to this court, raising twenty-one issues, and this court affirmed the
Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See State v. Jessie Dotson, No.
W2011-00815-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 4728679, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 25, 2013),
affirmed by State v. Dotson, 450 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014). On automatic review, the
Tennessee Supreme Court also affirmed the convictions and sentences. See Dotson, 450
S.W.3d at 12.

Post-Conviction Proceedings

On August 17, 2015, the Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for post-
conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and errors by both the trial
court and the State. Shortly thereafter, the post-conviction court appointed counsel to
represent the Petitioner. On May 31, 2017, the Petitioner filed an amended petition. The
evidentiary hearing was continued on multiple occasions, and much of the pre-hearing
litigation centered on the denial of funding for expert witnesses, the admissibility of
testimony of jurors from the Petitioner’s trial, and various discovery issues. The
evidentiary hearing occurred October 1-4, 2018.

At the evidentiary hearing, co-counsel testified that he and lead counsel were
appointed to represent the Petitioner at trial. Co-counsel had been practicing law since
1996 and had attended capital defense training sessions prior to the Petitioner’s trial. He
had represented defendants in six or seven capital cases prior to the Petitioner’s trial. Co-
counsel had approximately fifty cases when he was representing the Petitioner, some of
which were non-capital homicides.

Co-counsel testified that the defense at trial was that “there [was] no way one
person shot two guns, killed all these people and left no trace in there,” that “the State’s
theory [did] not make sense,” and that “there was [not] one shred of physical evidence to
corroborate the State’s theory.” Co-counsel stated that he was in charge of preparing for
the penalty phase and almost half of the guilt phase and that he spent approximately
seven-five percent of his time preparing for the guilt phase.

Trial counsel retained Ms. Rachael Geiser as the guilt/innocence investigator and
Ms. Glori Shettles as the mitigation investigator, and trial counsel had worked with both
Ms. Geiser and Ms. Shettles in numerous prior cases. Trial counsel provided the
investigators with direction, but the investigators also often came to trial counsel about
issues. Trial counsel had multiple meetings with the investigators and communicated
with them through telephone calls and email. Co-counsel stated that he also spoke to the
- 28 -
investigators when he saw them at the courthouse about once a week. Co-counsel did not
interview any witnesses at their homes, explaining that the majority of the witnesses were
uncooperative.

The trial court granted a limited change of venue and ordered that the jury be
selected in Nashville and then transported back to Memphis for the trial. Co-counsel
stated that he and lead counsel believed that if the jury convicted the Petitioner of the
offenses, the jury would impose the death penalty. As a result, trial counsel chose some
jurors, whom trial counsel believed would be favorable to the defense regarding issues of
guilt or innocence, even though trial counsel did not believe those jurors would be
favorable regarding death penalty issues.

Co-counsel testified that one of the jurors who was chosen for the jury (“Juror 1”)
stated in his jury questionnaire that he had “no problem with the death penalty as [he]
believe[d] no person has a right to take any person’s life under any circumstance.” Co-
counsel acknowledged that during voir dire, Juror 1 indicated that he could not consider a
sentence of less than death for the killing of a child and that it would be difficult to
mitigate the murder of a child. Co-counsel acknowledged that some judges would
exclude a prospective juror for cause if the juror was unable to consider a sentence of less
than death for the killing of a child and that a defense attorney should seek to exclude
such a juror for cause unless the attorney wanted the juror “for some other reason.” Co-
counsel stated that while he generally did not want such a juror on the jury for a capital
case, trial counsel chose jurors who were “far less appealing” regarding death penalty
decisions because trial counsel wanted jurors who could comprehend the forensic
evidence. Co-counsel said that the DNA and hair evidence was more complicated than in
a “usual trial” and that, as a result, they chose jurors whom they generally would not have
chosen. In response to questioning by the post-conviction court, co-counsel agreed that
he and trial counsel were attempting to select jurors who they believed could comprehend
the issues during the guilt phase of the trial, even though they did not like the prospective
jurors’ answers to questions involving the penalty phase. Co-counsel testified that they
did not have a strong mitigation case and that residual doubt might have been their
strongest argument during the penalty phase.

Co-counsel testified that the parties had possession of the completed juror
questionnaires for some time prior to jury selection and that the defense team had a
meeting during which they discussed those prospective jurors whom they wanted and did
not want on the jury. Co-counsel did not recall whether he and lead counsel had a
strategic reason for failing to exhaust all of their peremptory challenges. He explained
that in determining whether to exercise a challenge, they had to examine the prospective
juror’s replacement, utilizing both the questionnaires and their notes about each
prospective juror. Co-counsel further explained that he and lead counsel were making
- 29 -
complex decisions based upon the prospective juror’s replacement and those prospective
jurors who they believed would comprehend their experts and the DNA evidence.

Co-counsel testified that he did not have a strategic reason for declining to object
to the State’s questioning prospective jurors first. He stated that while he had made the
objection in prior cases, he had never won the objection or heard of any other defense
attorney who had. He said he did not have a strategic reason for declining to question
prospective jurors about their attitudes on race other than he did not believe race was an
issue that needed to be overcome in the case. Co-counsel stated that he would not
question the prospective jurors about implicit bias unless he felt it was necessary based
upon a prospective juror’s responses to the questionnaire, responses during voir dire, or
demeanor. He explained, “I’ve got to pick a jury that’s still going to be able to listen to
us and like us the next day. I don’t mean in a popularity kind of sense. I mean in a
willing-to-give-me-a-fair-shot kind of sense because you win or lose those jurors at the
beginning in my opinion.”

Co-counsel recalled that there were two to three hundred crime scene photographs
and described the photographs as “[h]orrendous.” Trial counsel attempted to limit the
photographs shown to the jury. Co-counsel stated that he wanted some of the crime
scene photographs introduced because they were relevant to the defense’s claims
regarding the forensic evidence. Once the trial court became aware of the number of
photographs, the court ordered the parties to meet and attempt to reach an agreement
regarding which photographs should be admitted. Co-counsel believed the State agreed
to not enter ten to fifteen of the photographs, but he could not recall the number of
photographs to which the trial court had to determine the admissibility due to the parties’
inability to reach an agreement. Co-counsel explained that he did not object to the
admissibility of every single photograph because “[y]ou lose too much credibility if you
can’t agree on just the basic start of how do we do business.”

Co-counsel did not recall a meeting with the defense team during which they
decided that Dr. Funte’s testimony regarding three autopsies performed by another
forensic examiner was an issue. Co-counsel did not believe that the issue was of
particular importance because the defense knew the cause of the victims’ deaths. He
explained, “I can’t think of a time when I’ve been about to win a murder trial over the
cause of death. It could happen. This just wasn’t that case.”

Co-counsel testified that the defense retained Dr. Aldridge to consult with them
about their cross-examination of the children at trial. The defense team decided that co-
counsel should cross-examine the children at trial because he appeared “more
approachable and less threatening” than lead counsel. The family did not allow the
defense to meet with the children prior to trial. Co-counsel recalled that he spent a great
- 30 -
deal of time preparing to show the discrepancies between what he believed C.J.’s
testimony would be and C.J.’s statements to the police. Co-counsel was not confident
that he would get a single answer that he wanted when he undertook the cross-
examination of the children. He stated that, however, the children basically agreed to
everything that the prosecutor said on direct examination and then agreed with everything
that co-counsel said on cross-examination. Co-counsel also stated that while he had
wanted the jury to see C.J.’s video-recorded statements to the police, co-counsel could
only present the recordings as impeachment if C.J. disagreed with co-counsel on cross-
examination, and C.J. never disagreed with him. Co-counsel said he ended the cross-
examination because the defense team felt co-counsel had “gotten the best we could do
and we could only mess up after that.”

Co-counsel testified that although the defense obtained some of C.J.’s medical
records, co-counsel did not recall seeing a report of C.J.’s evaluation from Center of
Pediatric Neuropsychology approximately two months after the murders. According to
the report, C.J. “displayed relatively intact storage abilities for both verbal and visual
memory; however, his ability to consistently recall information appear[ed]
compromised.” The report stated that C.J. displayed significant impairments in many
areas of executive functioning, including “consistent long-term recall from memory.”
Co-counsel agreed that he would have wanted to use the result of this evaluation to
impeach C.J.’s testimony.

When questioned regarding his failure to utilize C.J.’s medical records, which
were in the possession of the the defense team prior to trial and which reflected that C.J.
had impairments in functioning and had been prescribed medication to treat mental health
issues, co-counsel testified that while there was “no question” that C.J. had mental health
issues based upon his video-recorded statements to the police, co-counsel was concerned
that bringing out such information during cross-examination would offend the jury. Co-
counsel explained that the defense team believed they were “walking a narrow line”
between trying to get the necessary information from C.J. and doing as little damage as
possible in the way of offending the jury. Co-counsel also expressed concern that
introducing evidence of C.J.’s mental health issues would give “whoever is the smartest
from a medical standpoint person on the jury” a reason to disregard C.J.’s testimony on
cross-examination that was favorable to the defense.

Co-counsel acknowledged that he would have wanted to attack the reliability and
voluntariness of the Petitioner’s confessions to the police and to his mother. The
Petitioner’s confessions were recorded as part of The First 48 television production, and
an edited portion of the questioning and the Petitioner’s statements were included in the
episode. Because the entire recording of the Petitioner’s statements to the police and his
mother was unavailable, the defense convinced the trial court to exclude the portion of
- 31 -
the recording that was available. Co-counsel recalled that the Petitioner’s statement was
“bad,” that the available portion of the recording of the statement was “much worse,” and
that he suspected an unedited recording of the interview would have been “even worse.”
The trial court found that the State could not present the edited recording of the
Petitioner’s statements unless the defense opened the door to allow for the admission of
such evidence. Co-counsel stated that the defense’s “number one strategy was not
screwing that up” and that one of the ways in which the defense could open the door was
to argue that the Petitioner made other statements during the interview that were edited
out of the recording.

Co-counsel testified that he and lead counsel did not believe that grounds existed
to file a “generic” motion to suppress the Petitioner’s statements. Co-counsel noted that
the trial court essentially suppressed some of the statements in excluding the edited video.
He also noted that at trial, trial counsel moved to suppress the Petitioner’s statements to
his mother, arguing that his mother was acting as an agent of the Memphis Police
Department when she spoke to him in the interview room. However, the trial court
denied the motion. Co-counsel agreed that the Petitioner testified at trial that his
statements were coerced and that an officer threatened him.

Co-counsel did not recall having any reason to believe the Petitioner was under the
influence of drugs or alcohol when he made statements to the police. Co-counsel
testified that the defense team discussed whether the Petitioner’s alcohol and marijuana
use on the night of the murders affected his mental state as it related to the offenses. The
defense team did not retain an expert to explore the theory, but co-counsel did not believe
voluntary intoxication was a strong defense.

Co-counsel identified a report from Dr. Robert Parr, a clinical psychologist,
regarding a psychological assessment of the Petitioner in October 1991 when the
Petitioner was sixteen years old. The assessment reflected that the Petitioner had limited
intellectual functioning, was naïve and immature, had simplistic and concrete thought
processes, was generally rebellious and negative, and had problems with impulse control,
a high potential for acting out and using poor judgment, and feelings of social alienation.
The defense team explored whether the Petitioner’s deficits had any bearing on the
voluntariness and reliability of his statements, and they retained Dr. Richard Leo, a false
confessions expert. Trial counsel had the Petitioner prepare a handwritten statement of
what he maintained occurred to Dr. Leo, and trial counsel also provided Dr. Leo with the
edited video from The First 48 to review. Dr. Leo did not provide any substantive
opinions to the defense. Co-counsel recalled that the defense team determined that Dr.
Leo’s testimony was not necessary because they had been able to persuade the trial court
to exclude the recording of the Petitioner’s statements and they were running the risk of
opening the door to the admission of the recording by challenging the confessions as
- 32 -
false. Co-counsel stated that abiding by the parameters set forth by the trial court in
granting the defense’s motion to exclude the edited video was “among our most
important priorities.” Co-counsel did not recall why Dr. Leo only performed eight hours
of work on the case.

Co-counsel testified that he was aware that a company called Granada
Entertainment Group (“Granada”) filmed the homicide investigation for The First 48 and
that the defense never obtained any footage shot by Granada other than the actual edited
episode that was aired. Co-counsel identified a memorandum prepared by Ms. Geiser to
trial counsel in which she stated that she reached out to Granada on February 10, 2009.
According to the memorandum, Granada asserted protection under the media shield law
and stated that they recycle the raw or unused footage after each episode is produced.
Co-counsel stated that the defense team did not seek to challenge Granada’s assertion of
the media shield law since the raw footage did not exist. Co-counsel did not know the
reason for waiting until August 10, 2010, to file a request under Brady for the State to
produce the raw footage. He said that lead counsel questioned an officer on cross-
examination at trial regarding the missing footage and that co-counsel questioned officers
about the role of The First 48 and its crew. Co-counsel stated that they were careful to
avoid opening the door for the State to introduce the edited recording of the Petitioner,
but they wanted the jury to know that the missing footage was a “screw up.” Co-counsel
testified that the only reason he believed that trial counsel did not request a missing
evidence instruction regarding the missing footage was the trial court’s warning about the
defense opening the door to the admission of the edited footage. Co-counsel did not
believe that the defense team interviewed any of the crew members with The First 48 and
stated that they did not have a strategic reason for not doing so.

Due to the “technical” nature of the DNA evidence, the defense team retained
Bode Technologies to consult with them and ensure that the testing conducted by the
State was adequate and that trial counsel understood the testing and the results. The
defense team also retained Ms. Jeanine Barrett as a gang expert in order to explore the
defense theories about whether the murders could have been caused by a “gang hit.”

Co-counsel testified that trial counsel did not file a motion in limine to prevent
improper comments by the prosecution during the closing arguments. He stated that it
never occurred to him to address potential problems involving prosecutorial misconduct
pretrial unless he had a good faith reason for doing so. He did not know why he did not
object to the prosecutor’s argument during rebuttal closing arguments in the penalty
phase, stating, “And now Jessie is begging for his life. Did Marissa get a jury? What
about Shindri? Did she get a jury? Do[es] somebody have to find aggravating
circumstances for her to get the death penalty?”

- 33 -
Co-counsel testified that the mitigation strategy during the penalty phase was
based upon the significant trauma suffered by the Petitioner as a child. Ms. Shettles
prepared numerous memoranda to trial counsel regarding the information that she found
relating to the Petitioner’s history. She also prepared a mitigation timeline and a
document summarizing the Petitioner’s significant life events and themes. Co-counsel
stated that trial counsel did not call any of the Petitioner’s family members as witnesses
during the penalty phase because none of them were willing to testify on the Petitioner’s
behalf. Co-counsel said Ms. Shettles was the only witness called by the defense in
mitigation because trial counsel believed they could present all of the pertinent
information about the Petitioner through her. Co-counsel believed Ms. Shettles was able
to allude to the Petitioner’s intellectual impairments during her testimony.

The defense team retained Dr. James S. Walker, a clinical neuropsychologist, to
evaluate the Petitioner. Co-counsel said the defense team was aware that the Petitioner
had some deficits and that they wanted to explore how the deficits could configure into
their defense. Dr. Walker evaluated the Petitioner and issued a report, which was entered
as an exhibit during the post-conviction hearing. According to the report, Dr. Walker
diagnosed the Petitioner under Axis I with adjustment disorder with depressed and
anxious mood, alcohol dependence, cannabis dependence, and cognitive disorder not
otherwise specified based upon the Petitioner’s verbal learning problems. Dr. Walker
diagnosed the Petitioner under Axis II with antisocial personality characteristics and
under Axis IV with current psychosocial stressors of incarceration and legal problems.
The Petitioner had a Global Assessment of Functioning score of sixty, which co-counsel
acknowledged indicated that the Petitioner had deficiencies. Dr. Walker concluded that
the Petitioner was competent to stand trial and did not appear to have a viable insanity
defense. Dr. Walker identified several mitigating factors, including physical abuse
suffered by the Petitioner as a child, the violent neighborhood in which he was raised, his
brother’s violent history and intoxication on the night of the murders, the Petitioner’s
significant academic difficulties and verbal learning problems, the family’s neglect of
him as a child, his prior criminal history, his intoxication on the night of the murders, and
his chances of being a violent adult based upon genetic testing and the abuse he suffered
as a child.

Dr. Walker noted that the Petitioner reported that his arrest was the result of a false
confession and detailed his conversation with the Petitioner about what occurred on the
night of the murders. Dr. Walker noted that factors consistent with a false confession
included the absence of a recorded statement, the presence of only the written reports of
the officers involved, and the several hours of interrogation prior to the confession. Dr.
Walker also noted that the Petitioner had reason to fear for his life if incarcerated after
being identified as a child killer. However, Dr. Walker also noted that the Petitioner was
not easily led or influence by others and was not unduly suggestible or easily talked into
- 34 -
endorsing false information during the “non-threatening context of a psychological
evaluation.” Dr. Walker stated that the Petitioner’s version of the events seemed
“unlikely.” Dr. Walker explained:

For example, the autopsy reports describe the victims as being horrifically
injured prior to their deaths, for what must have represented a lengthy, and
very noisy, set of events. Yet [the Petitioner] did not report hearing the
sounds that would accompany such torture, or even suspicion that extreme
violence was taking place in the next room. The fact that he admittedly left
the severely injured children there without seeking medical assistance also
raises concerns regarding his potential involvement.

Co-counsel testified that he had conversations with Dr. Walker about his findings
and that the defense team decided against calling Dr. Walker to testify due to his findings
of antisocial personality characteristics. At times during his testimony, co-counsel
referred to the Petitioner’s diagnosis as “antisocial personality disorder.” Co-counsel
stated that he viewed antisocial personality as “one of the more dangerous labels in the
criminal justice system” because such a diagnosis does not result in as much empathy or
sympathy as other more serious mental health diagnoses. He recalled that lead counsel
strongly felt that such a diagnosis should not be presented to the jury. Co-counsel stated
that he and lead counsel believed that the best chance in mitigation was based on residual
doubt with “one juror saying ‘I went along and made the deal to convict him, but I’m not
giving this guy the death penalty.’”

Co-counsel testified that the defense team retained Dr. Geraldine Bishop to
conduct a psychological evaluation of the Petitioner. Co-counsel stated that Dr. Bishop
expressed reluctance to work on the case once she learned of the facts. He did not recall
why Dr. Bishop performed the majority of her work in September and October of 2010,
and co-counsel believed that Dr. Bishop had been retained prior to that time. The defense
team did not retain a neurologist to evaluate the Petitioner.

Co-counsel testified that during the opening statements of the penalty phase, he
told the jury that the case had more aggravating circumstances than he had ever seen in
an effort to “buy credibility” with the jury. He stated that he did not object to a jury
instruction indicating that jurors could not have any sympathy for the Petitioner because
co-counsel believed the instruction was a correct statement of the law.

On cross-examination, co-counsel testified in February 2015, he loaned his file in
this case to the OPCD under the agreement that they would make a copy of it and return
it to him. Approximately one month prior to the post-conviction hearing, co-counsel
contacted the OPCD to obtain a copy of his file as he had been promised, but the OPCD
- 35 -
refused to provide a copy of the file. As a result, co-counsel was unable to review his
entire file in the OPCD’s possession prior to testifying.

Co-counsel testified that the murders occurred in March 2008 and that the trial
occurred in September 2010. He believed the case was tried on its third setting and stated
that he would have requested a continuance if he felt that it was necessary. The State had
open-file discovery and maintained the physical evidence in a large room in the
courthouse.

Co-counsel had no recollection of the Petitioner’s wearing stun cuffs at trial. Co-
counsel did not recall discussing or litigating the issue. Co-counsel stated that he did not
have a strategic reason to refrain from objecting to the trial court’s order for the Petitioner
to wear stun cuffs if such an order was issued. The State entered as an exhibit an order
entered by the trial court on September 17, 2010, requiring the Petitioner to be in stun
cuffs during the trial.

Co-counsel stated that in evaluating the prospective jurors, trial counsel used a
numbering system in which lead counsel and co-counsel individually rated each
prospective juror and then discussed them. Co-counsel testified that he and lead counsel
did not feel that a jury would impose a sentence of less than death if the Petitioner was
convicted. Rather, they believed they had a stronger defense related to the guilt phase
and considered the defense in weighing each prospective juror. Co-counsel stated that he
used sticky notes and a juror sheet in evaluating the jurors, all of which would have been
maintained in his case file.

Co-counsel noted that Juror 1 had military experience. Co-counsel explained that
while he generally did not like to choose jurors with military experience because he
believed they would favor the police, he believed Juror 1’s knowledge of ballistics and
other forensic issues based upon his military experience was valuable to the defense.
Juror 1 answered in his questionnaire, “I believe the death penalty is the appropriate form
of punishment in some murder cases, and I can return a verdict of death if I believed it
was warranted in a particular case, depending on the evidence, the law, and what I
learned about the defendant.” Co-counsel said this was a common answer by prospective
jurors in death penalty cases.

Co-counsel testified that in prior cases, he and Ms. Shettles had interviewed
witnesses together but that in this case, only a few lay witnesses were willing to talk to
the defense. Co-counsel agreed that during the penalty phase, Ms. Shettles was able to
testify about all the information she had discovered during her investigation regardless of
whether the evidence constituted hearsay. He stated that although Ms. Shettles was

- 36 -
unable to provide a diagnosis or an expert opinion, she was able to present evidence
related to the Petitioner’s mental health to the jury.

Co-counsel testified that trial counsel retained Mr. Richard Earnest as a crime
scene expert, hoping he would challenge the State’s theory that one person committed the
crimes. However, Mr. Earnest was unable to definitively state that a single person could
not have committed the crimes. Co-counsel stated that the defense chose to retain Dr.
Aldridge as an expert in interviewing children of trauma over another expert because she
had testified for the State more often, which made it more difficult for the State to cross-
examine her.

Co-counsel agreed that C.J. made inconsistent statement to the police as to the
identity of the perpetrator. Co-counsel believed he played portions of C.J.’s video-
recorded statement to the police at trial for impeachment purposes. Later during the post-
conviction hearing, the post-conviction court found that according to the trial transcript,
co-counsel asked during a jury-out hearing to play portions of C.J’s video-recorded
statement as inconsistent statements and that the State argued that C.J’s statements were
not inconsistent with his testimony on cross-examination. The post-conviction court
stated that following a break and before the trial court issued a ruling, trial counsel
announced that they did not have any further questions.

Lead counsel testified that at the time of the Petitioner’s case, he was in private
practice and that approximately ninety percent of his practice was criminal defense. He
was appointed to represent the Petitioner in general sessions court approximately one
week after the Petitioner was arrested, and lead counsel and co-counsel were appointed to
represent him after he was indicted. Lead counsel stated that he worked more on the
guilt/innocence aspect of the case, while co-counsel worked more on the mitigation
aspect. Lead counsel said they were both familiar with every witness and every aspect of
the trial. Approximately two months after the Petitioner’s trial, lead counsel left private
practice and joined the Shelby County Public Defender’s Office. As a result, a portion of
his file was incorporated into co-counsel’s file, and the other portion of the file was
placed into storage and was later destroyed by water damage.

Lead counsel did not recall any discussion with the Petitioner about his wearing
stun cuffs while in Nashville for jury selection. Lead counsel did not recall the trial
court’s entering an order requiring that the Petitioner wear stun cuffs or the Petitioner’s
wearing stun cuffs at trial. Lead counsel stated that had he been aware that the Petitioner
was wearing stun cuffs, he would have strenuously objected.

Lead counsel testified that in selecting a jury in a death penalty case, “the issue is
do you want guilt/innocence or mitigation people.” He stated that trial counsel sought
- 37 -
jurors who they believed would be favorable in the guilt phase of the trial because they
believed that due to the number of victims and the Petitioner’s prior murder conviction, it
would be “extremely difficult” to find a juror who would not vote for the death penalty.
Lead counsel said he did not intend to question all of the prospective jurors to ensure that
they would be able to return a verdict of life imprisonment in the event that they
convicted the Petitioner of the charges. He explained that, generally, if a prospective
juror stated that he could not return any sentence less than death under the facts of the
case, lead counsel likely would challenge the prospective juror for cause eventually but
that he preferred to use the prospective juror to educate the rest of the jury. Lead counsel
stated that based upon his experience, there were certain prospective jurors that he liked
and did not like based upon their religion, occupation, or sexual orientation and that “a lot
of it is just gut feeling, how they look at you, how they look at my client.”

Trial counsel had the jury questionnaires one to two weeks before trial, and the
parties spent one to two days individually questioning those prospective jurors who the
State or the defense believed were problematic based upon their responses to the
questionnaires. When questioned about why he did not move to strike Juror 1 for cause,
lead counsel explained that he conducted voir dire different from many other attorneys
and that he often used jurors with extreme views who would offend other jurors with
their answers. He stated that he did not want jurors to get along and tried to choose jurors
with personalities that would clash. He said he did not question the prospective jurors
about race or implicit bias because he did not believe the case involved racial issues.

Lead counsel testified that he had worked with Ms. Geiser and Ms. Shettles on
previous cases and that while they discussed different avenues to pursue, it was not
necessary for him to instruct them on which witnesses to interview. Lead counsel said
that he did not personally interview the lay witnesses and the officers involved in the case
and that he probably interviewed the medical examiner. He stated that he always met
with the medical examiner if the medical examiner agreed to do so. He testified that he
did not object to Dr. Funte’s testimony at trial regarding the autopsies performed by Dr.
Laboy as violating the Petitioner’s confrontation rights because the defense was not
disputing the cause of the victims’ deaths. Rather, their defense was that the Petitioner
was not the perpetrator. Lead counsel believed that objecting too often at trial could
“turn the jury off” and make it appear as if the attorney is trying to hide something.

Lead counsel testified that co-counsel wanted to cross-examine the children at trial
and that co-counsel likely believed that lead counsel would frighten the children. Lead
counsel explained that co-counsel wanted “treat these kids with kid gloves” and that lead
counsel, generally, was more aggressive in cross-examining witnesses. Lead counsel had
no independent recollection of ever seeing a report on C.J. from the Center for Pediatric
Neuropsychology. Lead counsel did not believe he would have questioned C.J. about his
- 38 -
cognitive memory problems from the report. He explained that with any issue involving
a jury, he wanted to “walk them down the path” without giving them the final answer,
which was “usually pretty obvious,” in order to allow the jury to “figure it out and then
they would think they’d figured out the whole thing.” He stated that “you want the jury
to think they’re smart and they can figure the crime out because all these people watch
Law and Order TV shows and crime shows.” He also stated that based upon the fact that
C.J had a knife embedded in his skull and the physician’s testimony regarding the process
required to remove the knife, “[t]here’s absolutely no doubt in any juror’s mind that child
had brain damage.”

Lead counsel testified that it was “pretty obvious” that the children did not have an
independent recollection of the offenses. He said the children had been around family
members and other adults while they were discussing the offenses and that the children
were repeating what they had heard. He stated that he wished the jury had believed the
children because he did not think the children’s testimony was consistent with the State’s
theory and, instead, created reasonable doubt.

Lead counsel testified that prior to trial, he was aware that the State intended to
introduce evidence of confessions made by the Petitioner to the police and to his mother.
The defense team retained Dr. Leo as a false confession expert, and lead counsel stated
that they used Dr. Leo in part to set up an argument that the State should not be allowed
to use any of the edited video of the Petitioner’s confession from The First 48 because the
false confession expert did not have access to the entire interview. Lead counsel
attempted to obtain the unedited footage and had a telephone conversation with someone
from the production company, who stated that the recordings are edited immediately and
the unused footage is quickly discarded. Lead counsel stated that the person confirmed to
him that one of the reasons for the procedure was to avoid being “dragged” into litigation.

Lead counsel did not have an independent recollection of the mitigation theory
used at trial but testified that the theory was likely based on the value of the Petitioner’s
life and on residual doubt. He did not recall whether he or co-counsel questioned Ms.
Shettles at trial, and he did not have any independent recollection of Dr. Bishop.

On cross-examination, lead counsel testified that he had represented defendants in
a “[c]ouple hundred” homicide cases, including fifty capital cases, and had tried over one
hundred jury trials. Lead counsel stated that in the Petitioner’s case, the State maintained
the physical evidence and the State’s file in a room on the second floor of the courthouse
and that “[i]t was a room full of paper.” He said that he and the prosecutor spent
“hundreds of hours” together in the room reviewing the material and that the prosecutor
provided him with a copy of any document that lead counsel requested. Lead counsel
and the prosecutor met about the photographs that the State intended to present at trial,
- 39 -
and the trial court held a hearing prior to trial regarding any photographs to which the
defense objected.

Lead counsel testified that the defense team did not call Dr. Leo as a witness at
trial because the defense team was able to convince the trial court to exclude the edited
video recording of the Petitioner’s confession and the trial court warned the defense team
that they could open the door to the admissibility of the video if they were not careful
about what they said or argued. Lead counsel stated that the trial court’s ruling was a
“huge” win because the video was “terrible” and “damning.” He explained that the
defense team did not present Dr. Earnest as a witness at trial because he was unable to
conclude that one person could not have committed the offenses. Lead counsel said the
defense team did not call Dr. Walker as a witness because he gave the Petitioner a
diagnosis related to antisocial personality. Lead counsel stated, “To me as a defense
lawyer in a homicide case, I cannot think of a worse diagnosis unfortunately than
antisocial and that’s what I was worried about in this case.”

Ms. Rachael Geiser, a licensed private investigator, testified that she had been an
investigator since May 1999, had conducted the guilt/innocence investigation in the
Petitioner’s case, and had worked on capital cases prior to the Petitioner’s case. Lead
counsel asked Ms. Geiser to be the investigator in the case in March 2008 shortly after he
was appointed to represent the Petitioner in the general sessions court. She agreed to
work pro bono at that point because the Petitioner had not yet been indicted. In addition
to her general duties as an investigator, Ms. Geiser assisted in the coordination of experts
related to the fact investigation, discussed trial strategy with the defense team,
subpoenaed and coordinated witnesses, and met with the Petitioner and trial counsel to
prepare for trial. Ms. Geiser stated that she was in regular contact with trial counsel and
that the preparation for trial involved a collaborative effort. She assisted trial counsel in
developing the defense theory that the Petitioner did not commit the offenses.

Ms. Geiser agreed that the defense team wanted to attack the reliability and
voluntariness of the Petitioner’s statements and that the Petitioner testified at trial that the
statements were coerced. She testified that once the defense received discovery from the
State, she learned that the Petitioner did not provide an official statement to the police
and that his statements were summarized in a supplemental police report. The defense
also received in discovery the interview of the Petitioner’s mother with police during
which she detailed the Petitioner’s confession to her. The defense team retained Dr. Leo,
a false confessions expert from San Francisco, California, with whom Ms. Geiser had
worked on prior cases. Ms. Geiser testified that Dr. Leo requested that the Petitioner
write out his version of the events and that the Petitioner complied with the request. Dr.
Leo also requested the unedited footage from The First 48. Ms. Geiser said that the
defense team was unable to obtain the unedited footage, which hindered Dr. Leo’s ability
- 40 -
to determine whether the Petitioner’s confessions were false. She sent Dr. Leo the police
supplemental report, which summarized the Petitioner’s statement, and the edited footage
from The First 48. Ms. Geiser said Dr. Leo did not issue a report because he was unable
to provide any substantive opinions.

Ms. Geiser testified that the episode of The First 48 aired in July 2008, which was
when the defense team first learned how damaging the Petitioner’s interview was. The
Petitioner was indicted in December 2008, and Ms. Geiser was appointed as the
investigator shortly thereafter and then officially had the subpoena power to obtain the
footage. She said she issued a subpoena to Granada Entertainment USA, which filmed
the footage for The First 48, for the unedited footage as quickly as she could in February
2009 and that she believed she also requested the names of the field producers who may
have been present during the Petitioner’s interview with police. On February 26, 2009,
Granada’s attorney submitted a letter to Ms. Geiser, stating that the unedited footage was
no longer available, declining to provide the names of any producers, and maintaining
that the information she sought to obtain was protected by the media shield law.

Ms. Geiser testified that during the time in which she was attempting to obtain
unedited footage from Granada for the Petitioner’s case, she also was attempting to
obtain unedited footage and the identities of the film crew members on another case. She
stated that the second case involved a hearing during which Granada’s counsel alleged
that the information was protected by the media shield law. During the hearing, a witness
testified that no unedited raw footage existed because the editors cut or discarded the
footage during the editing process. The witness also testified that an employee would
review the footage and type a rough draft of a transcript of what everyone said during the
recording. Ms. Geiser stated that a transcript could have existed in the second case, as
well as in the Petitioner’s case, but the trial court in the second case held that the defense
was not entitled to the transcript.

Ms. Geiser was never able to obtain the names of the film crew members other
than the name of cameraman listed in discovery as being present at the crime scene. She
did not know whether the same cameraman was present during the filming of the
Petitioner’s interview with police and his conversation with his mother. Ms. Geiser did
not interview any of the crew members involved in the Petitioner’s case. She testified
that when she was working on the second case, she interviewed a field producer from
Granada who had worked on cases filmed in Louisiana and who informed her that
generally the cameraman sets up the video camera in the police department’s homicide
office to record an officer’s interview with a suspect and then walks away. The field
producer was unable to confirm to Ms. Geiser that the cameraman “did it here.”

- 41 -
Ms. Geiser testified that the defense team retained Ms. Barrett as a gang expert to
consult with them about whether the offenses could have been committed by a gang. Ms.
Geiser believed Ms. Barrett opined that the offenses could have been committed by a
gang and that it was possible that an Asian gang committed the offenses. Ms. Geiser did
not believe Ms. Barrett was asked to prepare a report, and she did not testify at trial.

Ms. Geiser testified that the defense team retained Mr. Ernest, a ballistics expert,
to assist in deciphering the crime scene and that one of the primary defense theories was
that one person could not have committed the offenses. Ms. Geiser had a telephone
conversation with Mr. Ernest during which he opined that one person could have
committed the offenses. As a result, the defense team did not have him prepare a report.

Ms. Geiser stated that she sent various reports, case summaries, and other
documents to Dr. Walker to assist in his evaluation of the Petitioner. She did not recall
why Dr. Walker did not testify. She recalled that Dr. Walker’s report included a possible
antisocial diagnosis. She testified that based upon her experience in working on death
penalty cases, an antisocial diagnosis was damaging because “[j]uries don’t respond well
to it typically.”

On cross-examination, Ms. Geiser testified that she never had any issues in
obtaining discovery from the State. She also accompanied one of the trial counsel to
view the State’s physical evidence on a few occasions. Although she did not attend the
jury selection in Nashville, Ms. Geiser sat next to the Petitioner throughout the trial and
spoke to him while he was in the holding cell during breaks. She said that she never
observed him wearing any type of shocking equipment and that she did not recall the
Petitioner or anyone else complaining that he was wearing such equipment.

In response to questioning by the post-conviction court, Ms. Geiser testified that
an antisocial diagnosis was not evidence that a defense team would want to present to a
jury in a capital case. She said the decision not to present a mental health expert who
made such a diagnosis was “[p]retty typical,” especially after arguing throughout the guilt
phase that the client is innocent.

Ms. Glori Shettles, who had been a mitigation specialist for twenty-five years, was
the mitigation specialist on the Petitioner’s defense team. She obtained records
pertaining to the Petitioner and his family and interviewed multiple witnesses. She
prepared a chronological timeline based on those records and a summary of the
Petitioner’s significant life events and themes based upon the records and interviews and
provided the documents to trial counsel. She testified that the significant events included
a dysfunctional family from the time of the Petitioner’s birth; the abandonment and lack
of affection, love, and nurturing by his mother; the neglect and deprivation of food; the
- 42 -
witnessing of domestic violence; the use of excessive corporal punishment by both
parents; the witnessing of inappropriate sexual behavior by his mother; his retention
twice in the fourth grade due to truancy; his exposure to drug use; his use of drugs with
his mother; the recommendation of mental health counseling at the age of fourteen due to
many issues including poor impulse control and ange

[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/6326272. Public record. Not legal advice.