Turpin v. Bennett ( 2000 )

Thompson, Justice.

Jack A. Bennett was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to death. This Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence,¹ and the Supreme Court of the United States denied his petition for a writ of certiorari.² Bennett filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Superior Court of Butts County, and that court granted his petition on August 4, 1998. The habeas court based its decision on the ineffective assistance rendered to Bennett by his expert witness, a psychiatrist, who was suffering from AIDS-related dementia at the time of his testimony.

This Court reversed the habeas court’s decision, holding that there is no constitutional right to the effective assistance of an expert witness and remanding the case to the habeas court for consideration of Bennett’s remaining claims.³

On remand, the habeas court found that Bennett’s counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in failing to seek a continuance in response to the impaired witness’s conduct. The habeas court further concluded that counsel’s ineffectiveness deprived Bennett of a fair trial because his insanity defense was completely undermined.⁴ The State has appealed in Case No. S99A1703. Bennett has cross-appealed in Case No. S99X1747, arguing that the habeas court improperly denied his claims to relief on other grounds.

This Court has previously set forth a full description of the expert witness’s conduct during Bennett’s trial.⁵ During his testimony, the witness abandoned his former diagnosis without explanation, appeared “deathly ill,” made “cartoonish” facial expressions, volunteered testimony that whoever committed the murder was a “vicious maniac,” and stated that appropriate psychiatric treatment for Bennett would have been nothing more than Tylenol for his headache, Zantac for his stomach ailment, and follow-up care. The jury laughed out loud at his testimony. The expert’s conduct and the radical change in his testimony were due solely to the expert’s impaired mental condition. In the face of this pivotal witness’s manifest impairment, defense counsel failed to move for a continuance in order to locate another expert witness or take some other remedial measure.

“The proper standard of review requires that we accept the habeas court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts. [Cit.]”⁶ The evidence adduced below⁷ supports the habeas court’s findings that (1) in failing to seek a continuance Bennett’s counsel rendered ineffective assistance at his trial and (2) counsel’s ineffectiveness so prejudiced Bennett’s case that he was effectively denied his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.⁸ Accordingly, we affirm the habeas court’s order granting Bennett’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Having affirmed the habeas court’s order, we need not address the claims raised in Bennett’s cross-appeal seeking the same relief on other grounds. Accordingly, we dismiss the cross-appeal for mootness.

Judgment affirmed in Case No. S99A1703; appeal dismissed in Case No. S99X1747.

All the Justices concur, except Hunstein and Carley, JJ., who dissent.

1 Bennett v. State, 262 Ga. 149 (414 SE2d 218) (1992).

2 Bennett v. Georgia, 506 U. S. 957 (113 SC 416, 121 LE2d 340) (1992), rehearing denied, 506 U. S. 1072 (113 SC 1031, 122 LE2d 175) (1993).

3 Turpin v. Bennett, 270 Ga. 584 (513 SE2d 478) (1999).

4 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984).

5 See Turpin v. Bennett, supra.

6 Turpin v. Lipham, 270 Ga. 208, 211 (510 SE2d 32) (1998).

7 See Turpin v. Bennett, supra at 584-587, for a summary of the evidence presented at the habeas corpus hearing.

8 See Strickland v. Washington, supra.