SUPREME COURT MADE RIGHT DECISION IN HOLLY WOOD CASE
Categories: Essays
Written By: Billy Sinclair
Death penalty cases are the most difficult to defend. These cases require a tremendous amount of resources and investigation to properly present to a jury. The weight of the cases, not only from the work involved but the fact that a human life is at stake, create stress that can cause death penalty attorneys to make unintended mistakes. I have blogged several times in the past about “bad lawyers” in death penalty cases who are in the business just to make money, to do the least amount of work possible, and not give a damn what happens to their clients. These kinds of attorneys are legion in the death penalty industry.
But Kenneth Trotter is not one of those attorneys. This young and inexperienced attorney was appointed, along with two more experienced attorneys named Gary Dozier and Frank Ralph, to defend Holly Wood. The name of the killer reflects that Holly Wood did not become the “star” his parents hoped he would when they named him. He grew up to be borderline mentally retarded, a man who had recurring problems with women and alcohol. He drank too much and abused too many women. In 1993 Holly Wood broke into the home of an ex-girlfriend in Alabama and killed her with a shotgun blast to her head and face while she lay sleeping. It marked the second time he had attacked an ex-girlfriend with an intent to kill. The first girlfriend survived. The second was not so lucky.
Dozier and Ralph, the more seasoned courtroom attorneys, elected to handle the trial strategy and preparation in the Wood case while delegating the penalty phase to Trotter. Prior to trial the attorneys requested that the court appoint a Dr. Karl Kirkland to conduct a mental evaluation of Wood. The doctor would later submit a report to the attorneys which revealed that Wood suffered from “mental deficiencies,” borderline retardation. The report found, however, that despite these mental deficiencies, Wood had a high level of “adaptive functioning”—meaning he could function and adapt at pretty much the same level as people will full mental potential. The Kirkland report also contained damaging information about Wood’s previous 19 arrests, including the attempted murder of the other girlfriend.
The problem with requesting psychological evaluations of a criminal defendant is that the defense attorney must share these findings with the prosecution. Just as the prosecution is required to reveal any exculpatory information to the defense, the defense is likewise to provide any inculpatory information to the prosecution. The Kirkland report certainly contained information the prosecution could have exploited on cross examination of the doctor, particularly during the penalty phase of the trial.
Dozier and Ralph made a tactical decision that the Kirkland report would do more harm than good if used at the trial. They instructed Trotter not to use the doctor or his report during the penalty phase. They also told the young attorney there was no need to further investigate information, or the lack thereof, contained in the report. As the trial drew near, Trotter became more stressed. He sent a letter to the anti-death penalty group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, expressing concern about Holly Wood’s case, telling the group he was really alone in the fight against the death sentence and had no one to confer with, including the other two attorneys assigned to the case.
The jury found Wood guilty and, by a 10 to 2 vote, recommended that the death penalty be imposed. In post-conviction proceedings, new attorneys for Wood argued that Trotter had ineffectively represented Wood by not presenting Kirkland and his report at the penalty phase of the trial. The state courts rejected Wood’s ineffective assistance claim but a federal district court granted habeas corpus relief and reversed Wood’s death sentence. The State appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals who, in 2008, reversed the lower court’s grant of habeas corpus and ordered the death sentence reinstated.
Wood’s attorneys sought certiorari review of the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, and although such writ applications are rarely granted, the high court agreed to hear Holly Wood’s case. On January 20, 2010, the Supreme Court agreed with the Eleventh Circuit and upheld Wood’s death sentence. Both courts essentially held that the attorneys in the Wood case, especially Trotter, had made a sound tactical decision not to use Dr. Kirkland and his findings during the penalty phase because it would have opened the door for detailed information about Wood’s 19 prior arrests, including the attempted murder charge, to be heard by the jury.
I have to agree with the courts’ findings in this difficult case. Any psychological evaluation of someone charged with murder can open up a proverbial “can of worms.” That’s what happened in Holly Wood’s case. The jury voted 10-2 to recommend a death sentence. There is no reason to believe that a third (or even more) juror would have voted for death-sparing leniency had they heard the detailed information about Wood’s 19 prior arrests, particularly evidence about the attempt to kill another girlfriend.
Attorneys are forced to make hard, fast decisions in preparation for a criminal trial, especially one involving the death penalty. Dozier and Ralph were experienced attorneys who understood Alabama jurors. They knew Deep South juries are not sympathetic to any “mental health” defense in capital cases. Although Kirkland found that Wood suffered from some “mental deficiencies,” he nonetheless concluded he had a high level of “adaptive functioning.” In other words, he knew exactly what he was doing when he blew his girlfriend’s brains out while she lay sleeping.
Thus, since there was never any dispute that Wood killed her girlfriend, the only issue then was whether he had the mental capacity to truly understand what he was doing. 19 prior arrests, including an attempt to kill another girlfriend, would have been sufficient aggravated factors—not mitigating ones—for a jury to return a death penalty verdict. The fact that the jury returned a death penalty verdict without hearing those aggravated factors certainly supports this notion.
While the decision by Dozier and Ralph to throw young Trotter into the penalty phase arena with the lions begs hindsight criticism, the decision was not so unreasonable that one could say Trotter’s representation Holly Wood was deficient. Trotter chose to be a criminal defense attorney. He accepted court appointments. That meant he would one day have to get his feet wet in a death penalty case. It came in the Wood case. While it was natural for him to be “stressed,” he should have concentrated more on developing mitigating evidence outside the Kirkland report than worrying about what he could not use. A cursory reading of the report should have signaled to the attorney early on that its evidentiary value was nil. He had to look elsewhere for mitigation. Whether or not he did that in an effective manner is another question beyond the bounds of the Kirkland report. The only thing I can say here is that not using the Kirkland report was a sound tactical choice.
