or defect or the effects of intoxication”; and 3) a “catch-all” factor, which required the jury to consider: Any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime and any other sympathetic or other aspect of the defendant’s character or record [that the defendant offers] as a basis for a sentence less than death, whether or not related to the offense for which he is on trial. You must disregard any jury instruction given to you in the guilt or innocence phase of this trial which conflicts with this principle]. Thus, it became crucial to have an expert corroborate Cunningham’s own testimony that he suffered from a traumatic childhood and some type of mental illness. See Thomas v. Chappell, 678 F.3d 1086, 1105 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Dr. Vicary noted that as a result of
holding that defense counsel may call attention to the states failure to produce evidence holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that the failure of defense counsel to call a corroborating witness resulted in prejudice to the defendant holding that trial court has discretion to permit defendant to call accused witness to stand and permit witness to invoke fifth amendment privilege in front of jury where entire defense was centered on witness commission of crime holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity