evaluation of Davis and his memory of the evaluation was very vague. Freeman did recall finding some ‘childhood’ problems that might be worthwhile for mitigation. Freeman could not, however, recall what specific childhood problems he believed might have been presented in mitigation. At Davis’s evidentiary hearing, however, Copeland and Belser specifically testified that Freeman advised them against calling him during the penalty phase of trial. “The Court finds Davis failed to carry his burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence he was prejudiced because Copeland and Belser did not con-, suit more with Freeman or call him during the penalty phase of his trial. Rule 32.2(c), Ala. R.Crim. P. Rule 32.7(d), Ala. R.Crim. P. See Brooks v. State, 695 So.2d 176, 182 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (<HOLDING>).” (C.R. 883-84.) At the postconviction
holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative holding that prejudice cannot merely be alleged it must be affirmatively proved holding that intent and knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence holding that the end of a conspiracy must be affirmatively shown holding that causation cannot be proved based on speculation