INTRODUCTION

NACDL submits this brief, consistent with the collective knowledge and experience of its members who have decades of experience working as defense counsel, including as capital defense counsel, to unequivocally affirm that capital defense counsel has an unflagging and unmistakable duty to conduct a thorough and complete investigation of potential mitigating evidence to present to a jury considering a death penalty. This duty is clearly established within the profession and was clearly established in the late 1990s when Gary Terry was sentenced to death.

Gary Terry’s trial counsel shirked this responsibility. They never followed up on clear red flags indicating that Terry was abused as a child and failed to present readily available and compelling evidence of that abuse. Trial counsel also failed to communicate effectively with their experts, to assemble a well-functioning defense team, or to prepare a coherent penalty phase trial strategy. Proper presentation of Terry’s history of abuse would have been compatible with and significantly strengthened the mitigation evidence trial counsel did attempt to present—that Terry suffers from brain damage—because of the known correlation between childhood trauma and neurological dysfunction.

Summary

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) states that defense lawyers in capital cases have a clear and constant duty. This duty involves thoroughly investigating all possible mitigating evidence to show a jury when the death penalty is being considered. This professional standard was well-known, even in the late 1990s when Gary Terry received a death sentence.

Gary Terry's lawyers did not fulfill this duty. They did not investigate obvious signs that Terry had been abused as a child and did not present strong evidence of this abuse, which was available. The lawyers also did not communicate well with their experts, form an effective defense team, or plan a clear strategy for the penalty phase of the trial. If Terry's history of abuse had been properly presented, it would have supported and strengthened the evidence his lawyers did try to present—that Terry has brain damage—due to the known connection between childhood trauma and brain problems.

Introduction

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) states that defense attorneys in death penalty cases must fully investigate all possible evidence that could lessen a sentence. This responsibility is a core part of the legal profession. It was a well-known duty in the late 1990s when Gary Terry received a death sentence.

Mr. Terry's lawyers did not meet this responsibility. They did not investigate strong signs that he experienced childhood abuse. They also failed to present clear evidence of this abuse, which was available. Additionally, Mr. Terry's lawyers did not work well with their experts, build an effective defense team, or plan a clear strategy for the sentencing phase of the trial. If Mr. Terry's history of abuse had been properly presented, it would have supported the evidence his lawyers did offer, which claimed he had brain damage. This is because childhood trauma is linked to problems with brain function.

Introduction

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) states that lawyers defending clients in death penalty cases must thoroughly investigate all possible reasons to lessen the punishment. This responsibility is a clear and long-standing part of legal practice. It was well-known in the late 1990s when Gary Terry received a death sentence.

The lawyers for Gary Terry did not fulfill this duty. They did not investigate strong signs that Terry had been abused as a child and did not present powerful evidence of this abuse, which was readily available. The defense team also failed to work well with their experts, create an effective team, or plan a clear strategy for the sentencing phase of the trial. If Terry's history of abuse had been properly presented, it would have supported the evidence that his lawyers did offer—that Terry had brain damage. This is because childhood trauma is often connected to problems with brain function.

Summary

This document explains that lawyers who defend people charged with serious crimes, especially those that could lead to the death penalty, must fully investigate all possible reasons why their client should not receive that penalty. This is a clear rule for these lawyers, and it was a clear rule in the late 1990s when Gary Terry was sentenced to death.

Gary Terry's lawyers did not do their job. They saw signs that Terry was hurt as a child but did not look into it. They also did not show strong evidence of this abuse that was easy to find. His lawyers did not talk well with their experts, did not create a good team, and did not plan how to argue against the death penalty. If they had shown Terry's history of abuse, it would have made their other argument stronger. They did try to show that Terry had brain damage, and childhood abuse is known to be linked to brain problems.