GROUND TWO:
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL
Appellate counsel proved ineffective in three ways. First,
counsel failed to recognize what were the real issues in this case; second, what
genuine issues that were brought before the Court were incomplete or
inconclusive; and third, counsel brought issues that were at best peripheral to
the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant and served only to
cloud the important issues involved in this case.
A. Failure To Document
Ground That Verdict Was Not Supported By Evidence
Appellate counsel failed,
as did the original trial counsel, to understand the critical issue of the
timeline involved in this case. The critical issues were the time the mystery
police car appeared in the driveway of Gwinnco Muffler, the time Chapel left
Firehouse 14 on the night of the murder, and the time of the blue-light
activity in the muffler shop driveway. If counsel had seriously investigated
the record, he would have found that the mystery police patrol car appeared in
the muffler shop driveway as early as 8:45 PM,
a time that even the prosecution agreed that Chapel was at the Northside
firehouse, the mystery police car was in the driveway with the dome light on
from 9:20 to 9:30 PM,
and that there is no evidence that either the police car or the victim’s car
was in the driveway until 9:55 to 10 PM, when the victim’s car was seen alone
in the driveway. The
evidence is overwhelming that Chapel did not leave Fire 14 until just before 10
PM
when he almost simultaneously received radio instructions to proceed to Arden
Drive on the other side of the City of Buford at 9:57 PM. Like the trial
counsel, the appellate counsel simply did not challenge, with the record, the
prosecution’s claim that Chapel left Fire 14 between 9:20 and 9:30.
2. Failure To Challenge Inconsistencies In
The Record
Appellate counsel failed
to examine the record and challenge other inconsistencies in the record. Crime
scene and autopsy reports challenged the prosecution’ presentation regarding
the time of death,
the position of the shooter outside of the victim’s car, the
identification by witnesses, and
the defendant’s possession of money by letting stand the prosecution’s use of
Jack Dudley who in fact was a key defense witness.
3. Failure To Document Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel Ground
Appellate counsel brought the claim
of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in direct appeal but failed to
effectively document that claim. The weak claims that trial counsel failed to
respond to the defense investigator’s recommendation that the jury visit the
crime scene and that defense counsel failed to question a witness about
statements made by the victim’s son were easily brushed aside by the appeal
court. That there was much more to this claim that appellate counsel could and
should have brought in direct appeal is easily determined.
Appellate counsel failed to
recognize and to bring to the attention of the Court in direct appeal the
apparent prejudicial grounds of speedy trial,
Excessive bail,
improper lineup procedures,
police misconduct,
prosecutorial misconduct,
juror misconduct
and Crime Scene Photograph Presentation To The Jury.
Appellate counsel was vaguely aware
that there may have been unscrupulous conspiracies active in the development of
this case, but could
only hint at some sort of nefarious activity involving drug dealers and corrupt
police officers in the Northside Precinct. These claims were again easily
disposed of by the Georgia Supreme Court as mere hearsay.