Failure to adequately prepare a psychologist, called as an expert witness for trial, was one of two claims raised by the defend ant that convinced the court to remand a capital conviction.

The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel doesn't generally prevail in appellate courts. But a psychologist, contacted by defense counsel only a month prior to trial, testified by affidavit that lack of preparation prevented him from providing information at crucial stages of the trial. For example, he asserted that records from a drug rehab facility documenting the defendant's history of blackouts and DUI convictions would have been helpful at the first stage (adjudication) to "illuminate his behavior, in terms of his mens rea" or criminal intent "during the shootings."

More than that, the psychologist asserted that lack of time and adequate consultation with trial counsel also compromised defendant's ability to properly present mitigating evidence at that stage of the trial.

The Court considered the state of mind issues central enough that it remanded. The trial court was instructed to hold an evidentiary hearing and find whether or not defense counsel's failure to prepare adequately for the expert testimony (and additionally the failure to call character witnesses at the mitigation phase) materially impacted the verdict.