Clarence Nesbit v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the numerous deficiencies in counsel’s performance failed to prejudice the Petitioner cumulatively in his right to a fair proceeding and failed to call into question the reliability of the jury’s verdict. I agree with the majority’s conclusions regarding counsel’s deficiencies except its conclusion that counsel were not deficient in their pretrial investigation and trial preparation. The majority concludes that because the trial began one year and seven months after the Petitioner was indicted, counsel “would not have had time or resources to conduct the investigation performed by post-conviction counsel after the trial.” Although the majority is correct in noting the length of time it took for all the relevant witnesses to be found and presented at the post-conviction hearing, I simply cannot agree that counsel did not have adequate time to investigate and prepare for the trial.