01-3503 White v. Godinez

Listen to this article

“By the time of his consultation on the night before trial (the only time any substantive issues were discussed), Green knew, or should have known, from discovery materials produced to the defense, that police had confirmed Michael White’s alibi and that Theresa Caldwell would corroborate Johnson’s testimony that it was Jerome White who met with him on the night the murder was planned. Green’s failure to discuss with White or investigate the alternative defense that could have been supported by Bernice Caldwell’s testimony simply cannot be attributed to strategic decisionmaking when he had not explored the facts necessary to make that decision. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690 (‘[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.’). In the words of the district court, ‘Green could not have made a strategic decision to reject White’s [and Caldwell’s] explanation as a defense theory if he never bothered to hear it in the first place.’

“We find no clear error in the district court’s findings of fact, and hold that Green’s brief consultation with White and his failure to explore the possibility of Bernice Caldwell’s testifying fell below the standard of reasonably effective representation.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Baker, J., Williams, J.