Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-3867 Perry v. McCaughtry

By: dmc-admin//September 30, 2002//

01-3867 Perry v. McCaughtry

By: dmc-admin//September 30, 2002//

Listen to this article

“The charges, the attorneys’ arguments, Perry’s own statements offered into evidence and the jury instructions as a whole all spoke in terms of Perry’s culpability on each count as a party to the crime. Thus, it was absolutely clear at trial that Perry was being charged, on all counts, as a party to the crime. Furthermore, the jury was specifically instructed not to reach the felony murder charge if it found Perry guilty of first degree intentional homicide. We presume that juries follow instructions. See United States v. Miller, 276 F.3d 370, 375 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus, even assuming that the party to a crime instruction should have referenced the felony murder instruction, once the jury concluded that Perry was guilty of first degree intentional homicide, as a party to the crime, the jury never needed to reach the felony murder instruction. Under these circumstances, there is no reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error in failing to object to the jury instruction, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 (a ‘reasonable probability’ is a ‘probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome’). For these reasons, we conclude that the Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that Perry did not suffer prejudice because of the jury instructions.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Adelman, J., Manion, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests