Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Habeas Corpus — ineffective assistance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 21, 2011//

Habeas Corpus — ineffective assistance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 21, 2011//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals

CRIMINAL

Habeas Corpus

Ineffective assistance

Where two witnesses identified the defendant as the shooter, any errors by his attorney were harmless.

“The two eyewitness identifications were substantial evidence against Morales and negated any possibility of Strickland prejudice from Callahan’s errors respecting Katrina and Thomas. See, e.g., Allen v. Chandler, 555 F.3d 596, 602 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding state court did not unreasonably apply Strickland in concluding that petitioner was not prejudiced by counsel’s elicitation of his post-arrest silence where there was reliable and strong single-witness identification of defendant at trial—store clerk observed the robber at close range, identified him without hesitation in photo array and at trial, and identified him as a frequent store customer, and surveillance video corroborated her account of the robbery). The record reveals that Crawford and Nevarro had sufficient opportunity to view Morales and they were paying attention to him during the shooting. In addition, Morales was no stranger to them; they knew him by name or sight. As Morales acknowledges, Callahan attempted to discredit Crawford’s and Nevarro’s testimony.”

Affirmed.

10-1696 Morales v. Johnson

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kennelly, J., Tinder, 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