By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//April 1, 2013//
Habeas Corpus – Ineffective assistance – prejudice
Even if it was deficient for a defense attorney not to call four witnesses, it was not prejudicial where the testimony would have been only marginally exculpatory.
“Given that so much of the proposed testimony was only marginally exculpatory, we do not find a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceedings would have been different.
Having failed to establish prejudice even under the more generous standard of review, Brady cannot show ineffective assistance of counsel and is thus not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. We would reach the same result if we were reviewing the entire state court record using the standards set out in Section 2254(d).”
Affirmed.
11-3365 Brady v. Pfister
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kennelly, J., Wood, J.