Habeas Corpus – Ineffective assistance

Listen to this article

Habeas Corpus – Ineffective assistance

Where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, state courts did not unreasonably find that any deficient performance by the prisoner’s attorney was not prejudicial.

“In light of this overwhelming evidence, the precise location of Smith’s gloves is a trivial concern. Smith makes much of the fact that no one correctional officer witnessed the entire incident, from Smith’s approach until the discovery of the scissors under the table. But combined, overlapping testimony of three individuals that is consistent on all major issues provides powerful corroboration. Nor does Smith point to any potential evidence in his favor. Although he claims he had witnesses he wanted to call, he does not indicate what these individuals would have said, or how that evidence could have cast doubt on the eyewitness testimony of three correctional officers. This distinguishes this case from the one Smith cites, Stitts v. Wilson, 713 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1282 (2014), in which an attorney failed to call alibi witnesses that could have under-mined the state’s case. Finally, even if Cupp had vigorously pursued a self-defense theory, it would have assuredly failed in light of the unprovoked nature of the attack. Smith has not advanced any argument as to how a self-defense argument could have prevailed. In short, he has offered us ‘no reason to believe that the trial would have come out differently’ had his representation been satisfactory. United States v. Kamel, 965 F.2d 484, 499 (7th Cir. 1992). The state court did not err in finding a lack of prejudice and did not apply the law unreasonably.”

Affirmed.

12-3731 Smith v. Brown

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Moody, J., Tinder, J.

Full Text