The state argued that defense counsel had made a strategic decision to allow admission of a videotape that included statements about other shootings. The COA held that the record amply supported Judge Leuenberger's findings:
The district court found that Saleem had met his burden and that [defense counsel] did not permit the videotape's admission as part of his trial strategy. The district court's findings are supported by [trial counsel's] testimony at the hearing, in which he candidly admitted his mistake and strongly denied that this failure was part of his trial "strategy."
Nevertheless, the State suggests [defense counsel's] decision to admit the videotape was a strategic decision intended to bolster Saleem's claim that he had acted in self-defense. While the state is correct that [defense counsel] allowed the admission of the videotaped interview for strategic reasons, this fact has no bearing on whether [defense counsel's] representation was constitutionally deficient for allowing the jury to hear the prejudicial statement contained within the videotape. Moreover, as the district court noted,"[i]t is preposterous to imagine any attorney . . . to advance prior bad acts of an alleged shooting as trial strategy in a murder case."The COA went on to find that, especially in a case that focused on allegations of premeditation, the deficient performance was prejudicial and supported the district court's grant of a new trial.
[Update: the state filed a PR on September 23, 2010.]
[Further update: the KSC denied the state's petition and the mandate issued on November 4, 2010.]
No comments:
Post a Comment