U.S. v. Mazza, 67 M.J. 470

Military Justice Personnel: Defense Function: Effective / Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

1. to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must show both that the counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency resulted in prejudice; ultimately, the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result; a successful ineffectiveness claim requires a finding of both deficient performance and prejudice; there is no requirement that an appellate court address both components of the inquiry if appellant makes an insufficient showing on one; an appellate court reviews both prongs of the Strickland analysis de novo
2. an appellate court’s analysis of counsel’s performance is highly deferential; it is not to assess counsel’s actions through the distortion of hindsight; rather it is to consider counsel’s actions in light of the circumstances of the trial and under the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy
3. as a general matter, an appellate court will not second-guess the strategic or tactical decisions made at trial by defense counsel; where an appellant attacks the trial strategy or tactics of the defense counsel, the appellant must show specific defects in counsel’s performance that were unreasonable under prevailing professional norms
4. civilian defense counsel’s extraction of testimony on cross-examination of a government child abuse expert about rates of false accusations of sexual abuse among child victims was not ineffective assistance of counsel, where, given that this indecent acts case was essentially a credibility contest between appellant and his daughter, appellant failed to overcome the presumption that it was a reasonable strategic decision, under the circumstances of this case and prevailing professional norms, for the defense counsel to seek to establish that the daughter’s testimony could be a false allegation; the defense counsel’s theory of the case was that the daughter’s testimony was fabricated and inconsistent, he specifically intended to question the expert about whether child-accusations of sex abuse were reliable, and he used the statistical testimony during closing argument to remind the court members that thousands of false reports occur every year, even using conservative estimates
5. civilian defense counsel’s failure to object to the admission of the victim’s videotaped interview was not ineffective assistance of counsel, where the videotape was part of the defense counsel’s trial strategy that the victim had fabricated her allegations and that her statements were inconsistent, and where he asked the members to compare the video with her trial testimony; appellant failed to show that this strategy was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms
6. civilian defense counsel’s request of the members that they view the victim’s videotaped interview during deliberations was not ineffective assistance of counsel where the videotape had been admitted into evidence and was part of the defense counsel’s trial strategy that the victim had fabricated her allegations and that her statements were inconsistent, where the military judge specifically told the members that they could view the tape during deliberations, and where RCM 921(b) provided that unless otherwise directed by the military judge, members could take with them in deliberations any exhibits admitted in evidence

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must show both that the counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency resulted in prejudice; ultimately, the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result; a successful ineffectiveness claim requires a finding of both deficient performance and prejudice; there is no requirement that an appellate court address both components of the inquiry if appellant makes an insufficient showing on one; an appellate court reviews both prongs of the Strickland analysis de novo
2. an appellate court’s analysis of counsel’s performance is highly deferential; it is not to assess counsel’s actions through the distortion of hindsight; rather it is to consider counsel’s actions in light of the circumstances of the trial and under the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy
3. as a general matter, an appellate court will not second-guess the strategic or tactical decisions made at trial by defense counsel; where an appellant attacks the trial strategy or tactics of the defense counsel, the appellant must show specific defects in counsel’s performance that were unreasonable under prevailing professional norms