Full Text
CAC3PARC 17
1 they had. Your Honor, that in our view ends the inquiry
2 completely. That finding alone is sufficient to defeat a
3 finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.
4 The Second Circuit has made very clear, as have other
5 circuits, that you cannot as a defense counsel basically engage
6 in a heads-we-win-tails-you-lose strategy when it comes to your
7 trial conduct. We know that based on the documentary evidence
8 and the evidence that was adduced at the hearing as well as the
9 evidence that was put forth in the affidavit of Susan Brune,
10 that the Brune & Richard law firm had the suspension opinion
11 prior to voir dire, and chose not to bring it to this Court's
12 attention. As we all know engaged in subsequent investigation
13 regarding Juror No. 1, when Theresa Trzskoma started to have
14 certain doubts about her after the receipt of Juror No. 1's
15 note.
16 It's quite clear that this is not a case where the
17 defense counsel had been given a piece of information and did
18 nothing. That's quite, quite not what happened here. In fact,
19 we know that prior to voir dire, they discussed the suspension
20 opinion, they chose not to bring it to the Court's attention.
21 Instead relying simply on the voir dire answers, even though as
22 this Court pointed out, far more trivial issues were aired by
23 all of the parties, by the government and indeed by the Court,
24 in terms of trying to figure out who would be good jurors.
25 They chose not to bring that to the Court's attention then
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300