← Back to home

Document A-5927

Full Text

CAC3PARC 1 what was said was, look, don't be stupid, it can't be her, to 2 do any more would be a waste of the court's time. That's what 3 I think happened. That's what I think the record shows. 4 The other is, let's be smart. She'll be a great juror 5 because she is a suspended lawyer. Or, let's be smart. If we 6 leave her on, we get two bites at the apple. The latter two I 7 think are strategic, but be careful in the following sense. 8 The first is a choice. It is a choice to do nothing. You 9 cannot have a case in which there is not in a sense a choice if 10 it's coming up in an ineffective assistance claim. I can cite 11 you to Breakiron and Johnson v. Armontront. In our brief 12 lawyers are making choices. In those cases the question is are 13 they informed choices, are they reasonable choices, are they 14 competent choices, are they strategic choices. And if the 15 choice is don't be stupid, it can't be her, that is not a 16 strategic choice, that is a tragic misjudgment. Implicit in 17 the word "misjudgment" is that someone's making a choice. But 18 if it is a tragic misjudgment, I think it's ineffective 19 assistance. 20 The next thing I'd say is this. We're told that there 21 can't be any doubt that these transactions were effectuated so 22 that there would be tax lawyers and tax losses in the prior 23 year and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Of course that's 24 why the transactions were being done. There is no doubt that's 25 why these transactions were being done in February or March. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00010182