# State v. Bradley

> Ohio Supreme Court · May 10, 1989 · 42 Ohio St. 3d 136

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6761746

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio v. Bradley
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 10, 1989
- **Citations:** 42 Ohio St. 3d 136; 538 N.E.2d 373; 1989 Ohio LEXIS 68
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wright
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 7,097 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6761746

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that in order to demonstrate prejudice, a defendant must show that a reasonable probability exists that the result at trial would have been different had it not been for counsel's mistakes.
- holding that we are to "presume that a broad range of choices, perhaps even disastrous ones, are made on the basis of tactical decisions and do not constitute ineffective assistance"
- holding that a conviction may be reversed on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel only upon proof of an outcome-determinative deficiency in counsel’s performance
- holding that an ineffective-assistance-0f-counsel claim requires proof of an outcome-determinative deficiency in counsel’s performance

## Opinion text

Wright, J.,
dissenting. I heartily concur with Justice Brown’s dissent in its entirety. I must say that I have mixed emotions about this case since I happen to believe that a murder committed while one is incarcerated should lead to a speedy demise of the culprit in accordance with law. Both deterrence and retribution would be served by this course of action. A review of the two-hundred-eighty-five-page “investigative report” admitted into evidence as the result of the gross incompetence of counsel most certainly strengthens my personal feelings as aforesaid.
However, I feel that my duty as a judge requires a course of decision-making which will protect the constitutional rights of every person, regardless of his or her station in life. This obligation does not stop even when confronted with a vicious individual such as Bradley.
I suggest that no fair-minded person — be he layman or lawyer — could reasonably conclude that Bradley’s counsel properly represented their client at trial. Likewise, the “report,” which Justice Brown has dissected in detail, is just about the most prejudicial document I have ever encountered in my nineteen years as a judge, the analysis of the majority to the contrary notwithstanding.
The plain truth of the matter is *150 that appellant would have been far, far better off remaining silent without anyone “representing” him.
I would invite the members of the United States Supreme Court to review this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6761746. Public record. Not legal advice.