determining whether petitioner had shown prejudice from counsel’s failure during cross-examination of the medical 78 Case: 12-15093 Date Filed: 08/05/2014 Page: 79 of 101 examiner to impeach him with inconsistencies between his autopsy report and his testimony, and finding that he had not
How later courts described this case
- determining whether petitioner had shown prejudice from counsel’s failure during cross-examination of the medical 78 Case: 12-15093 Date Filed: 08/05/2014 Page: 79 of 101 examiner to impeach him with inconsistencies between his autopsy report and his testimony, and finding that he had not
- concluding that unconstitutional references to defendant’s silence were harmless because the references were “brief’ and the “prosecutor did not repeat the references, question other witnesses regarding them, or address them during closing argument”
- determining whether petitioner had shown prejudice from counsel’s failure during cross-examination of the medical examiner to impeach him with inconsistencies between his autopsy report and his testimony, and finding that he had not
- finding that the presumption that “counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance ... is even stronger when the reviewing court is examining the performance of an experienced trial counsel”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BIRCH, Circuit Judge, concurring specially:
I concur without reservation in Parts IIV of the court’s opinion. Although I remain convinced that our court set the acceptable level of attorney assistance for preparation for the penalty phase of a capital case too low in Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1343-44 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (dissent), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 1217 , 149 L.Ed.2d 129 (2001), the panel majority has correctly applied that decision to the case at hand. Accordingly, I join Parts V and VI of the court’s opinion.