holding that absent proof that defense counsel had no reasonable basis for conduct or reasonable probability that outcome of trial would have been different, counsel could not be ineffective for statements made during closing
How later courts described this case
- holding that absent proof that defense counsel had no reasonable basis for conduct or reasonable probability that outcome of trial would have been different, counsel could not be ineffective for statements made during closing
- finding counsel was not ineffective for failing to call as alibi witness a witness who would have contradicted defense strategy
- absent proof that there was no reasonable basis for course of conduct or that outcome of trial would have been different, defense counsel not ineffective for statements made during closing arguments
- judge informed defense counsel, in chambers and on record, he talked to Commonwealth attorney prior day on procedural issue; defendant did not claim prejudice and Court held it was not an ex parte communication
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*467 NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, but write separately to address Appellant’s claim that Ms. Enriquez’s testimony regarding statements made by Ms. Emmil were inadmissible hearsay.
During the prosecutor’s examination of Ms. Enriquez, he asked her what Ms. Emmil had said to her on the evening of the killing. Ms. Enriquez responded: “She [Ms. Emmil] said she seen [Appellant] go in his pocket and do something with the knife and clean it off and throw it over the fence.” N.T. 1/18/84 p. 74. I agree with the majority’s holding in footnote 8 that Ms. Enriquez’s response did not violate the Confrontation Clause since Ms. Emmil testified and was cross-examined by Appellant at his trial. Likewise, since Ms. Emmil testified at trial, I would suggest that Ms. Enriquez’s testimony as to Ms. Emmil’s out of court statement was properly admitted into evidence, regardless of whether it meets an exception to the hearsay rule.