stating that to prevail on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must first establish that his or her counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms
How later courts described this case
- stating that to prevail on a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must first establish that his or her counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms
- holding that defense counsel’s conduct in failing to file notice of an alibi witness despite knowing of the possible testimony well before trial was conduct that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness
- holding that trial counsel’s conduct in failing to file notice of an alibi defense despite knowing of the possible testimony well before trial was conduct that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness
- holding that a defendant’s failure to present evidence that “establish[es] that the alibi witness would have testified favorably at trial” prevented a determination that counsel’s performance was prejudicial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Boyle, J.
(concurring). I have signed Justice Riley’s opinion because I fully agree with her result and with the conclusion that the right to effective assistance of counsel in the Michigan Constitution does not create a higher standard than Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). I write separately simply to observe that, while I feel constitutional analysis should begin with an examination of history, I do not agree that it necessarily ends there. For example, I do not agree with the statement that
[u]nless a searching analysis of the understandings of the ratifiers and framers, as well as the historical circumstances surrounding the adoption of a provision, reveal otherwise, the Court must refrain from finding (or creating) such rights. [Ante at 316, n 16.]
The analytical difficulty, of course, is that the text and surrounding circumstances so rarely reveal otherwise. Nevertheless, when required to answer the question, we must acknowledge other principled lines of inquiry, while acknowledging the primacy of the language of the document.