# People v. Pickens

> Michigan Supreme Court · August 25, 1994 · 446 Mich. 298

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702707

## Case

- **Full name:** People v. Pickens; People v. Wallace
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 25, 1994
- **Citations:** 446 Mich. 298; 521 N.W.2d 797
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Boyle
- **Judges:** Mallett, Levin, Brickley, Boyle, Griffin, Riley
- **Cited by:** 717 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/9702707

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- concluding claim of ineffective assistance premised on the failure to call a witness must fail if “no evidence has been presented to establish that the alibi witness would have testified favorably at trial”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702707. Public record. Not legal advice.