California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Marquez, In re, 1 Cal.4th 584, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 727, 822 P.2d 435 (Cal. 1992):
4 In several of the cases cited, defense counsel was found to be inadequate not only for failure to investigate and present alibi witnesses, but in other respects as well. Here, too, the defense attorney's inadequacies were not confined to investigation and presentation of petitioner's alibi defense. Counsel's investigation and presentation of the penalty phase were manifestly deficient; the majority agrees that as a result petitioner is entitled to a new trial on the issue of penalty. In addition, as explained in this court's opinion addressing petitioner's appeal, defense counsel took the bizarre step of calling himself as a witness to rebut a minor point made by the prosecution. The prosecution then asked him questions that went far beyond the scope of his testimony on direct examination; instead of objecting, counsel answered the questions, giving testimony that damaged his client's case. (People v. Marguez (1992) 1 Cal.4th, 553, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 710, 822 P.2d 418.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.