Is a defendant entitled to an ineffective assistance of counsel if his trial attorney failed to object to the prosecution's statement of intent to pervert the course of justice?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Jackson, C060435 (Cal. App. 2/18/2010), C060435. (Cal. App. 2010):
Recognizing that the failure of his trial attorney to object to these statements forfeits defendant's ability to raise the claim of error on appeal (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 274), defendant asserts the lack of objection constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish that his trial attorney was professionally incompetent and that defendant suffered prejudice as a result of his attorney's incompetence. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693].)
"Counsel are allowed considerable discretion in presenting and arguing their case, just as opposing counsel are permitted to determine in the first instance whether and when to object to any perceived abuse of that discretion." (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 542.) Counsel's discretion in determining whether to object to prosecutorial arguments necessarily must be sufficiently broad to permit counsel to consider whether the arguments have significant potential to prejudice defendant, and whether the risk of objecting, such as offending or annoying the jury or calling undue attention to the matter, outweigh any benefit to be obtained through objection. (See People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 754.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
