Failure To Investigate

The D.C. Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, decided a significant case involving allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed a 2-1 panel decision affirming a criminal conviction. The case involved child sexual abuse charges made by the younger half-sister of the defendant. The en banc court held that counsel’s pretrial investigation into the relationship between the complainant and the defendant was deficient and resulted in prejudice to the defendant. The defendant, through new counsel, produced several affidavits from co-workers that raised doubts about the relationship between the defendant and the victim as portrayed by the prosecution’s case. Rather than making a strategic choice regarding this potential evidence, counsel failed to adequately investigate the case: “this is a case in which, objectively speaking, trial counsel had strong reasons to ask appellant’s co-workers about his relationship with [the victim], and no good reason not to do so. Counsel likewise had strong reasons to investigate the prosecution’s claim that [the victim] was afraid of appellant, and no good reason not to do so. We are compelled to conclude that counsel’s investigative omissions were objectively unreasonable, and hence that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient.” (Mike Frisch)