Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v Vaughn; Trial strategy; People v Trakhtenberg; Failure to make a futile objection; Prejudice; People v Gioglio (On Remand); Jury instructions; People v Chapo; Self-defense instruction; Inconsistent verdicts; People v Garcia

Holding that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed her conviction. She was acquitted of second-degree murder, but convicted of felony-firearm, arising out of an incident in which she shot the victim, allegedly in self-defense. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed. However, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for a Ginther hearing to determine whether she was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Following the hearing, the trial court found defendant was not denied effective assistance and denied her motion for a new trial. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that “her trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the jury instructions, by not arguing during closing argument that self-defense applied to the felony-firearm charge, and by not requesting the trial court to specifically instruct the jury that self-defense applied to” this charge. First, although the trial court “could have more clearly stated that self-defense was applicable to the charge of felony-firearm, the instructions given nevertheless fairly presented the issues to be tried and sufficiently protected” defendant’s rights. As such, “any objection to the instructions given would have been futile.” In addition, her lawyer’s performance “did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness when he declined to request that the jury be given redundant—albeit more explicit—instructions that related to the less serious charge.” Finally, because the jury “was likely either compromised or was lenient when returning the verdict,” the court could not “say with any degree of certainty—much less a reasonable probability—that additional jury instructions or arguments would have made any difference to the outcome of the trial.”