Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v Head; Trial strategy; Failure to pursue a futile motion; Search warrant; Particularity requirement; People v Hampton; Counsel’s duty to make reasonable investigations; Ineffective assistance in the plea-bargaining process; People v Douglas; Failure to preserve evidence; Brady v Maryland; Deactivation of police body cameras; Arizona v Youngblood; Self-incrimination; Prosecutorial misconduct; Reference to a defendant’s invocation of his right to remain silent; People v Shafier; Relevance; MRE 401; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, due process, or his right against self-incrimination, and he was not denied a fair trial. He was convicted of possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine, FIP of a firearm, FIP of ammunition, and felony-firearm, arising out of a raid on a drug house, which uncovered a gun and various drug paraphernalia. The court rejected his argument that trial counsel was ineffective for, among other things, failing to move to suppress evidence due to a defective search warrant and being unprepared for trial. First, “the particularity requirement was satisfied, and a motion to suppress would have been futile.” In addition, the record suggested defense counsel “was highly prepared for trial as he thoroughly cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses, presented multiple witnesses on behalf of defendant, raised numerous objections to the prosecution’s evidence, moved for a directed verdict, and was prepared to potentially present evidence that the” police unit that executed the warrant was being investigated for corruption. Moreover, the record was “adequate to reject defendant’s argument that his trial counsel failed to pursue a plea deal without additional factual development.” As to the police officers’ deactivation of their body cameras in violation of department policy, he could not show prejudice. The court was “unable to find that the officers’ conduct rose beyond carelessness, misjudgment, or possibly inadequate training.” He also contended that he was deprived of his right against self-incrimination because the police continued to interrogate him after he invoked his right to remain silent, and the prosecutor improperly referred to his decision to invoke this right. But the court noted he provided “no basis upon which to conclude that the trial court admitted evidence of statements [he] made to the police after invoking his right to remain silent.” And it could not be said that any “inappropriate reference to defendant’s invocation of his right to remain silent affected the outcome of the trial.” Finally, the court rejected his argument that he was denied a fair trial because the trial court excluded evidence that the arresting unit was being investigated for corruption, noting the probative value was weak. Affirmed.