Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to investigate alibi; People v Russell; Closing argument concession; People v Wise; Cross-examination discrepancy; People v Thurmond; Failure to call a specific witness; Speedy trial; People v Williams; Missing-witness instruction; MCL 767.40a; People v Eccles; Expert cell-site testimony; MRE 702; People v Bowden

The court held that defendant failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel on any asserted ground, and that none of the alleged trial errors warranted relief. He was convicted of second-degree murder, FIP, and felony-firearm for shooting and killing the victim in the parking lot of an after-hours club. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that counsel inadequately investigated an alibi, noting he showed no additional steps counsel should have taken and offered no proof that an alibi witness would have testified favorably. Without such a showing, “counsel’s alleged failure to investigate [did not] undermine confidence in the trial’s outcome.” The court upheld counsel’s strategic concession in closing that defendant was at the club, given the “overwhelming evidence” placing him there. Acknowledging the inevitable can lessen the impact and defense counsel focused the defense on misidentification. The jury was instructed that lawyers’ arguments are not evidence. The court found no prejudice in counsel’s choice not to press a minor discrepancy between “brown-skinned” and “dark complexion,” observing that credibility and more significant inconsistencies were fully explored. Declining to call a particular witness was reasonable strategy and the evidence was presented in another way. The court also rejected his speedy-trial claim, noting that although the 32-month delay was presumptively prejudicial, the reasons (COVID-19 trial suspensions, counsel withdrawals, plea discussions, and a courthouse fire) were not attributable to the prosecution. Further, any prejudice to the defense was minimal given multiple other eyewitnesses and corroborating evidence. A motion to dismiss would have been futile. As to the missing-witness instruction, the prosecutor exercised due diligence in trying to produce endorsed witnesses, and even if an instruction had been requested, there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome in light of the remaining evidence. Finally, the court found no basis to exclude the cell-site expert’s opinions, noting they were “based on sufficient facts and data,” reflected reliable methods, and were properly applied to the case, satisfying MRE 702. Affirmed.