Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to review all the documentary evidence & adequately impeach the victim with that evidence

The court agreed “that defense counsel’s failure to review all the documentary evidence, and adequately impeach [victim-K] with that evidence, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.” Thus, it vacated defendant’s AWIGBH and felonious assault convictions and sentences, reversed the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial, and remanded. The court concluded “that although defense counsel pursued a sound trial strategy of self defense, the choices that defense counsel made when executing that strategy were not reasonable, insofar as he appears to have failed to reasonably investigate the available documentary evidence, thereby overlooking strong evidence that should have been used to impeach” K. Defense counsel’s “failure to adequately review [K’s] medical records—and discover the plethora of inconsistencies therein—constituted a ‘less than complete investigation’ that was not supported by reasonable professional judgments.” The court held that “not only did defense counsel fail to adequately impeach [K] with the documentary evidence, but defense counsel also told the jury that it only needed to look at three of the medical-document pages, effectively instructing the jury to also overlook any of the contradictory evidence.” Thus, it concluded “that defense counsel’s performance fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Moreover, it found that “considering that: (1) this case came down to a credibility contest between defendant and [K], and (2) the overlooked medical-record evidence supported defendant’s version of events and undermined [K’s] credibility,” defendant was “prejudiced by defense counsel’s errors.” In other words, the court held that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”