Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to call certain witnesses; Matters of trial strategy

Holding that defense counsel had a legitimate strategic reason for not calling either of the witnesses defendant asserted he should have called, the court rejected her ineffective assistance claim. She was convicted of possession with intent to deliver meth, possession of meth within 1,000 feet of a school or library, conspiracy to commit possession with intent to deliver meth, and maintaining a drug house. One of the witnesses she contended should have been called was her boyfriend, W. The other was a man (L) that police learned provided large amounts of meth to defendant and W. Defense “counsel expressed concern about the prejudicial effect that references to [W’s] criminal record, or his statements to law enforcement, might have, and he explained that he declined to call” the two men as witnesses because it “would have risked providing the prosecution with additional evidence of defendant’s guilt. Defense counsel explained that calling [W] would have allowed the prosecution to elicit information only [W] would have had about the alleged conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver” meth. And while defendant asserted the men “would have testified that she was not involved in any drug transactions, . . . any such exculpatory testimony would have required [them] to admit to their own illegal conduct, and” defendant did not “acknowledge their privilege against self-incrimination.” The court added that, even if they “were willing to waive the privilege against self-incrimination, the record does not suggest that their testimony would have exonerated defendant.” It further noted “that any statements they offered would have been weighed against the very substantial evidence against defendant . . . including her own multiple admissions that demonstrated her culpability as to all” the charges for which she was convicted. Their testimony “would have been of little value to the defense while opening the door to prosecutorial opportunities to add even more evidence of” defendant’s guilt. Affirmed.