Opinion ID: 1662575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: coworker as perpetrator

Text: Defendant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in not calling any of the coworkers to testify and in not investigating their backgrounds. Trial counsel did not check the criminal records of the coworkers, but he did locate and talk to every one of them. Counsel testified that he knew of the physical description which the victim had given of the attacker and that none of the defendant's fellow workers matched that description. Thus, he did not feel it prudent to call these men to the stand. To assert a successful claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove that his attorney failed to perform as well as an attorney with ordinary training and skill in the criminal law in the area, that the defendant's interests were not conscientiously protected, and that if the defendant's attorney had been effective, there is a reasonable probability that the results would have been different. State v. Painter, 229 Neb. 278, 426 N.W.2d 513 (1988). The evidence does not support the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. A defense attorney has `a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary.' (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 281, 426 N.W. 2d at 516, citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Trial counsel did investigate the possibility that one of the defendant's coworkers could have been the attacker, and after meeting with them, made a reasonable determination that, as none of them matched the physical description given by the victim, no benefit would be derived from putting them on the stand. The decision to call, or not to call, a particular witness, made by counsel as a matter of trial strategy, even if that choice proves ineffective, will not, without more, sustain a finding of ineffectiveness of counsel. State v. Broomhall, 227 Neb. 341, 417 N.W.2d 349 (1988). In counsel's judgment, calling the fellow employees to the stand would not have helped the defendant's case. That decision was proper under the circumstances. See State v. Meis, 223 Neb. 935, 395 N.W.2d 509 (1986). In any event, defendant has not shown what good would have come from calling the employees to the stand; i.e., he has not shown a necessary component of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, namely, prejudice. But even assuming counsel failed to conscientiously pursue an investigation of all potential witnesses, defendant has not met his burden of showing prejudice. State v. Andrews, 223 Neb. 830, 834, 394 N.W.2d 638, 641 (1986).