Opinion ID: 779413
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Analysis of Prejudice in Light of the Prosecution's Case

Text: 54 Finally, we must consider the relative strength of the prosecution's case in analyzing whether counsel's errors prejudiced Luna. [A] verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Johnson, 114 F.3d at 838 ([I]neffective assistance claims based on a duty to investigate must be considered in light of the strength of the government's case.) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 55 As aforementioned, the prosecution's case rested on the victim's identification of Luna. However, the probative value of his identification is limited because he had been drinking, he was not wearing prescribed eye glasses, he was attacked in the middle of the night, and the lighting was poor. See Rios v. Rocha, 299 F.3d 796, 802 (9th Cir.2002) (finding prejudice despite eyewitness testimony, in part, because one of the witnesses was drunk on the night of the shooting and had very poor eyesight); see also Avila, at 923 (finding prejudice despite the victim's identification because the testimony was not rock solid). Furthermore, no other testimony or physical evidence linked Luna to the crime. In short, the prosecution's case was relatively weak, and we must evaluate the potential prejudicial effect of counsel's deficient performance ... in light of that fact. Johnson, 114 F.3d at 838. 56 As discussed above, absent counsel's errors, the jury would have been presented with a much more balanced picture of the evidence for and against Luna. Jennie and Gloria could have corroborated Luna's alibi that he was home asleep at the time of the crime. Further, Lopez' out-of-court declarations against penal interest could have exonerated Luna from the charges. 57 The District Court incorrectly concluded that the eyewitness identification of petitioner by the victim makes it extremely unlikely that, but for the attorney's errors, the outcome would have been different. To the contrary, the victim's questionable identification standing alone made for a relatively weak case. Nevertheless, as weighed against Luna's self-serving testimony—which constituted the whole of his defense—this evidence convinced the jury. 58 Under these circumstances, we have little doubt that the testimony of the [three] additional witnesses `would have altered significantly the evidentiary posture of the case.' Rios, at 813 (quoting Brown, 137 F.3d at 1157). Had the jury heard Jennie and Gloria Luna's corroborating testimony and evidence of Lopez' inculpatory statements, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have returned a different verdict. For these reasons, our confidence in its guilty verdict has been undermined. We, therefore, hold that Luna was prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to interview and subpoena these witnesses at trial. 59 In sum, Luna was deprived of competent counsel at his trial and has shown prejudice therefrom. Thus, he is entitled to relief under Strickland. Because the state court failed to find ineffectiveness of counsel, its denial of Luna's claim was objectively unreasonable in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Strickland. Therefore, under AEDPA, Luna is entitled to relief.