Opinion ID: 2382114
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Butler Was Prejudiced

Text: The prejudice element of an ineffective assistance claim requires a defendant to show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. [T]he question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt. Id. at 695, 104 S.Ct. at 2068-69. Some errors will have had a pervasive effect on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, altering the entire evidentiary picture, and some will have had an isolated, trivial effect. Moreover, 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. Id. at 695-96, 104 S.Ct. at 2069. Here, the state's case was entirely circumstantial. The strongest evidence that Butler had anything to do with the murder was his statement to police placing himself at or near the scene of the crime at the victim's estimated time of death. There was no physical evidence, other than fingerprints on the victim's car, directly connecting Butler to the crime. No murder weapon was found. Evidence that Butler even owned a .22 caliber pistol, let alone the one used in the crime, was equivocal, at best. By contrast, had defense counsel properly investigated the crime, a substantial amount of evidence incriminating Malloy would have been uncovered and presented to the jury. The key evidence that directly connected Malloy to the crime and which would have been presented to the jury included the testimony of William Smith and the Lopezes. Smith testified that he saw a vehicle that was dark, possibly maroon, with a long hood and trunk coming from the scene of the murder as he approached. He testified that it was driven by a white male with long hair. The jury would have heard testimony that Malloy drove a maroon Impala or Chevelle and had shoulder-length hair. This would have been coupled with the Lopezes' testimony that Malloy tried to sell them a ring. Although the descriptions of the victim's ring and the ring Malloy allegedly presented to the Lopezes do not match in every particular, they are close enough for the jury to believe that it was the same ring. Had the jury been presented with all the evidence that would have been discovered if defense counsel had conducted a proper investigation, there is a reasonable probability that [they] would have had a reasonable doubt as to whether Butler committed the murder. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. Without the evidence presented before the motion court, the jury that convicted Butler had no reason to question the inferences the state drew from its circumstantial case. Henderson, 926 F.2d at 712. This is not a case in which the evidence against the defendant is so overwhelming that ineffectiveness of counsel might be deemed harmless. There is a substantial probability that correction of constitutional error at retrial will effect a different result. Id. at 712-13. Our confidence in the outcome of Butler's trial has been undermined by defense counsel's deficient performance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. Thus, Butler was prejudiced by counsel's ineffective representation.