Opinion ID: 734877
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: failure to call pretrial counsel as a witness

Text: 17 Palmer's pretrial counsel was prepared to testify to his legal conclusion that the photo line-up was suggestive and to his speculation that the store clerk had viewed the photo line-up shortly before the first, cancelled live line-up. This testimony probably would have been inadmissible opinion testimony under the California Evidence Code. See Cal.Evid.Code §§ 703, 800, 803; 2 Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. v. Williams, 873 P.2d 1224, 1241 (Cal.) (legal conclusion of non-expert witness is not competent evidence), opinion vacated on other grounds, 115 S.Ct. 413 (1994); Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix, 224 Cal.App.3d 104, 113-14 (Cal.Ct.App.1990) (non-expert opinion testimony admissible only insofar as it reflects witness's own perception of the facts and is helpful to a clear understanding of witness's testimony). Palmer's trial counsel did not act below a reasonable standard of professional representation by deciding not to offer likely inadmissible testimony. 18 Even if counsel was deficient in failing to call pretrial counsel, that decision did not prejudice Palmer's defense. Palmer has not presented any basis on which the clerk's in-court identification of him might have been excluded. Counsel did call an eyewitness identification expert who testified at length about the reliability and significance of the store clerk's various identifications of Palmer. The trial judge herself commented on counsel's thorough and competent cross-examination regarding the eyewitness identifications. Palmer has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 694. 19