Opinion ID: 1089522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Argument ThreeFilm

Text: Defendant contends that attorney Blanche was ineffective in his opening statement, telling the jury he had discovered there was film of the episode at the bank. Blanche said: I found out today that there are films of what happened in the bank and if we can make them available to you, I'm going to try to do that. I think a film of the event, of course, would be perhaps more instructive than any witness could possibly be.... (Docket No. 66,060, Vol. II, proceedings Oct. 25, 1978, p. 17) After making this statement, Blanche apparently discovered, according to Assistant District Attorney Leitz's new trial argument, that the film was not favorable to his client. Leitz said: ... He viewed them and had ample opportunity to introduce them at trial and decided they were not in the best interest of his client.... (Docket No. 66,060, Vol. III, proceedings Nov. 30, 1978, p. 4) This court has viewed the film and it would not have been helpful to defendant. It consists of a series of sequential photographs made by different bank cameras. The only picture of the actual shooting shows defendant Berry, gun in hand, pointing it at the falling victim. Attorney Blanche used poor judgment in mentioning the film to the jury without having seen it, but he used good judgment in not showing it to the jury. A determination whether any given action or omission by counsel amounted to ineffective assistance cannot be divorced from consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances that influenced counsel's judgment.... United States v. Decoster, 624 F.2d 196 at 203 (D.C., 1976). No prejudice to the defendant has been shown.