Opinion ID: 171322
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Café Chicago Bartender

Text: Boyle has also failed to show how the testimony of the Café Chicago bartendereven if favorable to himwould have changed the outcome of his case. The unwanted sexual contact Boyle was convicted of, with regard to L.B., occurred in a hotel room in which only Boyle and L.B. were located. While the two had drinks at the Café Chicago around 9:00 p.m., nothing unusual was alleged to have happened at the bar. Only once Boyle and L.B. were alone in the hotel room, hours later, did the non-consensual sexual contact occur. The relevance of the Café Chicago bartender's testimony is therefore highly questionable. See Fed R. Evid. 401; Medina v. Barnes, 71 F.3d 363, 367 (10th Cir.1995) (rejecting petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to obtain witness testimony which would have been at most cumulative, and of limited probative value). Once again, Boyle sets forth speculative assertions in attempting to prove his claim; these assertions are clearly insufficient to carry his burden of proving prejudice. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (Attorney errors come in an infinite variety and are as likely to be utterly harmless in a particular case as they are to be prejudicial.); id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (The defendant must 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.). Simply put, Boyle's allegations regarding the testimony of the Café Chicago bartender, even if true, do not rise to a level where they undermine confidence in the outcome of his trial.