Opinion ID: 2353062
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Panel Decision on Appeal

Text: In Cosio I, a division of this Court upheld the denial of appellant's § 23-110 motion and affirmed his conviction by a 2-to-1 vote. Differing with the trial court, the panel majority recognized that A.A.'s alleged fear of Cosio played a central role in the government's case. 853 A.2d at 170. Moreover, because appellant's trial counsel was informed that the government intended to rely on A.A.'s fear of appellant, and that several of appellant's co-workers had observed and interacted with A.A., the majority agreed that it would have been logical for Cosio's lawyer to have followed up that information by asking how much his fellow employees knew about his relationship with A.A. Id. at 172. The observations of appellant's co-workers would have been the best evidence Cosio could have found for rebutting A.A.'s alleged fear of him. Id. Hence, the majority assume[d] that, in failing to discover and present the co-worker testimony, appellant's trial counsel did not, in fact, exercise the kind of conscious, professional judgment that a reviewing court, applying hindsight, should not second-guess. Id. at 173. Even so, the majority reasoned, trial counsel's performance could not be held constitutionally deficient, because a hypothetical lawyer who actually had discovered the co-worker evidence could have made a reasonable tactical choice not to present it: [S]uppose that trial counsel had, in fact, conducted a more thorough investigation of Cosio's coworkers, obtained all the information presented at the § 23-110 hearing, and then consciously decided not to use it out of a concern that the close relationship testimony might undermine the fabrication defense based on sustained resentment. Strickland, we believe, would have required us to defer to that judgment. If that is so, then the fact that trial counsel presented a fabrication defense without actually coming to grips with the available, additional evidence on the fear issue offers no principled basis for revising that conclusion. Id. at 174. Given, especially, what it perceived to be the difficulty of reconciling evidence of affection with the defense strategy of showing that A.A. deeply resented appellant, the majority also found no reasonable probability that the outcome of appellant's trial would have been different had the jury heard the testimony of appellant's co-workers. Id. at 174-75. [14]