Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel With Regard to Lee Furrow is Denied on the Merits

Text: Petitioner does not show that defense trial counsel's performance fell below the constitutional standard by failing to present evidence allegedly linking Furrow to the coveralls or other evidence at trial. In fact, defense trial counsel presented evidence of the destruction of a pair of coveralls allegedly linked to the Ryens/Hughes murders through law enforcement witnesses, (102 RT 6545-55), thereby allowing counsel to exploit the destruction of the coveralls without encountering the credibility problems that defense counsel knew would arise with presenting testimony from Diana Roper. The testimony of Karee Kellison Curry, Roper's sister, would encounter similar credibility problems for the defense in attempting to connect the coveralls to the Ryen/Hughes murders through Furrow. (Answer, Ex. 37 at 2.) Moreover, given the overwhelming evidence of Petitioner's guilt before the jury, Petitioner has not shown any prejudice. As both the California Supreme Court and this Court have already expressly concluded, Petitioner `received an extraordinarily vigorous and able defense.' Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 8 (quoting Cooper, 53 Cal.3d at 824, 281 Cal. Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865). Defense trial counsel's extensive educational background and prior litigation experience were developed in the evidentiary hearing before this Court in Cooper I. See Cooper I, 92-CV427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 8. Moreover, both this Court and the California Supreme Court found the evidence of Petitioner's guilt to be overwhelming. Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 8 (quoting Cooper, 53 Cal.3d at 836, 281 Cal.Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865). Accordingly, the California Supreme Court's decision rejecting the merits of Petitioner's claim is not contrary to federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts, since defense counsel was not deficient, nor was Petitioner prejudiced by his attorney's strategic decisions. This Court therefore DENIES this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).