Opinion ID: 1058446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rehman as a Witness.

Text: All but one of the eyewitnesses to the events of September 9, 2002 were members of Ahmer's family. They gave wildly varying accounts of those events in their initial statements to the police, in subsequent interviews with the police, in recorded statements, as witnesses in the separate trials of Rehman and Ahmer, and in the sentencing proceedings thereafter. Because of these discrepancies, most were impeached by their prior inconsistent statements. Rehman was no exception. He initially told the police, on the night of the murder, that when he entered the apartment, he found Ahmer engaged in a fight with Zahid, the victim, and that he tried to intervene by grabbing the victim's hand and trying to pull him off Ahmer, after which the victim pulled away and jumped off the balcony to escape. Later that night, Rehman changed his story and told the police that he was angry about the affair between Zahid and Humaira, that he entered the apartment, found Zahid in conversation with Humaira's father and struck Zahid with his fist. Rehman further stated that Ahmer joined in the fight and both of them started punching Zahid, after which Rehman went to the kitchen, picked up a knife, returned, and stabbed Zahid several times. At the guilt phase of Rehman's trial, he testified that after he stabbed Zahid, someone else pulled him away and he saw the door open, whereupon Ahmer came in and started hitting Zahid after Rehman had finished. At the penalty phase of Rehman's trial, he testified that the fight was entirely between himself and Zahid, and that Ahmer just try to stop us. By the time of Rehman's sentencing hearing, however, Ahmer had been tried and convicted. At that point, Rehman's counsel argued to the court, Ahmer Shaikh was the leader of this family[.] Ahmer Shaikh was the one that wanted something to happen to [Zahid].... Your Honor, the jury in [Ahmer's] case ... recognized Ahmer Shaikh as the leader of this, recognized him for the thug that he is. As stated above, Ahmer's counsel interviewed both Rehman and his counsel before Ahmer's trial began. Ahmer's counsel furnished an affidavit which was a part of the record in the habeas proceeding. In it, he stated that Rehman was hasty to offer to testify in whatever way might be beneficial to [Ahmer] and his family but when asked about the events that led up to Ahmer's arrival at the crime scene, Rehman did not want to talk about them. Rehman's counsel, however, informed Ahmer's counsel that Rehman would not testify at Ahmer's trial, and, if subpoenaed, would invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege. At Ahmer's sentencing hearing, Ahmer's counsel informed the court that he had experienced great difficulty in dealing with the family members. He referred to his efforts in gathering the facts from them as akin to an archaeological dig. The trial court responded: Well, I really felt at trial that you were having a very difficult time because of the testimony of the family.... every witness that got on the stand blew up something. In the habeas proceeding, the court recalled that at trial, the witnesses were [a]ll over the place. In these circumstances, trial counsel's decision not to call Rehman as a witness may well be characterized as a sound tactical decision. Counsel could have no assurance what Rehman's testimony might be, but helpful or harmful, counsel could rest assured that it would be subject to devastating impeachment. Rehman might have given testimony favorable to Ahmer, but in that case the jury would have heard impeachment evidence equally or more damaging. In view of his prior statements, Rehman might also have proved directly hostile. Further, counsel could have no assurance that Rehman would testify at all. If he refused to testify, the effect of his invocation of the Fifth Amendment, if the jury were aware of it, would be unpredictable. Rehman's testimony would have represented a `two edged sword' that counsel often confront when constructing the strategy most likely to assist rather than harm a client. Lenz v. Warden of the Sussex I State Prison, 267 Va. 318, 337, 593 S.E.2d 292, 303 (2004). A habeas petitioner making a claim of ineffective assistance must overcome a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, ... the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (internal quotation marks omitted). Ahmer has failed to overcome that presumption here. We hold that counsel's decision not to call Rehman as a witness fell within the range of reasonable professional assistance. We therefore do not reach consideration of the prejudice prong of Strickland in deciding Ahmer's assignments of error concerning counsel's decision not to call Rehman as a witness.