Opinion ID: 2545785
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defense Counsel's Failure to Argue Lingering Doubt

Text: Defendant contends his trial counsel was incompetent for not asking the jury to spare defendant's life because of a lingering doubt about his guilt, and for not requesting the trial court to instruct the jury that lingering doubt could be a mitigating circumstance. Defendant does not dispute that the evidence that he killed the two young girls was overwhelming, nor does he suggest that his counsel should have argued there was a lingering doubt about his identity as the killer. Rather, he contends the jury could have had a lingering doubt as to whether he killed the two girls with premeditation and deliberation, without which he would have been guilty only of second rather than first degree murder. (§ 189.) The record does not reveal why defense counsel did not argue lingering doubt or request an instruction on it. Counsel may have had tactical reasons. Although the jury might have had a lingering doubt as to whether defendant acted with premeditation when he committed the first of the two murders, it was unlikely to have had such a doubt as to whether he premeditated before committing the second murder. [3] Thus, defense counsel may have decided that it would be better to say as little as possible about the murders and to focus instead on defendant's service in Vietnam and his deprived childhood. (See generally People v. Hawkins, supra 10 Cal.4th 920, 968, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574.)