Opinion ID: 741133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Albert's defense.

Text: 32 Albert's denial that he was at the scene of the alleged crime was incredibly lame. He did not state where he was, or elaborate in any other way. His denial was so ineffective that it stimulated no cross-examination on its merits. Most of his testimony, on direct and cross-examination, was concerned with his prior convictions. The jury obviously concluded that he was not telling the truth when he denied that he was present at the scene. Because of the precariousness of the prosecution's case, there is a reasonable probability that, if Albert had not taken the stand and lied, the outcome of the trial would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2065-66. 33 We do not agree with the State's contention that Albert's false testimony could not have prejudiced him because Albert's absence from the scene was not central to his defense. His primary defense, according to the State, was that no rape had occurred, and Haslett so argued to the jury. But this argument ignores the effect of the false testimony. Albert's testimony was not necessary to establish the defense that no rape occurred, but once he testified that he was not present and had not then met Wilson, the truth of that testimony became central to his defense. The jury could find that Albert was lying, and could conclude that the reason he was lying was that he had raped Wilson. 34 The importance of Albert's false testimony was not lost on the State. In the State's final rebuttal argument, the prosecutor argued: 35 And finally, I ask you to scrutinize what the defendant told you in court today, because he testified-now, he didn't have to testify, he didn't have to present any evidence, but he chose to do so, because that's his right to do that if he wants to, and what did he tell you he was doing on October the 7th, 1985, or October the 6th, 1985? What-who did he tell you he was with? He didn't. Did you notice that? He says he didn't do anything to Sharlene Wilson, but he doesn't tell you what he was doing. Well, who was he with? Where was he? Let me suggest to you there's a good reason why the defendant didn't tell you what he was doing and who he was with, because on October the 6th and October the 7th, he was with Kevin Johnson, and he was raping Sharlene Wilson, and that's why he can't tell you what he was doing that night. 36 It is not at all unlikely that the jury responded to this argument. 37 Albert has maintained from the time of his sentencing that his attorney told him to lie. If that were the case, the attorney's ineffective assistance would have been prejudicial because it would have been the cause of the false testimony that the jury probably held against Albert. The state post-conviction court found after a hearing, however, that Albert had not carried his burden of proof on that point. That finding is supported by the record and we presume it to be correct. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(8) (1995). 2 We therefore are left with the alternative presented at Albert's state postconviction hearing: that he told his attorney that he was at his girlfriend's or his grandmother's house. 38 It is clear from the state court's findings, however, that attorney Haslett never interviewed Albert's girl friend, nor did he interview Albert's grandmother. Nor does it appear that, during the minimal consultation between Haslett and Albert, Haslett tried to inquire about any other possible sources of corroboration for Albert's story. Nor did he attempt any investigation of such sources. If Albert's alibi was corroborated, the corroboration could have been presented to the jury. From what we know now, of course, the far greater likelihood is that investigation would have led only to blind alleys or outright contradiction, sufficient to establish that Albert likely was not telling the truth when he said he was not present. Armed with such information, especially after Wilson's identification of Albert, Haslett could have confronted Albert with the difficulties of his story. With Haslett's encouragement, Albert could have elected to follow one of two strategies. Albert could have testified that he was present but that no rape occurred; this strategy was followed later by Kevin, who was acquitted. See Harris By and Through Ramseyer v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that acquittal of codefendant who used a non-deficient trial strategy is relevant to determining whether the defendant was prejudiced by his counsel's use of a different and objectively-deficient trial strategy); see also Mak v. Blodgett, 970 F.2d 614, 621 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that the outcome of a criminal proceeding against a codefendant is relevant to a Strickland analysis). Alternatively, Albert could have elected not to testify, thereby depriving the jury of the adverse credibility determination that probably tipped the balance against him. Because we have concluded that the State's case was so weak that in the absence of Albert's false testimony the jury probably would not have convicted, Haslett's performance prejudiced Albert. 39 We do not find it anomalous that an attorney who fulfills his or her duty to investigate the facts of a case may discover and need to act upon information contrary to that which the client has furnished. As the facts were found by the state courts, Albert offered Haslett an uncorroborated denial that, in light of evidence that minimal investigation would have revealed, was utterly unconvincing. Haslett was not entitled to stop there, but for all practical purposes, he did. If Haslett had talked to Albert's grandmother and his girl friend, in search of corroboration for Albert's alibi, and they had told him the truth, he would have found none. Had he confronted Albert with the lack of corroboration for his alibi, and the strength of the defense that no sexual intercourse had occurred, Albert probably would have elected not to lie to the jury. The prejudice from failing to investigate the alibi and confer more fully with Albert is not avoided by the fact that Albert misinformed his attorney.