Opinion ID: 741133
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State's case.

Text: 27 The State's case against Albert was extremely weak. We have previously held that ineffective assistance claims based on a duty to investigate must be considered in light of the strength of the government's case. Eggleston v. United States, 798 F.2d 374, 376 (9th Cir.1986). Here, the only evidence presented at trial that indicated Albert had raped Wilson came from Wilson herself, who testified that Albert and his brother Kevin forcibly raped her three times over the course of forty-five minutes, with Kevin ejaculating into her mouth. An investigating officer testified that Wilson had told him that both Albert and Kevin had reached sexual climaxes. 28 The physical evidence utterly failed to support Wilson's account. The prosecution presented the testimony of Evelyn Medrano, the emergency-room physician who conducted a physical examination of Wilson at 5 a.m. on October 7. Wilson told Dr. Medrano that she had not douched, bathed, or changed clothes between the time of the alleged rape and the examination. Dr. Medrano testified that she found no ejaculatory material inside [Wilson's] vagina. Indeed, Dr. Medrano admitted on cross-examination that she did not find anything that would have indicated that a penis had recently entered Wilson's vagina. 29 Dr. Medrano's conclusions are supported by the testimony of Charles Shawan, a criminalist at the Oregon police laboratory to which the sexual assault kit prepared by Dr. Medrano was sent. Called by the defense, Shawan testified that he was unable to find sperm cells on the microscopic slides, and ... could not determine the presence of semen on the vaginal swab, cervical swab, or panties, and there were no apparent hairs of relevancy present in the pubic combing. Shawan also testified that if, as in this case, there were two normal ejaculations of semen and an individual was tested for these substances or examined for them within four hours, I would find it likely that I would find evidence of that intercourse by finding evidence of seminal fluid. Finally, Shawan testified that there were no traces of sperm or semen found on the bedspread upon which the alleged rape occurred. 30 The State's case was thus weak. The potential prejudicial effect of counsel's deficient performance must be evaluated in light of that fact. 31