Opinion ID: 1129349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Failure to Effectively Cross-Examine Key State Witnesses

Text: Lamarca claims his counsel was ineffective in failing to effectively cross-examine Tonya Flynn and Darren Brown. [7] As the trial court recognized, defense counsel's decision to limit the cross-examination of each of these witnesses was reasonable trial strategy. Defense counsel testified that he strategically limited his cross-examination of Tonya and Darren in order to avoid opening the door to potentially incriminating information that would not otherwise have been admissible. As explained above, the admissibility of Tonya's testimony was limited to placing the murder weapon in Lamarca's possession. Strategically, defense counsel did not want to free the State from this limitation by impeaching Tonya's credibility and, thereby, allowing the State to introduce evidence to rehabilitate it. Instead, in his closing argument, defense counsel challenged the credibility of Tonya's testimony. As to Darren Brown, defense counsel limited his cross-examination because he feared an aggressive cross-examination would bring out Brown's earlier statement that Lamarca had confessed to killing Kevin. We have long recognized that strategic decisions by trial counsel are virtually unchallengeable. Downs v. State, 453 So.2d 1102, 1108 (Fla.1984); see also Davis v. State, 915 So.2d 95, 115 (Fla.2005) (recognizing that counsel [i]s not ineffective in exercising his decision to discontinue further investigation into matters that were already known to him and that he had strategically determined should not be presented to the jury), cert. dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1649, 164 L.Ed.2d 357 (2006). The trial court's denial of this claim is affirmed.