Opinion ID: 2714924
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Preparation of Gomez for Trial

Text: Gomez argues that Moser's preparation of her for trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because he did not inform her of the nature of trial proceedings, nor did he prepare her for direct or crossexamination. Gomez cites Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1998), for the proposition that defense counsel has a duty to prepare a defendant to testify. In Turner, the Ninth Circuit found that defense counsel's admission that he spent at most forty-five minutes with [the defendant] prior to trial demonstrates deficient performance. Id. at 457. Turner is inapposite to this case, however, because Moser makes no such admission. To the contrary, he states that he knows they discussed Gomez's testimony several times but does not remember the specifics of their preparation. Thus, Turner does not show that Moser's preparation of Gomez for trial was objectively unreasonable. In addition, the record shows that prior to trial Gomez experienced court and trial-like proceedings on multiple occasions and in Moser's presence. For instance, she spent four days in dependency proceedings in 2004 and sat in court with the aid of an interpreter on at least eight occasions prior to trial. While this evidence does not show that Moser fulfilled his duty to prepare Gomez for trial, it does show that Gomez was in fact informed of 24 In re Pers. Restraint of Gomez No. 86711-9 the nature of trial proceedings before going to trial. Since she does not meet her burden of proof, we conclude that Moser's preparation of Gomez for trial did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.