Opinion ID: 1616730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Ineffective-Assistance-of-Counsel Claim: Prejudice.

Text: The purpose of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel is to ensure that a defendant has the assistance necessary to justify reliance on the outcome of the proceeding. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691-92, 104 S.Ct. at 2067, 80 L.Ed.2d at 696. In order to prove a denial of one's right to counsel, a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698. This requirement does not mean a defendant must establish that counsel's deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case. Id. at 693, 104 S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 697. A defendant need only show that the probability of a different result is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698. In determining whether this standard has been met, we must consider the totality of the evidence, what factual findings would have been affected by counsel's errors, and whether the effect was pervasive or isolated and trivial. Id. at 695-96, 104 S.Ct. at 2069, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698. We have already discussed at length the prejudice component of Graves' due process claim and much of what was said there is equally applicable here. The misconduct of the county attorney related to a critical issue in the case and was the centerpiece of the prosecution's trial strategy. See Richter, 826 F.2d at 209-10 (concluding prosecutor's improper attempts to convince jury that resolution of case depended on whether FBI agents or the defendant lied was prejudicial and warranted new trial). The effect of this misconduct was compounded by the prosecutor's disparagement of defense counsel's argument, by his improper characterization of the defendant's testimony concerning Steil's veracity, by his improper enhancement of the officer's credibility, by his improper personal vouching against the credibility of Graves' testimony, and by the prosecutor's statement to the jury that it had to find the defendant guilty if it believed the police officer's testimony. The evidence of Graves' participation in the manufacture of marijuana and of his ownership of the box of marijuana was not strong. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, 104 S.Ct. at 2069, 80 L.Ed.2d at 699 (stating a verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support). As a result, our confidence that the outcome would be the same in the absence of defense counsel's errors is undermined. Accordingly, Graves has established the prejudice component of his ineffective-assistance claim.