Opinion ID: 1541994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Communication with Defense Counsel

Text: The applicant next argues that defense counsel's decision to limit communication with his client during applicant's cross-examination was a serious error resulting in prejudice. This contention is without merit. The applicant has not provided this Court with a single argument on this issue to support the prejudice prong of Strickland, and no such prejudice is obvious from the record. See Burke, 925 A.2d at 893. The fact that applicant was instructed by his defense counsel not to communicate over a weekend about the testimony that he was giving does not, by itself, suggest any prejudice. The applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that any errors committed by trial counsel were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Id. (quoting Kholi, 911 A.2d at 264). The applicant's suggestion that a less scrupulous attorney    might seize the opportunity to sabotage a trial s/he believed was doomed to failure is unavailing. The applicant does not suggest any sabotage in this trial, nor does he point to any other prejudice in this case as a result of his counsel's instruction. See id. We therefore conclude that the applicant's argument concerning defense counsel's limitation on communication with his client is without merit.