Opinion ID: 1709393
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Co-Counsel Udell's Deference to Lead Counsel Nickerson

Text: Gore argues that co-counsel Udell was ineffective due to his total deference to lead counsel Nickerson. We conclude that this decision by Udell to defer to Nickerson could have been considered sound trial strategy at the time, because of Udell's reasonable beliefs that Nickerson had superior qualifications to take the lead in the case. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. At the evidentiary hearing, Udell testified that he deferred to Nickerson because Nickerson was intelligent and had better experience with capital cases and Gore had a lot of personal confidence in him. We conclude that Udell made a strategic decision to defer to Nickerson, and such was arguably reasonable under the norms of professional conduct. Occhicone, 768 So.2d at 1048. When Udell finally discovered at the evidentiary hearing that Nickerson had only practiced law for approximately three years at the time of the 1992 resentencing, Udell stated that he was surprised by this information. Any mistaken belief that Udell had as to Nickerson's experience was reasonable, because according to Udell, Nickerson appeared to know everybody and was completely immersed in the area of capital litigation. Additionally, Udell was never aware that there was a bar grievance pending against Nickerson during preparation for and the actual resentencing. Finally, contrary to Gore's argument, we conclude that Udell did not totally defer to Nickerson but, rather, assumed an active role by providing input on trial strategy. For example, Udell discussed possible nonstatutory mitigators with Nickerson. Therefore, Udell's strategic decision to defer on a limited basis to the apparent abilities of Nickerson did not constitute deficient performance.