Opinion ID: 1520503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: the objection to the fecal matter

Text: Calhoun claims ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorneys made an objection to the fecal matter issue which we deemed on the original appeal to be limited in scope. He asserts, The Post-Conviction Court found that had counsel objected properly, the evidence would have been excluded and that its admission `was critical and highly prejudicial' to Mr. Calhoun. This contention must fall for two reasons. First of all, as Strickland makes plain, counsel must be judged upon the situation as it existed at the time of trial. We had not at that time decided Scott, 297 Md. 235, 465 A.2d 1126. There was no duty on counsel to foresee that we might hold as we held in that case. Secondly, as we have held in Part II(G) of this opinion, the objected to testimony was admissible as a part of institutional history as we held in Huffington, 304 Md. at 578, 500 A.2d at 281.