Opinion ID: 1341304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Interview and Call Co-Defendants as Witnesses

Text: The State claims the PCR judge erred in finding trial counsel ineffective for failing to interview respondent's co-defendants and for failing to call them as witnesses at respondent's trial because respondent failed to prove prejudice. We agree. Respondent testified he asked counsel to call one of his codefendants, Lorenzo Stanford (Stanford), as a witness at trial, but counsel did not do so. At the PCR hearing, Stanford's statement he made to the police following the robbery was introduced to support respondent's claim of ineffectiveness. Counsel testified Stanford and respondent's other co-defendant, Sam Bennerman (Bennerman), were not called as witnesses because Stanford's statement, which supported respondent's version of the incident, was presented through the testimony of a police officer. According to counsel, he contacted counsel for the co-defendants and was told any testimony given by them would be the same as their statements given to the police. Counsel also reviewed the co-defendant's statements. Counsel made the decision not to call Stanford and Bennerman to testify because he didn't want to run the risk of calling them and having something go wrong. Further, counsel thought the testimony of the police officer admitting Stanford's statement supported respondent's version of the incident and lent more credibility to respondent's defense than calling Stanford to testify. Although respondent did introduce evidence at the PCR hearing of what Stanford's testimony would have been had he testified at trial, this same information was presented through the testimony of the police officer who took the statement. Thus, the jury was aware respondent's defense was corroborated. Respondent failed to show Stanford's testimony could have provided additional information to what was admitted through the police officer's testimony to assist in respondent's defense. Compare with Thomas v. State, 308 S.C. 123, 417 S.E.2d 531 (1992) (petitioner showed uncalled witness' testimony would have made a difference in the trial because it would have cast doubt on the sole witness' identification of the petitioner). Therefore, respondent failed to present any evidence of prejudice in failing to call Stanford as a witness. Respondent also produced no evidence of how counsel's failure to interview Stanford or Bennerman prejudiced his defense. See Glover v. State, 318 S.C. 496, 458 S.E.2d 538 (1995) (prejudice from trial counsel's failure to interview or call witnesses could not be shown where the PCR applicant failed to introduce evidence of what the uncalled witnesses' testimony would have been and an applicant's mere speculation what a witness' testimony would have been cannot satisfy the applicant's burden of showing prejudice). [3] It is pure speculation to conclude the outcome of respondent's trial would have been different if counsel had interviewed and/or called Stanford and Bennerman as witnesses. Further, the decision not to call Stanford as a witness was trial strategy. Counsel claimed he thought the testimony concerning the corroboration of respondent's statement would be more credible if presented through the testimony of the police officer instead of Stanford. This is a valid reason for deciding not to call Stanford since Stanford's credibility would have been at issue if he testified. Thus, counsel was not ineffective for employing this strategy. Stokes v. State, 308 S.C. 546, 419 S.E.2d 778 (1992) (where counsel articulates a valid reason for employing a certain strategy, such conduct will not be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel).