Opinion ID: 1859418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Prong of Strickland: Ineffective Assistance.

Text: To meet the first prong of Strickland , Mr. Deck was required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his trial counsel was ineffective in offering instructions that omitted the two paragraphs from MAI-CR3d 313.44A that told the jurors they must consider circumstances in mitigation of punishment and need not be unanimous. [7] At the hearing, counsel acknowledged that she had thought the omitted paragraphs were in the instructions and that she had a responsibility to see that they were. She also agreed that mitigation was crucial to her defense, and that she wanted the court to give correct mitigation instructions and to define mitigation, but just failed to make a record of this. Indeed, while her own view of her effectiveness is not determinative, it is noteworthy that she testified, We...copied the wrong version of 313.44, I'm willing to accept the blame for that, I'm the first one to raise my hand and say I should've caught it and I didn't, and I was ineffective not realizing that the instructions were incomplete. And, this was not a situation in which objection would have been futile. The missing paragraphs were actually required by MAI-CR3d 313.44A; a presumption of error would have arisen had they been requested but not given. Rule 28.02(c), (f). Although counsel's actions should be judged by her overall performance, the right to effective assistance of counsel may in a particular case be violated by even an isolated error of counsel if that error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). The submission of faulty instructions on the critical issue of mitigation was a sufficiently egregious error that it deprived Mr. Deck of reasonably effective assistance of counsel. See also, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693-696, 104 S.Ct. 2052.