Opinion ID: 162747
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Counsel's Insufficient Closing Arguments

Text: 111 Mr. Le argues that his trial attorney made at least two errors in the closing arguments during the guilt phase. Mr. Le complains that his attorney conceded Mr. Le's guilt by explaining to the jury why Mrs. Nguyen was not cross-examined. Mr. Le also suggests that it was error for his trial attorney never to argue Mr. Le's version of the events to the jury. 112 With respect to the first point, Mr. Le's attorney said to the jury: 113 Now this has been a short trial. The state mentioned, for example, that the victim's wife [was not] cross-examine[d]. Well, one thing I'll tell you is that I don't want to start with and insult your intelligence and I wouldn't insult her.... 114 I didn't say [Detective Bemo] cheated or planted evidence or inferred that he was racially biased or prejudiced because he's not. 115 And I didn't insult your intelligence or him by inferring that.... 116 This trial wasn't a circus. This wasn't a mockery of the system. This system didn't have bumbling prosecutors or bumbling police or things of that nature. This case was put on in an orderly manner and you as jurors take that into consideration and determin[e] this case based upon the facts and the law that you have here. 117 Tr. vol. IV, at 587-90. 118 While Mr. Le argues that these comments concede Mr. Le's guilt, taken in context and [g]iven the first stage evidence, [they appear] to be a reasonable attempt [by counsel] to ingratiate himself and, by extension, [Mr.] Le with the jury. Le I, 947 P.2d at 557. As already discussed, attempting to impeach Mrs. Nguyen would not necessarily have benefitted Mr. Le, and this statement does not in fact concede Mr. Le's guilt. Therefore, we cannot hold that the Court of Criminal Appeals' conclusion on this point was unreasonable. 119 As for Mr. Le's argument that counsel should have at least mentioned Mr. Le's theory during the guilt stage of the trial, we have concerns that counsel may have abdicated his responsibility in this respect. It seems that Mr. Le's trial counsel apparently had little in the way of strategy during the guilt phase except to challenge the validity of Mr. Le's confession and not to insult the jury by attacking Mrs. Nguyen or the police. However, a review of the trial transcript shows that trial counsel made objections, cross-examined witnesses, and argued legal points to the judge. Although from this record we cannot discern a comprehensive strategy, we cannot conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals' determination on counsel's failure explicitly to present Mr. Le's theory was unreasonable. 120