Opinion ID: 695501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Rodriguez's Counsel

Text: 36 Rodriguez claims that his trial counsel's performance was ineffective because he failed to adequately cross-examine Elizabeth Santos regarding her ability to observe the drug transaction between Rodriguez, Maria and Ramiro at the video store. To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must establish that [his] trial counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficient performance so prejudiced [his] defense as to render the result of [his] trial 'fundamentally unfair or unreliable.'  Kellum, 42 F.3d at 1094 (quoting Lockhart v. Fretwell, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 838, 842-43, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993)). There is a 'strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.'  Id. (quoting United States v. Kozinski, 16 F.3d 795, 813 (7th Cir.1994)). 37 A review of the cross-examination of Elizabeth Santos most eloquently demonstrates the effectiveness of the defendant's trial counsel. Rodriguez's counsel attempted to discredit Santos's credibility by challenging her recollection, her motivation for testifying, and her ability to recognize Rodriguez when she saw him deliver drugs to Maria at the video store. He specifically questioned her about where she was standing when she observed the delivery, the distance between her position and Rodriguez and Maria, what she was doing when she saw the transaction, and whether she was distracted by anything. As the result of the defendant's counsel's thorough cross-examination, the jury had ample opportunity to note any discrepancies in Santos's recollection of the events. 38 Based on his trial counsel's cross-examination of Elizabeth Santos, we refuse to conclude that the defendant's attorney's performance fell below par. Moreover, even if we were to question the adequacy of his attorney's cross-examination, Rodriguez has not established that, but for his attorney's mistakes, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We have held that a defendant has a 'burden of supplying sufficiently precise information,' of the evidence that would have been obtained had his counsel undertaken the desired investigation, and of showing 'whether such information ... would have produced a different result.'  United States v. Kamel, 965 F.2d 484, 499 n. 45 (7th Cir.1992) (quoting United States ex rel. Cross v. DeRobertis, 811 F.2d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 842, 111 S.Ct. 122, 112 L.Ed.2d 91 (1990)). Rodriguez has explained neither what Santos's responses to further cross-examination might have revealed nor how those responses might have affected the result. Accordingly, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim must fail. 16