Opinion ID: 25424
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appointment of Co-counsel

Text: Gallamore next argues that his attorney offered ineffective assistance by failing to secure the assistance of cocounsel. This argument is based on an initial indication to the trial court by Gallamore’s trial counsel that the appointment of co-counsel would be useful. Co-counsel was appointed, but only assisted during voir dire. Gallamore contends that co-counsel should have been retained for the duration of the trial, and that 12 the absence of co-counsel prejudiced Gallamore because co-counsel would have adequately prepared an effective mental health expert to testify on Gallamore’s behalf. The state habeas court rejected this argument and found that Gallamore’s counsel had acted reasonably in hiring additional counsel to assist only in the voir dire process. The state habeas court also concluded that the absence of co-counsel during the remainder of the trial did not prejudice Gallamore. Outside of his conclusory allegations, Gallamore has not demonstrated how appointment of co-counsel would have altered the outcome of his trial. There is no constitutional guarantee of the assistance of two attorneys in a capital case. Counsel’s decision to retain co-counsel only during voir dire does not constitute ineffective assistance.