Opinion ID: 2980034
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Cross-Examine

Text: In claim (9), Muntaser alleges trial counsel was constitutionally deficient by failing to crossexamine Pascol, a key prosecution witness. Under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), trial counsel must “subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.” Id. at 659. Muntaser’s counsel did so here by actively participating in presenting witnesses and cross-examining the government’s witnesses. 11 It is clear from the trial transcript that counsel made a strategic decision not to cross-examine Pascol, whose serious injuries made him a sympathetic witness. Counsel did examine Pascol’s prior statements and found no material inconsistencies. Additionally, trial counsel directly attacked Pascol’s testimony during closing arguments. Muntaser has not overcome the presumption that counsel’s decision to avoid badgering a sympathetic witness “might be considered sound trial strategy” under the circumstances. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (internal quotation marks omitted). This claim therefore cannot provide a basis for habeas relief. b. Continuance for Trial Scheduled Over September 11, 2002 In claim (10), Muntaser, who is an Arab-American, alleges that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not seeking a continuance of his trial, which occurred over a period of days including the first anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (“9/11 attacks”). Muntaser has not met his burden of showing that counsel’s failure to change the trial date caused him prejudice. It is true that Muntaser—along with many other trial participants—is ArabAmerican. But, as the district court pointed out, Muntaser was not able to obscure his ethnicity either before or after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, there is nothing to suggest that, but for counsel’s failure to seek a continuance, “the result of the proceeding would have been different.” See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. This claim therefore does not present a basis for habeas relief.4