Opinion ID: 4556289
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Green’s Pretrial Detention

Text: Detective Anderson testified that he obtained a DNA swab from Green “at the James T. Vaughn Prison.”100 The sum total of Green’s argument about the impropriety of this comment consists of two sentences: Testimony about Mr. Green’s incarceration at the time [of] the DNA swab was inadmissible. Trial counsel failed to object, rendering ineffective assistance of counsel.101 In Poteat v. State, we rejected the defendant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his wearing a prison uniform during the trial.102 Noting Poteat’s acquittal on one charge and his conviction only on a lesser-included charge, we rejected Poteat’s claim. 100 Id. at A332. 101 Opening Br. at 50 (footnote omitted). 102 931 A.2d 437 (Del. 2007). 45 Here we acknowledge that the detective’s reference to Green’s incarcerated status was unnecessary and even objectionable. But Poteat teaches that a jury’s learning that an accused is in prison during a trial is not per se prejudicial. It follows that Green’s status as a pretrial detainee is likewise not per se prejudicial. Because Green has not attempted to identify the actual prejudice he suffered by virtue of Detective Anderson’s unfortunate comment—and, in light of the partially favorable jury verdict, we find none—we reject this claim. G. Green’s cumulative-prejudice claim lacks merit. Because we conclude that trial counsel’s representation of Green was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, we need not address Green’s claim that his lawyer’s alleged deficiencies, viewed cumulatively, deprived Green “of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.”103 Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to share our view that, even if it could be said that Green’s counsel put a foot wrong here and there, those slight missteps pale in comparison to her performance on the whole. And the jury’s verdict, which included findings of innocence on every count that hinged solely on Green’s and Sarah’s relative credibility, attests to that view. In short, we can find nothing in counsel’s representation of Green that undermines our confidence in the outcome of his trial. 103 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. 46