Opinion ID: 2310175
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to object to the grand jury testimony

Text: Jones argues that his trial counsel should have objected to the introduction of his grand jury testimony other than that quoted in the indictment because it graphically [recounted] the entire episode, and hence went far beyond the scope of the perjury charge. This claim is essentially frivolous. There was little or nothing in Jones' grand jury testimony about the shootings that the jury did not hear from other sources, including Jones himself when he took the stand. The grand jury testimony was properly admitted, as we have held in part III-A of this opinion, where we noted that the evidence which proved the substantive charges against Taylor was also necessary to prove the perjury charge against Jones. We see no legal basis for objecting to the grand jury testimony, and hence no reason to conclude that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to it.