Opinion ID: 1090851
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether defense counsel were qualified to try a capital case.

Text: ¶ 103. Russell states that both defense counsel were trying their first capital case when defending Russell, and therefore there is a presumption of prejudice. Russell cites Copas v. Comm'r of Correction, 234 Conn. 139, 662 A.2d 718 (1995); Rose v. State, 675 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1996); Commonwealth v. Perry, 537 Pa. 385, 644 A.2d 705 (1994). None of these cases stand for the proposition that counsel can be presumed ineffective because of lack of experience in trying a particular kind of case. The charge of ineffective assistance of counsel must be tested against established legal precedent set out in Issue X.A., supra. This issue is without merit.