Opinion ID: 6328135
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Taylor’s Overall Performance

Text: Because we conclude that Karr’s prejudice arguments fall short, we need not reach the question of whether Taylor’s overall performance was deﬁcient. Indeed, this court’s precedents discourage us from undertaking a wholesale analysis of attorney performance in such circumstances. See Adeyanju, 12 F.4th at 676; Thill v. Richardson, 996 F.3d 469, 476– 77 (7th Cir. 2021). Yet, without deciding the question, the State may be correct that Taylor’s overall performance was at least adequate. According to the trial court, Taylor’s “skillful objections” kept evidence damaging to Karr’s defense from being presented to the jury. Taylor also argued for and procured a directed verdict of not guilty on Count 5, the charge of intimidation. And the jury acquitted Karr on Count 16 No. 21-2463 4, the charge of strangulation. This all supports the conclusion that Taylor’s performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688.