Opinion ID: 77514
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Investigate State's Case and Possible Defenses

Text: 28 Lynd's third argument is that his counsel was ineffective when he failed to investigate whether the victim could have regained consciousness after being shot twice in the head. 6 Lynd argues that his counsel's failure to investigate such evidence prejudiced him because if the victim could not have regained consciousness after the second shot—and before he placed her into his trunk—he could not have been convicted of kidnapping. 7 29 The state habeas court denied this claim on the merits, holding that Lynd's attorneys asked for and received monies to hire an investigator, who subsequently performed an investigation and testified at trial .... Petitioner has not made the requisite showing that trial counsel's performance was deficient. An independent review of the record reveals that Lynd's counsel adequately investigated the state's case and possible defenses, prepared and argued this defense in particular, and elicited favorable trial testimony on this issue from the state's expert witness. During cross examination, Lynd's counsel obtained the following concessions from the state expert witness: (1) although the victim could have regained consciousness, the majority of victims would not regain consciousness after receiving the second shot; (2) it was possible that the victim in this case did not regain consciousness; and (3) nothing in the autopsy report indicated that the victim regained consciousness. Lynd has not pointed to any other information that his counsel could have discovered through additional investigation of this defense. 30 Accordingly, we cannot hold that the state habeas court's denial of this claim was contrary to federal law or was based on an unreasonable factual determination.