Opinion ID: 2201607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Eliciting Unfavorable Testimony During Cross-Examination.

Text: Defendant's second claim of ineffective assistance of counsel concerns the cross-examination of a social worker called by the prosecution as an expert witness. Before trial defendant's counsel succeeded in obtaining a ruling limiting the expert's testimony concerning the reaction and conduct of child sexual abuse victims. The court ruled that the expert will not be testifying regarding the facts in this case or whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty or whether the children in this case were or were not sexual abuse victims. On direct examination the witness discussed the characteristics indicative of child abuse and the reasons why boy victims of sexual abuse may voluntarily continue to associate with their abuser. The truthfulness of abused children was not addressed. During cross-examination, however, the social worker elaborated in answering one question by explaining, what we find is [children] very, very rarely lie about sexual victimization. It does occur, but statistically it's usually three percent in our studies and very low incidence of children fabricating stories about sexual victimization. Defendant contends his trial counsel was ineffective when first he elicited the unfavorable testimony and then failed to have it stricken from the record as unresponsive. A claim of ineffectiveness of counsel must be premised on more than simply questionable or unsuccessful trial tactics. Kyle v. State, 364 N.W.2d 558, 565 (Iowa 1985); State v. Losee, 354 N.W.2d 239, 243 (Iowa 1984). Here, as in Kyle, defendant's attorney made a judgment call concerning how best to use cross-examination to discredit the prosecution witness. Counsel chose to challenge that testimony with questions attacking the method used by the social worker to substantiate complaints of sexual abuse. After the witness during cross-examination expressed the opinion quoted above, defendant's trial counsel continued to question the social worker about methodology. By maintaining this approach and extracting a grudging concession that studies in this field depend upon incomplete reporting and many variables, defendant's counsel managed to stay with his chosen strategy of attack and moved the focus away from the testimony about truthfulness of child victims. He arguably thereby defanged that testimony more effectively than if he had interrupted his interrogation by moving to have the unresponsive part of the answer stricken from the record. Whether twenty-twenty hindsight tells us trial counsel was wise or unwise in selecting this strategy for cross-examination, common sense and experience teach that the strategy was well within the range of reasonable professional competence. See State v. Wilkens, 346 N.W.2d 16, 19 (Iowa 1984) (not ineffective assistance for counsel to make sound tactical decision to emphasize self-defense rather than diminished capacity, then stay that course in preparing and presenting case to jury); State v. Newman, 326 N.W.2d 788, 795 (Iowa 1982) (We have refused to assume the role of Monday morning quarterback in condemning counsel's judgment in choosing between what are frequently equally hazardous options available to him.). Defendant has not demonstrated that his trial counsel's performance deprived him of his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.