Opinion ID: 1944516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: peak

Text: Finally, Poindexter asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in the cross-examination of Peak. Poindexter admits that trial counsel confronted Peak with the inconsistencies in his version of the events leading up to Minard's death. But Poindexter asserts his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated, because the confrontation did not go far enough and counsel should have more forcefully asked leading questions to emphasize the impossibility of all the various claims made by Peak. We find no error in the district court's conclusion that Peak was adequately cross-examined. The court noted that Peak was a boy who had never been in a courtroom before and that the jury might not have looked favorably upon a more vigorous cross-examination. But, in fact, we observe from the record that the cross-examination of Peak was quite extensive. The cross-examination of Peak by Poindexter's and Rice's trial counsel spanned over 100 pages in the bill of exceptions. Peak was questioned about the fact that in his original confession to the police on August 28, 1970, neither Poindexter nor Rice was implicated. Peak was questioned about the fact that he had originally said that an anonymous letter had directed him to leave the suitcase in an alley and to wait in a telephone booth where an unknown woman called him and told him to call the police. Defense counsel pointed out in detail how, when Peak finally made a statement implicating Poindexter and Rice, the details of that account were significantly different from those testified to at trial, and how, in the preliminary hearing, he originally refused to testify against Poindexter and Rice. Peak was also questioned regarding his motivation for his testimony against Poindexter. Peak admitted to the jury that in his interrogations, the police mentioned the possibility of his being sentenced to death and that he was scared. Peak also admitted that after implicating Poindexter and Rice, he was treated very well by the police and had been taken on outings to restaurants for dinner and to visit family. He admitted that his attorney had told him there was a possibility he would be allowed to plead to a lesser offense than the first degree murder he was charged with. Reviewing the trial record in this case, we determine there were clearly no constitutional deficiencies in defense counsel's cross-examination of Peak.