Opinion ID: 2062476
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Prepare for Trial

Text: Gilliam argues that Daneman was deficient in arguing only an accident defense at trial, and not exploring alternative defenses. Although Gilliam initially told Daneman that he shot Ms. Doerfler accidentally, during a subsequent interview prior to trial, however, Gilliam changed his story and told Daneman it was not an accident, I killed her because she could have identified [Tony]. She saw his face. [2] At the guilt/innocence trial, Daneman relied on the defense of accident which was consistent with Gilliam's confession to the police. There was never any suggestion that the accident defense was either inappropriate or inadequately presented. Indeed, Gilliam's expert on criminal defense representation, William C. Brennan, Jr., acknowledged that Mr. Daneman did a pretty good job on the accident defense at trial. Gilliam does not now challenge the accident defense, but claims in his brief that Daneman failed to make any attempt to develop an alternative defense.... Petitioner's initial claim that the shooting was an accident did not relieve Daneman of his responsibility to investigate and develop all defenses that may be available under the facts and the law. Gilliam shot Ms. Doerfler in the back of the head with a shotgun after robbing and kidnapping her. He did so in the presence of two witnesses who were in another car some distance away, and he confessed to the police, albeit claiming the gun went off accidently. Daneman was clearly not ineffective because he failed to investigate and develop an alternative defense. See Lindsey v. Smith, 820 F.2d 1137, 1152 (11th Cir.1987) (a defendant who proposes an alternative trial strategy that would itself have proved futile has failed to demonstrate that the [attorney's] representation at trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1059, 109 S.Ct. 1327, 103 L.Ed.2d 595 (1989); Jones v. United States, 512 A.2d 253, 262-63 (D.C. 1986) (Assuming ... that [an alternative] defense would be a valid defense as a matter of law, counsel's failure to pursue it appears to have been a tactical judgment and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when such judgment was reasonable). Daneman obviously chose to pursue the best and probably the only legitimate trial defense. The claim that Daneman should have developed an alternative trial defense is at best frivolous.