Court Opinion

ID: 9478830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:59:42.142673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:38.678804
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
In his petition for rehearing, Boruff reasserts the claims, made in his original brief and not addressed by the court in its original opinion, that the government’s use of Howell’s testimony violated Boruff’s sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and his fifth amendment right to due process.
Counsel’s decision to call a witness to testify at a suppression hearing, knowing that the government may thereby learn of his existence and call him to testify at trial, is a matter of trial strategy, and does not render his assistance ineffective.1 Nor is the defendant’s due process right to a fair trial violated when the government calls this witness to testify at trial. The requirement that the government establish its case by presenting evidence “independently secured through skillful investigation” 2 ensures that the government “prov[e] its charge against the accused not out of his own mouth,”3 a claim we have already considered.
The petition for rehearing is, therefore, DENIED.

. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

. Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 54, 69 S.Ct. 1347, 1350, 93 L.Ed.2d 1801 (1949).

.Id. at 54, 69 S.Ct. at 1350.