Court Opinion

ID: 9702003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:48:43.184473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:31.987544
License: Public Domain

*853DANA, Justice,
with whom RUDMAN, Justice, joins, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Research has not produced a single case within the last thirty years in which we have affirmed a Superior Court finding of ineffective “trial” counsel and only once during that period have we affirmed a finding of ineffective trial preparation. The reason for this almost unblemished record is the amount of ineffectiveness that we find acceptable. I do not quarrel with the words — “ordinary, fallible attorney” — what needs to be elevated, in my view, is our assessment of that attorney.
Hearsay and contested admissions aside, the only real issue at trial was whether the jury would believe the defendant or his accuser. Trial counsel never attempted to impeach his client’s accuser or offer the conflicting testimony of her older sister. The Superior Court was in a position to observe the witnesses and made the requisite finding that counsel’s performance was well below that of the ordinary Maine lawyer. We should, and I do, defer to the trial court. I would affirm and grant the defendant a new trial.