Does conceding that defendant lied to the jury constitute ineffective assistance of counsel?

Likewise, conceding that defendant lied to the jury did not necessarily constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. In People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189, 1216, the court held that defense counsel's stipulation to the admission of letters "portraying [defendant] as a 'louse' and a liar" did not amount to ineffective assistance insofar as the stipulation served legitimate tactical purpose. The court explained that while it was "difficult to see how the jury could have reacted favorably to defendant as a witness, after listening to these telling words from the grave" they were "unwilling, however, to second-guess the informed tactical decision of trial counsel to stipulate to the admission of these letters." (Id. at p. 1217.) Contrary to defendant's characterization of the closing argument in this case, counsel did not call defendant a liar, rather he acknowledged that defendant told the jury "a lot of little lies." Counsel also argued that the victim had lied as well and asked the jury to consider whether there was any direct evidence that the sexual acts were not consensual. Given the tactical decision to concede guilt on certain counts, conceding the smaller lies allowed defense counsel to garner credibility with the jury with respect to the only disputed issue as to which the evidence was not conclusive, i.e., whether the defendant had engaged in nonconsensual sexual acts. Under the

Page 18