The following excerpt is from U.S. v. See, 967 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1992):
"As a general rule, we will not review challenges to the effectiveness of defense counsel on direct appeal. Such an issue is more appropriately reserved for habeas corpus proceedings, where facts outside the record, but necessary to the disposition of the claim, may be fully developed." United States v. Laughlin, 933 F.2d 786, 788 (9th Cir.1991) (citations omitted). However, "we are not prevented from considering such contentions on direct appeal where the record is sufficiently complete to allow us to decide the issue." United States v. Swanson, 943 F.2d 1070, 1072 (9th Cir.1991) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Both parties concede that this record is sufficiently developed to warrant such an inquiry on this particular issue.
See's trial counsel provided a vigorous defense, as witnessed by, inter alia, his success in obtaining an acquittal on one of the three counts of the superseding indictment. Moreover, it appears that defense counsel's decision not to call Mrs. See to testify falls under the heading of trial strategy, a decision which, in the absence of some showing to the contrary, we decline to second-guess on appeal. Accordingly, trial counsel's decision not to call Mrs. See as a witness neither falls below the requisite standard of professional reasonableness, nor was so prejudicial to See's defense that a reasonable probability exists that, but for that error, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting his guilt. 2 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).
III. Other Bad Acts
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.