Atkins v. Zenk

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying his habeas petition alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in defending him on attempted murder charges by pursuing false alibi defense where counsel had no witnesses to support said defense and had failed to provide govt. with required notice of said defense and further failed to present appropriate jury instruction regarding said defense. State court’s denial of similar claim on merits was entitled to deference, and trial counsel’s decision to pursue alibi defense was reasonable where: (1) defendant had refused to take witness stand to establish more viable defense, i.e., lack of intent to commit crime; (2) defendant had requested that counsel take “all or nothing” approach in defense; and (3) trial counsel actively pursued alternative argument that victim misidentified defendant. Fact that trial counsel made decision to lie about defendant’s whereabouts does not require different result since rule against presenting false testimony is geared to protect integrity of truth-finding function of courts and was not meant to protect rights owed to defendant.