Carter v. Duncan

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview/call two potential witnesses on his behalf regarding circumstances surrounding shooting of victim that involved defendant’s presence at scene of crime with two co-defendants. While defendant’s counsel might not have made reasonable strategic decision not to call said witnesses without interviewing them, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant had failed to establish any prejudice arising out of counsel’s failure to call said individuals as witnesses, where: (1) one witness’ testimony would only have been cumulative to testimonies of other witnesses that two co-defendants had shot victim and would not have altered state’s case that defendant was accountable for said killing; and (2) second witness’ testimony could not verify defendant’s activities prior to initial shots being fired and did not state that defendant did not have gun at time of shooting.