Thill v. Richardson

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition that challenged his sexual contact with minor conviction on ground that his trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to portions of defendant's cross-examination and prosecutor's closing argument that made reference to defendant's failure to tell police during his post-Miranda warning interview that he believed that victim's mother had means and motivation to frame him by placing defendant's semen on victim's underwear. Dist. Ct. could properly find that trial counsel's failure to object to prosecutor's reference to his post-Miranda warning silence was not prejudicial. In this regard, defendant was required to show that there was reasonable probability that but for counsel's deficient performance, result of defendant's trial would have been different. Moreover, defendant failed to show prejudice, where: (1) prosecutor's references to defendant's post-Miranda warning silence were isolated and made at start of lengthy cross-examination and in midst of lengthy closing argument; (2) prosecutor offered ample evidence of defendant's guilt that included testimonies of victim and victim's mother, as well as presence of defendant's DNA on victim's underwear; (3) defendant had ample opportunity to present his theory that victim's mother had framed him; and (4) jury acquitted defendant on other related charges.