Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his armed robbery and armed burglary convictions arising out of home invasion, where defendant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to: (1) investigate and subpoena individual whom defendant had believed had actually committed charged offenses; (2) question important govt. witness about any offers of immunity; and (3) object to certain hearsay testimony regarding location and use of defendant‘s cell phone. Said failures served to undermine confidence in result of defendant’s trial, and record showed reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failures, result of trial would have been different, especially where jury would have had opportunity to see and assess said individual’s credibility, as well as assess possibility that said individual was actual culprit.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel