Fayemi v. Ruskin

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his attempted murder conviction on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective when he promised to jury in opening statements that defendant would testify, but then persuaded defendant not to testify after counsel learned from trial court that some of defendant’s prior convictions and evidence that defendant possessed book on how to poison people could be used on any cross-examination of defendant. Ct. rejected claim that there is automatic finding of ineffective assistance of counsel whenever trial counsel promises to present key witness who never actually testifies, and state’s appellate court could properly have found that there was no possibility of prejudice arising out of instant promise, where evidence was overwhelming that defendant attempted to poison victim.