Gray v. Booker

2 Citing cases

  1. Alston v. Ray

    1:19cv996 (LMB/IDD) (E.D. Va. May. 8, 2020)

    In pursuing that defense, even if Alston had named a specific objection that counsel should have raised, it was not unreasonable for counsel to choose not to focus on a photo-lineup when his client was still going to testify and admit having known the victim before the offense. See, e.g., Rangel v. United States, Civil Action No. 1:13CV50, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110677 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2013) (counsel not ineffective for not challenging in-court identification of petitioner where one witness had known petitioner for several years and the other, a police office, had met petitioner when he executed a search warrant); Gray v. Booker, Case No. 03-CV-71658, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142312, *46 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2012) (where witness had known defendant for some time, decision to attack witness's credibility "through cross-examination, rather than to object to the in-court identification, was a reasonable trial strategy that defeats petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim."). Counsel has "full authority to manage the conduct of the trial," Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 418 (1988), and "need not raise every possible claim to meet the constitutional standard of effectiveness," United States v. Mason, 774 F.3d 824, 828 (4th Cir. 2014). Counsel is "permitted to set priorities, determine trial strategy, and press those claims with the greatest chances of success," id., and "is not ineffective merely because he overlooks one strategy while vigilantly pursuing another."

  2. Slusser v. Wolfenbarger

    CASE NO. 2:10-CV-14979 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 26, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    The record, however, reveals that the witnesses viewed the security videos in preparation for trial, just a day or a few days prior to their trial testimony, and well after they had previously identified Petitioner at the preliminary examination. It is not unduly suggestive to show a surveillance videotape or photograph of a defendant to a witness who has already identified the defendant for the purpose of confirming that the defendant is the person on the videotape or photograph. See Gray v. Booker, No. 03-CV-71658, 2012 WL 4513561, *10 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 2, 2012) (Cohn, J., denying habeas relief on similar claim and citing United States v. Beverly, 369 F.3d 516, 539 (6th Cir. 2004)). The recordings were also admitted into evidence for the jury's consideration.