doubt presumption in Michigan

2015“Reviewing courts are not only required to give counsel the benefit of the doubt with this presumption, they are required to ‘affirmatively entertain the range of possible’ reasons that counsel may have had for proceeding as he or she did.” Gioglio, 296 Mich App at 22 , quoting Cullen v Pinholster, 563 US ___ ; 131 S Ct 1388 , 1407; 179 L Ed 2d 557 (2011).

2015“Reviewing courts are not only required to give counsel the benefit of the doubt with this presumption, they are required to ‘affirmatively entertain the range of possible’ reasons that counsel may have had for proceeding as he or she did.” Gioglio, 296 Mich App at 22 , quoting Cullen v Pinholster, 563 US ___ ; 131 S Ct 1388 , 1407; 179 L Ed 2d 557 (2011).

2016“Reviewing courts are not only required to give counsel the benefit of the doubt with this presumption, they are required to ‘affirmatively entertain the range of possible’ reasons that counsel may have had for proceeding as he or she did.” People v Gioglio (On Remand), 296 Mich App 12, 22 ; 815 NW2d 589 (2012), vacated in part on other grounds 493 Mich 864 (2012). “[A] reviewing court must conclude that the act or omission of the 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- defendant’s defense counsel fell within the range of reasonable professional conduct if, after affir

2016“Reviewing courts are not only required to give counsel the benefit of the doubt with this presumption, they are required to ‘affirmatively entertain the range of possible’ reasons that counsel may have had for proceeding as he or she did.” People v Gioglio (On Remand), 296 Mich App 12, 22 ; 815 NW2d 589 (2012), vacated in part on other grounds 493 Mich 864 (2012). “[A] reviewing court must conclude that the act or omission of the 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 443 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -3- defendant’s defense counsel fell within the range of reasonable professional conduct if, after affir

2016“Reviewing courts are not only required to give counsel the benefit of the doubt with this presumption, they are required to ‘affirmatively entertain the range of possible’ reasons that counsel may have had for proceeding as he or she did.” People v Gioglio (On Remand), 296 Mich App 12, 20 ; 815 NW2d 589 (2012), vacated in part on other grounds 493 Mich 864 (2012). “[A] reviewing court must conclude that the act or omission of the defendant’s defense counsel fell within the range of reasonable professional conduct if, after affirmatively entertaining the range of possible reasons for the act o

2016“Reviewing courts are not only required to give counsel the benefit of the doubt with this presumption, they are required to ‘affirmatively entertain the range of possible’ reasons that counsel may have had for proceeding as he or she did.” People v Gioglio (On Remand), 296 Mich App 12, 20 ; 815 NW2d 589 (2012), vacated in part on other grounds 493 Mich 864 (2012). “[A] reviewing court must conclude that the act or omission of the defendant’s defense counsel fell within the range of reasonable professional conduct if, after affirmatively entertaining the range of possible reasons for the act o

2026But, “[c]ounsel may provide ineffective assistance if counsel unreasonably fails to develop the defendant’s defenses by adequately impeaching the witnesses against the defendant.” People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 68 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014).

2026But, “[c]ounsel may provide ineffective assistance if counsel unreasonably fails to develop the defendant’s defenses by adequately impeaching the witnesses against the defendant.” People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38, 68 ; 862 NW2d 446 (2014).

2026“Reviewing courts are not only required to give counsel the benefit of the doubt with this presumption, they are required to affirmatively entertain the range of possible reasons that counsel may have had for proceeding as he or she did.” People v Gioglio (On Remand), 296 Mich App 12, 22 ; 815 NW2d 589 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted), vacated in part on other grounds 493 Mich 864 (2012). -5- Generally, “[t]he questioning of witnesses is presumed to be a matter of trial strategy.” People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 413 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008).

2026“Reviewing courts are not only required to give counsel the benefit of the doubt with this presumption, they are required to affirmatively entertain the range of possible reasons that counsel may have had for proceeding as he or she did.” People v Gioglio (On Remand), 296 Mich App 12, 22 ; 815 NW2d 589 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted), vacated in part on other grounds 493 Mich 864 (2012). -5- Generally, “[t]he questioning of witnesses is presumed to be a matter of trial strategy.” People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407, 413 ; 760 NW2d 882 (2008).

2025Notably, “[c]ounsel is not ineffective for failing to make a futile objection.” In re Archer, 277 Mich App 71, 84 ; 744 NW2d 1 (2007).

2025Notably, “[c]ounsel is not ineffective for failing to make a futile objection.” In re Archer, 277 Mich App 71, 84 ; 744 NW2d 1 (2007).

2019“A defendant has the burden of establishing the factual predicate of his ineffective assistance claim.” People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557, 592 ; 852 NW2d 587 (2014). 1.

2019“A defendant has the burden of establishing the factual predicate of his ineffective assistance claim.” People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557, 592 ; 852 NW2d 587 (2014). 1.

2016Decisions about what arguments to make, what evidence to present, whether to call witnesses, and how to impeach witnesses are matters of trial strategy, People v Rockey, 237 Mich App 74, 76 ; 601 NW2d 887 (1999), and “this Court will not second-guess defense counsel’s judgment on matters of trial strategy,” People v Benton, 294 Mich App 191, 203 ; 817 NW2d 599 (2011).

2016Decisions about what arguments to make, what evidence to present, whether to call witnesses, and how to impeach witnesses are matters of trial strategy, People v Rockey, 237 Mich App 74, 76 ; 601 NW2d 887 (1999), and “this Court will not second-guess defense counsel’s judgment on matters of trial strategy,” People v Benton, 294 Mich App 191, 203 ; 817 NW2d 599 (2011).

2016Decisions about what arguments to make, what evidence to present, whether to call witnesses, and how to impeach witnesses are matters of trial strategy, People v Rockey, 237 Mich App 74, 76 ; 601 NW2d 887 (1999), and “this Court will not second-guess defense counsel’s judgment on matters of trial strategy,” People v Benton, 294 Mich App 191, 203 ; 817 NW2d 599 (2011).

2016Decisions about what arguments to make, what evidence to present, whether to call witnesses, and how to impeach witnesses are matters of trial strategy, People v Rockey, 237 Mich App 74, 76 ; 601 NW2d 887 (1999), and “this Court will not second-guess defense counsel’s judgment on matters of trial strategy,” People v Benton, 294 Mich App 191, 203 ; 817 NW2d 599 (2011).

2015A. COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE Defendant argues that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain evidence discussed in section I, supra. As explained previously, the challenged evidence was not improper.

2015“A mistrial should be granted only where the error complained of is so egregious that the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way.” People v Gonzales, 193 Mich App 263, 266 ; 483 NW2d 458 (1992).

2015“A mistrial should be granted only where the error complained of is so egregious that the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way.” People v Gonzales, 193 Mich App 263, 266 ; 483 NW2d 458 (1992).