strategy defense in Illinois

2026The trial strategy presumption is overcome “where no reasonably effective criminal defense attorney, confronting trial’s circumstances, would engage in similar conduct.” Id. at 344 .

2023The trial strategy presumption is overcome “where no reasonably effective criminal defense attorney, confronting trial’s circumstances, would engage in similar conduct.” McMillin, 352 Ill.

2009How could it do so for one without harming the other?” Murphy, 88 Ill. 2d at 453 .

2005How could it do so for one without harming the other?” Murphy, 88 Ill. 2d at 453 .

2026“Generally, a defense decision not to seek a severance, although it may prove unwise in hindsight, is regarded as a matter of trial strategy.” People v. Poole, 2012 IL App (4th) 101017, ¶ 10 . ¶ 27 Here, the defendant alleges that defense counsel’s performance was based upon an unsound strategy that no reasonably effective attorney would have pursued under the circumstances of the case.

2026Id. (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 694 ). ¶ 42 In this case, respondent’s counsel during the termination proceedings developed a strategy to challenge the State’s best-interest claims and then executed that strategy by cross- examining the State’s witnesses and presenting supporting evidence and argument.

2021As our supreme court also recognized in Medina, the decision to tender a lesser-included offense option “may have a serious and adverse impact on the strategy defense counsel has pursued to that point in the trial.” Id.

2021The court cautioned trial courts that, where there was no request for a lesser-included offense, by advising a defendant of his right to request a lesser-included offense instruction, “the trial court could influence the defendant to tender an instruction he otherwise would have chosen to forgo.” Id. ¶ 57 The State argues that defendant suffered no prejudice from defense counsel’s failure to request a second-degree murder finding because the trial court sui sponte considered and rejected - 24 - 2021 IL App (2d) 190511-U second-degree murder.

1977In support of this contention of error defendants rely principally upon Roewe v. Lombardo (1966), 76 Ill.

1966In The People v. Stephens, 6 Ill2d 257 (1955), at pages 259 and 260, 128 NE2d 731 , the court stated the law on this subject, as follows: “Where a defendant in a criminal case employs counsel of his own choice, his judgment of conviction will not be reversed merely because his counsel failed to exercise the greatest skill or for the reason that it might appear, in looking back over the trial, that he had made some tactical blunder.