Lewis
United States v. Lewis
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
1. Appellant Michael Lewis contends that his defense counsel acted unreasonably by not seeking a mistrial. We disagree. The record reflects that counsel carefully researched Lewis’ options before making a reasoned tactical decision. Counsel also consulted his supervisor and Lewis. This combination of investigation and consultation rendered counsel’s tactical decision “virtually unchallengeable[.]” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
2. Lewis claims that his counsel should have sought a continuance of the trial. However, as six experts, including two defense experts, had previously matched Lewis’ fingerprints to those at the scene, counsel reasonably doubted his ability to find a new expert. Counsel also believed that the jury had been favorably impressed by his cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses. Thus, a continuance would have interrupted the flow of the trial. Looking at the situation from counsel’s perspective, and in light of the Strickland presumption of reasonable performance, we cannot fault counsel’s failure to request a continuance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 .
3. A motion for a new trial…