United States v. Clifford Olson
1988 WL 48966, 846 F.2d 1103, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7038 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant must demonstrate both that their counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
Facts:
- On April 9, 1977, Clifford Olson, Wanda Dick, Ella Peters, Brenda LaRock, and Robert Kakwitch were riding in Olson's car and drinking beer.
- The group encountered Clifford George Albers in his station wagon on a gravel road.
- Olson grabbed Albers by the arm, escorted him to Olson's car, and Albers was placed in the back seat.
- At Olson's request, Dick drove Albers' car to another location; when she returned, Albers was blindfolded.
- The group, now including Albers, drove to the South Branch area of the Menominee Indian Reservation, built a fire, and continued drinking, with Olson pouring brandy into Albers' mouth.
- Olson struck Albers in the leg or ankle with an ax.
- Shortly thereafter, Olson shot Albers in the face with a handgun, then handed the gun to Dick and LaRock, who also shot Albers.
- The group wrapped Albers' body in a blanket, placed it in the car's trunk, drove to the Keshena Bridge, and threw the body into the Wolf River, where it was discovered the next day.
Procedural Posture:
- Clifford Olson was first indicted for first-degree murder in 1980.
- The government dismissed the 1980 indictment without prejudice prior to trial.
- Olson was reindicted on the same charge in February 1985.
- A jury in the U.S. District Court (trial court) found Olson guilty of first-degree murder in September 1985.
- Olson (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for consideration of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing and found counsel's assistance was not ineffective.
- The Court of Appeals then expanded the remand for the district court to hear a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- The district court denied the motion for a new trial.
- Olson now appeals his conviction and the district court's post-trial rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a defense counsel's strategic decisions—such as not pursuing a questionable alibi defense, declining to interview key prosecution witnesses before trial, and choosing not to use certain impeachment evidence—constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when these decisions are based on experienced professional judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffey, Circuit Judge.
No. A defense counsel's strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where they are the product of reasonable professional judgment. To prevail on such a claim, a defendant must satisfy the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington, which requires showing both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The court found that Olson failed to satisfy either prong for his various claims. Counsel's decisions not to present an alibi defense after determining the witnesses were not credible, not to call an impeachment witness who had a felony record that could harm Olson's case, and not to use a prior statement that largely corroborated the witness's testimony were all deemed sound trial strategy. The court emphasized that it must 'indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.' Furthermore, Olson failed to demonstrate prejudice, as the evidence of his guilt, including the corroborating testimony of three eyewitnesses and physical evidence linking him to the murder weapon, was overwhelming. Thus, there was no reasonable probability that different actions by counsel would have changed the trial's outcome.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the high threshold for proving ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington. It underscores the substantial deference appellate courts grant to the tactical and strategic decisions made by trial counsel, particularly those with significant experience. The ruling effectively discourages post-conviction appeals based on 'Monday-morning quarterbacking' of a defense strategy that ultimately failed. By refusing to second-guess reasonable professional judgments, the court preserves the independence of defense counsel and limits the grounds upon which a conviction can be overturned, thereby promoting finality in criminal proceedings.
