The following facts were established during a post-trial hearing in a criminal case:
- John was arrested and tried for a burglary of a sporting goods store.
- A witness, whom John did not know, was called by John’s attorney and testified that he saw John at a bar at 10:00 p.m. on the evening of the burglary.
- The sporting goods store had closed at 8:30 p.m. that night.
- The security alarm went off at 10:05 p.m.
- The burglar entered through a window at the back of the store.
- DNA evidence collected from the window had a 99.9% match to John.
- On the last day of the four-day trial, John’s attorney appeared in court wearing the same suit he had worn the day before and smelling of Chanel No. 5 perfume.
- Case law gives examples of deficient performance, including attorneys appearing in court while under the influence, falling asleep for long periods in court, and failing to put on any defense despite requests from the defendant.
- After four hours of deliberation, the jury found John guilty of burglary.
- John claims that the jury should have believed the witness.
Under the Constitution, a defendant has a right to effective assistance of counsel. The assistance of counsel is ineffective if (1) the attorney’s performance was deficient, and (2) but for the deficient performance, the outcome of the defendant’s trial would have been different. If John later claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, can the facts be used to support both elements of rule?
