PCR Exhibits - Alaska State of Corruption

Revell v. State, 989 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2008) “Counsel’s failure to accurately advise his client
when considering the offer of a plea negotiation amounts to ineffective assistance.”
David v. Murrell, 619 S.E.2d 662 (GA 2005) Counsel was ineffective. Counsel’s conduct was
deficient because counsel affirmatively misinformed the defendant that he would be eligible for
parole and sentence review when neither was true. Prejudice found.
Hernandez v. Commissioner of Correction, 846 A.2d 889 (Conn. 2004) Counsel ineffective for
erroneously advising the defendant. Counsel’s conduct was deficient and the defendant was
prejudiced because he likely would not have entered the plea absent counsel’s misadvice because
defendant had a plausible self-defense argument and the court had already excluded the
testimony of the only state’s witness that could testify about the defendant’s motive to commit
murder.
Failing to Suppress Statement
Moore v. Czerniak, 534 F.3d 1128 (9 th Cir. 2008) Counsel ineffective for failing to object to the
admissibility of the petitioner’s confession. [H]ad his counsel filed the motion is sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome as “the state’s case would have been far weaker.”
People v. Hernandez, 840 N.E.2d 1254 (Ill. 2005) Counsel ineffective for failing to move to
suppress the defendant’s videotaped statement to an assistant prosecutor. Prejudice found
because the statement would have been excluded and the state’s case was largely based just on
this statement.
United States v. Little, 851 A.2d 1280 (D.C. 2004) Counsel ineffective for failing to timely move
to suppress the defendant’s statement. If counsel had adequately investigated, counsel would
have also been aware that the issue had merit. There was also a reasonable probability of a
different outcome at trial if the statement had been suppressed.
United States v. Hilliard, 392 F.3d 981 (8 th Cir. 2004) Counsel ineffective for failing to timely
file a post-trial motion. Counsel’s conduct was deficient and was “a class dereliction” of duty.
Prejudice was found because the district court found that the motion would have been granted
because “a miscarriage of justice was likely done here.”
State v. Robertson, 924 So. 2d 1201 (La. 2006) Counsel ineffective for failing to object to
admission in evidence of the defendant’s letter to the prosecution. Counsel’s conduct was
deficient because counsel was unaware of the state law making this information clearly
inadmissible. Prejudice found.
People v. Hoerer, 872 N.E.2d 572 (Ill. 2007) Counsel ineffective for stipulating to the admission
of the defendants testimony he entered into plea negotiations with the state. Prejudice established
because, under state law, admission of this evidence is “considered so devastating and prejudicial
301