Saesee v. McDonald, No. 10-15895 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. At issue was the opening statement of defense counsel regarding the presence of an alibi witness. Petitioner argued that counsel's statement constituted a broken promise that prejudiced the outcome of the trial and rendered counsel's assistance constitutionally ineffective. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that the California Court of Appeal was not unreasonable in concluding that counsel had not made a promise to produce an alibi witness. Counsel's statement was merely an expression of hope that the witness would in fact appear.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance when counsel allegedly promised in his opening statement that a witness would testify. The panel held that the state court was not unreasonable in concluding that counsel did not make such a promise, explaining that it was rather an expression of hope that left the jury open to the possibility that the witness would not appear.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.