Cochran v. Dormire, et al, No. 11-3765 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court agreed with the district court that the failure of defendant's trial counsel to object to an officer's motel testimony did not entitle defendant to habeas relief. Even if the court assumed that the testimony constituted hearsay and that the failure of counsel to object constituted deficient performance, there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of defendant's trial would have changed had the testimony been disallowed. The court found no basis on which to upset the state court's determination that defendant failed to carry his burden of proving his trial counsel did not investigate a certain witness. Further, the state court's determination that defendant failed to show prejudice was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law where there was no reasonable probability that the testimony would have changed the outcome of defendant's trial. Because the court affirmed the denial of the petition on the merits, the court did not address the timeliness issue.
Court Description: Habeas Case - ineffective assistance of counsel. District court's denial of habeas corpus is affirmed. Cochran did not prove he received ineffective assistance of counsel on claims counsel failed to object to testimony and failed to investigate a witness.
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.