Montez v. Czerniak

holding that “counsel acted reasonably in relying upon qualified experts” in deciding not to order additional testing regarding petitioner’s claims of brain damage in investiga- tion for mitigating evidence | holding that “counsel acted reasonably in relying upon qualified experts” in deciding not to order additional testing regarding petitioner’s claims of brain damage in investiga- tion for mitigating evidence | recognizing that "the standards for determining the adequacy of legal counsel under the state constitution are functionally equivalent to those for determining the effectiveness of counsel under the federal constitution" | recognizing that the standards for determining the adequacy of legal counsel under the state constitution are functionally equivalent to those for determining the effec- tiveness of counsel under the federal constitution | stating that the state and federal standards are “function- ally equivalent” | discussing significance of the petitioner’s choice to present evidence that he had previously been lodged on death row | noting the “standards for determining the adequacy of legal counsel under the state constitution are functionally equivalent to those for determining the effec- tiveness of counsel under the federal constitution” | “Even assuming that counsel’s choices * * * were not, in hindsight, the best choices, that is not the test.” | “[T]he standards for determining the adequacy of legal counsel under the state constitution are function- ally equivalent to those for determining the effectiveness of counsel under the federal constitution.” | “Other lawyers might disagree with that strategic choice, but the choice itself was made with appropriate consideration of the risks and benefits, and we cannot say that it was unreasonable.” | to prevail on a claim for inad- equate assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove both that his counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient 588 Blain v. Cain and that he suffered prejudice as a result | “[T]he standards for determining the ade- quacy of legal counsel under the state constitution are func- tionally equivalent to those for determining the effective- ness of counsel under the federal constitution.” | childhood abuse and drug and alcohol use in capital case | childhood abuse and drug and alcohol use in capital case | “Defense counsel cannot be faulted for lacking a crystal ball.” | “Defense counsel cannot be faulted for lacking a crystal ball.” | state and federal post-conviction standards are “function- ally equivalent”