Karl S. Dietz, Petitioner Below, Appellant v. Carl Legursky, Respondent Below, Appellee (West Virginia 1992)

Summary

The court reversed the denial of habeas corpus relief because the defendant established that he relied on the trial judge’s representation that a mistrial would be declared if he did not testify, and the court failed to declare one. The court also held that counsel was ineffective for failing to place medical records in the record that supported expert testimony and the defendant’s self-defense theory. The court declined to reconsider the previously raised challenge to the prosecutor’s closing argument, but advised that the issue should be considered on retrial.

Holding

Effect of a trial court’s representation that it will declare a mistrial if the defendant does not testify. When a trial court represents that a mistrial will be declared if a criminal defendant does not testify, and the defendant in fact does not testify after relying on that representation, the failure to declare the promised mistrial is reversible error because the right to testify is fundamental.

Ineffective assistance based on failure to preserve medical reports supporting self-defense. The defendant was constitutionally deprived of effective assistance when counsel failed to place in the record medical reports that were essential to the proposed expert testimony and would have supported the defense theory that the victim was the aggressor.

Karl S. Dietz, Petitioner Below, Appellant v. Carl Legursky, Respondent Below, Appellee

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by