Waldorf v. Premo

"[C]ompetent counsel can make 'tactical choices that backfire, because, by their nature, trials often involve risk.'" Krumacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or 867, 875, 627 P2d 458 (1981).

Petitioner appealed a judgment denying a petition for post-conviction relief.  Petitioner assigned error to his trial counsel's failure to object to three instances of testimony by a detective.  On appeal, Petitioner argued that counsel's failure to object constituted inadequate and ineffective assistance of counsel, therefore the denial of post-conviction relief was in error.  In response, the Superintendent argued that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his trial attorney was deficient because the statements were not "vouching" and failure to object was reasonable.  "[C]ompetent counsel can make 'tactical choices that backfire, because, by their nature, trials often involve risk.'" Krumacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or 867, 875, 627 P2d 458 (1981).  The Court held that Petitioner did not overcome the burden to demonstrate deficient performance of counsel because no developed argument was presented explaining why the counsel's "failure to respond constituted inadequate assistance of counsel."  Affirmed.