Zyst v. Kelly

In order to prove ineffective assistance of counsel a party must show that their trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and that they suffered prejudice as a result of their counsel’s inadequacy.

The petitioner was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder in 1994 and was sentenced to death. On direct appeal, both her conviction and sentence were reaffirmed by the Oregon Supreme Court. She filed a petition for post conviction relief, which was denied. The petitioner’s death sentence was then commuted to life in prison. Here, the petitioner appeals the denial of the petition for post conviction relief, arguing that her counsel was ineffective and inadequate. Among her many claims, the court focuses on arguments that her counsel 1) failed to investigate matters that could have helped her case such as DNA evidence, damage to the murder weapon, and alternative suspects; 2) failed to obtain adequate mental health care to help stabilize her; 3) failed to suppress evidence; 4) failed to use expert witnesses that would have testified that her confessions were properly acquired; and 5) failed to request all Brady material, or exculpatory evidence. 
The court held that in order to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, “(1) a petitioner must show that her trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and (2) a petitioner must show that she suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.” Under the first prong, a court “must make every effort to evaluate a lawyer’s conduct from the lawyer’s perspective at the time [of the
trial or hearing], without the distorting effects of hindsight.” Additionally for prejudice, “a court must determine whether there was more than a mere possibility that the outcome of the criminal trial could have been different if counsel’s performance was not deficient.” The court found all the petitioner’s claims to be uncompelling. The court found that 1) even if there were further investigation by the petitioner’s counsel, she failed to show what evidence might have been discovered; 2) the petitioner's counsel did attempt to get her mental health care, but she would often refuse to cooperate; 3) petitioner’s counsel filed multiple motions to suppress; 4) there was no showing that the experts that the petitioner wished would’ve been called to testify for her would have undermined the state’s case in a meaningful way; and 5) the petitioner never identified specific exculpatory evidence that should’ve been requested. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the post conviction court's denial of her petition because she failed to meet the burdens on her claims.