Stephen May v. David Shinn

Summary

**Key Legal Topics:** Ineffective assistance of counsel (Sixth Amendment); mistrial and resumption of jury deliberations after deadlock; Strickland performance prong; AEDPA deference. **Holdings:** The Ninth Circuit held that defense counsel’s failure to object to the jury resuming deliberations after a declared mistrial was not deficient performance under Strickland. Counsel reasonably concluded that continuing with the existing jury and favorable instruction (barring propensity evidence under Ariz. R. Evid. 404(c)) offered a better chance of acquittal than a retrial, where the prosecution could strengthen its case. The court rejected May’s habeas claim, and the district court’s grant of relief was reversed. **Key Concepts:** Strategic decision to forgo mistrial may be reasonable when the evidence is weak, the jury is deadlocked, and a retrial risks a more damaging prosecution case. Counsel’s decision is evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time, with no duty to investigate further when the choice is objectively reasonable.

Holdings

1. Counsel's performance was not deficient because it was a reasonable strategic choice to continue with the existing jury rather than risk a retrial, given the weaknesses in the State's case and the favorable jury instruction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defense counsel's failure to object to the resumption of jury deliberations after a mistrial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland.

Disposition

reversed