Fadesire v. The State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Faruk Adedapo Fadesire’s convictions for murder and related offenses. The court held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s remarks concerning motive, constitutional protections, and the prosecutor’s stated belief about the killer’s identity, because reasonable strategic considerations supported declining to object.

Holdings

1. Counsel was not deficient for failing to object because, viewed in context, the prosecutor's remark was most reasonably understood as addressing the difficulty of proving motive rather than commenting impermissibly on Fadesire's silence, and a reasonable lawyer could have concluded that an objection would have been meritless or would have unnecessarily highlighted the defendant's silence.
2. Counsel was not deficient for failing to object to the prosecutor's statement, even assuming the statement was improper, because counsel could reasonably have decided that an objection would draw attention to the remark and that little would be gained from seeking a mistrial or other relief.
3. Fadesire did not establish ineffective assistance because he failed to show that counsel's performance was professionally deficient with respect to either unmade objection.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor's closing-argument reference to constitutional protections and the difficulty of proving motive, allegedly commenting on Fadesire's decision not to testify.
2. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor's statement, "I know who did it," allegedly expressing the prosecutor's personal belief in Fadesire's guilt.

Disposition

affirmed