Cited by

10 “Decisions about which witnesses to call at trial and what information to present to the jury are questions of trial strategy that lie within the discretion of trial counsel.” Leake, d at 539; (noting that the decision to call exculpatory witnesses falls within trial strategy and is not generally reviewable on appeal); -27 (Minn. 1992) (finding no merit in the claim that a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel faile

If “a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be determined on the basis of the trial record, the claim must be brought on direct appeal or it is Knaffla-barred.” (citations omitted).

Under the two-prong Strickland test, a defendant must show that “(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.”

There are “three prerequisites” to establishing a violation of the Confrontation Clause under Crawford: (1) “the statement in question was testimonial,” (2) “the statement was admitted for the truth of the matter asserted,” and (3) “the defendant was unable to cross-examine the declarant.”

Pursuant to the first prong of the Strickland test, there is a “strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.”

10 basis of the trial record, the claim must be brought on direct appeal.”

But “[w]hen a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be determined on the 14 basis of the trial record, the claim must be brought on direct appeal.”

But trial counsel need not “prepare a direct examination before the defendant makes the decision to testify at trial.” (rejecting a similar ineffective-assistance claim).

(“We need not address both the performance and prejudice prongs if one is dispositive.”).

See, (explaining that claims of an attorney’s alleged failure to “investigate the case” and to “call exculpatory witnesses or impeach adverse witnesses” were not reviewable because “the conduct at issue arguably falls within trial strategy”).

See, e.g., 5 n.10 (Minn. 2012); (“Which witnesses to call at trial .

But “[w]hen a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be determined on the basis of the trial record, the claim must be brought on direct appeal.” d 1, 10 (Minn. 2013).

To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that “(1) his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” Andersen v. State , (referencing two - part test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) when analyzing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.).

(citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 & n.9 (2004)).

“A successful Confrontation Clause claim has three prerequisites: the statement in question was testimonial, the statement was admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, and the defendant was unable to cross-examine the declarant.” (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n.9 (2004)).

(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that “(1) [their] counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” (describing the test first laid out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).

Moreover, trial counsel is not required to “prepare a direct examination before the defendant makes the decision to testify at trial.” (noting a lack of any clear reason why preparation of a direct examination would be required for a waiver of the right to testify).

To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-pronged test outlined in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984)

(holding that “claims known but not raised” on direct appeal “will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief”).

“[T]here is a strong 12 presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.” d 1, 10 (Minn. 2013).

When we evaluate a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, “there is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.” see also Zumberge, d at 413 (applying the same principle to review of appellate counsel’s performance).

(citing Andersen v. State , ).

To satisfy this test, an appellant “must demonstrate that (1) his counsel’s performance fell below an objective 14 standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.”

“[T]here is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.”

“[T]here is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.”

(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688, 687 (1984)).

15 and understands his right to testify, “a claim that his attorneys’ actions denied him the right to testify must fail ‘absent some indication in the record that [his] lawyers coerced [him] into not testifying by applying undue pressure, using illegitimate means, or otherwise depriving [him] of [his] free will.’ ” ().