Friday v. State
122555
| Kan. Ct. App. | Jul 9, 2021Background
- Friday was convicted of reckless second-degree murder for the 2008 death of Jerry Deshazer and sentenced to 174 months; Kansas Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Three people were present the night of the killing (Buffalohead, Jones, Friday); their accounts conflicted; physical and DNA evidence implicated others as well as Friday.
- Police recorded a videotaped interrogation of Friday; a redacted version was played to the jury even though Friday did not testify at trial.
- Friday brought a habeas claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel: that trial counsel (Chahine) failed to (a) adequately argue the statements were involuntary and inadmissible, and (b) adequately argue the videotape should be excluded or further redacted.
- At an evidentiary hearing the district court found Friday’s statements were voluntary and that counsel reasonably and strategically chose to have the jury hear Friday’s videotaped statements to present her version of events; the district court denied relief and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel ineffectively failed to exclude Friday's statements as involuntary | Friday: counsel did not adequately press a voluntariness challenge, so statements should have been suppressed | State/Chahine: statements were voluntary; a suppression motion would not have succeeded | Denied — district court found statements voluntary; Friday does not contest that finding on appeal, so no Strickland prejudice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for allowing the videotaped interview to be played (vs excluding or more heavily redacting it) | Friday: counsel should have sought exclusion or more redactions because visual cues/unredacted content harmed her defense | Chahine: strategic, informed decision to let jury hear Friday's own version to support defense and impeach others; video helped present coherent narrative | Denied — counsel made a reasonable strategic choice; even assumed errors in redaction, Friday failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Mattox v. State, 293 Kan. 723 (describes burden and application of Strickland in Kansas)
- Wilson v. State, 51 Kan. App. 2d 1 (discusses deference to informed strategic decisions by counsel)
- Khalil-Alsalaami v. State, 313 Kan. _ (explains appellate review of Strickland and reasonable-probability prejudice standard)
- Friday v. State, 297 Kan. 1023 (summarizes trial-record facts and prior direct-appeal disposition)