People of Michigan v. David Lawrence Brackett, 350219

Defendant David Brackett was charged with felony assault by strangulation or suffocation for an incident at the home he shared with the complainant and her family.
Police responded after a call by defendant; the complainant initially told police Brackett choked her for about a minute but at trial recanted, saying she fabricated the allegation to get him out of the house.
Photographs taken by police showed discoloration on the complainant’s neck; at trial she said the marks were from scratching related to medication.
Defense theory at trial was an “all-or-nothing” denial: the complainant lied to police and Brackett was innocent; defense counsel did not request a lesser-included offense instruction or present expert testimony on medication side effects.
The jury convicted Brackett of assault by strangulation or suffocation; he appealed raising ineffective-assistance claims alleging failure to request a lesser instruction, failure to develop cross-examination about medication, and failure to call an expert.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, reviewing the record for apparent errors and finding counsel’s choices were reasonable strategic decisions and that Brackett failed to show prejudice or the factual predicate for expert testimony.

Issue	People’s Argument	Brackett’s Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a lesser-included misdemeanor assault instruction	Counsel legitimately pursued an all-or-nothing acquittal; requesting lesser could undermine innocence defense	Counsel should have requested the misdemeanor assault instruction as a fallback	Affirmed — decline to second-guess reasonable all-or-nothing strategy; no deficient performance
Whether counsel was ineffective for not probing the complainant’s medication side effects on cross-examination	Further exploration of medication would not have improved defense credibility; strategic decision	Counsel should have explored medication side effects (e.g., itch) to explain neck marks and impeach police statements	Affirmed — strategic choice was reasonable and would not likely have changed outcome
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to call an expert about medication side effects	No indication any expert would have testified favorably; defendant failed to identify an expert or factual predicate	Counsel should have called an expert to show medication could cause itching and neck marks	Affirmed — defendant did not show the necessary factual predicate or prejudice; no remand for Ginther hearing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
People v. Cornell, 466 Mich. 335 (lesser-included offense instruction standard)
People v. Allen, 331 Mich. App. 587 (recognizes legitimate all-or-nothing defense strategy)
People v. Head, 323 Mich. App. 526 (standards for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims)
People v. Carll, 322 Mich. App. 690 (defendant must show witness would have testified favorably to establish prejudice)
People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (court cannot insulate counsel performance by labeling it strategy)