People v. Trakhtenberg
493 Mich. 38
| Mich. | 2012Background
- Defendant was charged with five counts of CSC-II involving his eight-year-old daughter and was convicted on three counts after trial judge noted uncertainty about the allegations.
- Defendant sued defense counsel in a legal malpractice action and the trial court granted summary disposition, with the Court of Appeals affirming under the attorney judgment rule.
- In his criminal case, defendant moved for relief from judgment under MCR 6.508(D)(3), arguing ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and newly discovered evidence.
- Ginther hearing revealed defense counsel failed to investigate or interview key witnesses, consult experts, or obtain discovery, affecting trial strategy.
- The Court of Appeals initially held collateral estoppel barred review of defendant’s ineffective-assistance claims based on the civil malpractice ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel applicability | Prosecution argues collateral estoppel applies from civil malpractice ruling. | Trakhtenberg argues no full and fair opportunity in civil action; estoppel inappropriate. | Collateral estoppel not applicable; defendant not precluded from review. |
| Defense counsel's performance | Counsel’s strategic choices were reasonable given information; no deficient performance established. | Counsel failed to investigate, interview witnesses, or consult experts, violating Strickland. | Counsel's performance deficient; failure to investigate fell below objective standard. |
| Prejudice under Strickland | Even with deficiencies, no reasonable probability of different outcome established. | Exhaustive impeachment and corroboration opportunities were missed; outcome likely different. | There is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different; prejudice shown. |
| Relief and remedy | New trial not warranted beyond addressing alleged errors. | New trial warranted to ensure reliable determination of guilt/innocence. | Remand for a new trial granted; collateral estoppel not a barrier to reviewing claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Gates, 434 Mich 146 (Mich. 1990) (cross-over estoppel; civil to criminal context; relation to collateral estoppel)
- Yates v United States, 354 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1957) (doctrine not limited by civil/criminal character; cross-over estoppel considerations)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1981) (purpose and limits of collateral estoppel in federal context)
- Storey v. Meijer, Inc., 431 Mich 368 (Mich. 1988) (considerations for full and fair opportunity to litigate; forum-dependent)
- Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich 679 (Mich. 2004) (elements of collateral estoppel; necessity of mutuality relaxed in some scenarios)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (Mich. 1973) (standard for Evidentiary hearing to assess claims of ineffective assistance)
- Armstrong, 490 Mich 281 (Mich. 2011) (prejudice and impeachment evidence; application of Strickland to credibility)
- Cress, 468 Mich 678 (Mich. 2003) (newly discovered evidence standard; diligence in discovery)