773 F.3d 901
8th Cir.2014Background
- Paulson convicted of second-degree sexual assault of his five-year-old daughter, M.P.
- Trial evidence included M.P.'s statements, conferrals from several witnesses, and Paulson's conduct described as sexually inappropriate
- Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on direct appeal and later postconviction relief claims were reviewed
- Paulson filed §2254 habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel
- District court held Iowa Court of Appeals' decision was contrary to clearly established federal law and conducted de novo review
- This court affirmed the district court, denying relief on Strickland prejudice grounds
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to object to Piner's testimony was prejudicial | Paulson argues prejudice under Strickland from unobjected testimony | Paulson cannot show a reasonable probability of different outcome | No reasonable probability of different outcome; prejudice not shown |
| Whether Iowa Court of Appeals' decision was contrary to clearly established federal law | Paulson contends standard applied was preponderance instead of probability | Undertaken de novo review; standard applied correctly for prejudice | Affirmed district court; no contrary federal law |
| Whether there was a reasonable probability the outcome would differ if Piner's testimony were excluded | Testimony alone could destroy fair trial rights | Other strong evidence of abuse supported conviction | No reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice required)
- Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088 (S. Ct. 2013) (de novo review when state court decision contrary to Supreme Court precedent)
- Worthington v. Roper, 631 F.3d 487 (8th Cir. 2011) (prejudice requires reasonable probability, not mere possibility)
- Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing habeas facts and legal conclusions)