Ronald Neels v. Brent Fluke, Warden, 109 F.4th 1021

Ronald Lee Neels was convicted in South Dakota state court of multiple sex offenses, including rape and incest, for sexually abusing his adopted daughter over 14 years.
At trial, the prosecutor began her opening statement with a "Golden Rule" argument, asking jurors to imagine themselves in the victim's position, to which Neels's counsel did not object.
Neels was convicted and lost his direct appeal; the South Dakota Supreme Court found no plain error and that the prosecutor’s statements did not deny him a fair trial.
Neels filed for state and then federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to object to the opening statement.
The district court granted habeas relief, finding counsel's failure constituted prejudice; the State appealed.
The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding overwhelming evidence of Neels’s guilt meant no Strickland prejudice arose from counsel's failure to object.

Issue	Neels's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was counsel ineffective for not objecting to the prosecutor’s "Golden Rule" opening?	Failure to object was deficient, leading to prejudice and undermining fairness of trial.	No prejudice because evidence of guilt was overwhelming, so outcome would not have changed.	Ineffective assistance shown, but no prejudice due to overwhelming evidence; no relief granted.
Does a "Golden Rule" violation, if unobjected to, require presumed prejudice?	The violation was so egregious that prejudice should be presumed regardless of evidence strength.	Prejudice presumption proper only in rare circumstances not present here.	No presumption of prejudice; standard Strickland analysis applies.
Did the district court err by granting habeas relief based on prosecutorial misconduct?	Large magnitude of error at trial’s outset tainted jury, requiring new trial.	Strength of evidence and general jury instructions cured any harm from opening; no fair trial denial.	District court erred; misconduct did not deprive Neels of a fair trial in light of strong evidence.
Did jury instructions cure any improper argument by counsel?	Instructions insufficient, as misconduct happened early and was vivid.	Instructions that attorney arguments are not evidence sufficiently curative.	Jury instructions sufficient to cure potential prejudice here.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) (unreliability or unfairness results only if counsel's ineffectiveness deprives defendant of a substantive or procedural right)
Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232 (2019) (presumed prejudice applies only in specific circumstances such as total denial of counsel)
Close v. United States, 679 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 2012) (prejudice requires a reasonable probability of a different outcome)
Christenson v. Ault, 598 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2010) (overwhelming evidence precludes Strickland prejudice)
Reed v. Norris, 195 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 1999) (impossible to demonstrate prejudice where evidence is overwhelming)