State v. Keyser, 835 N.W.2d 650

In May 2000 Paul Adkism was shot and killed; Loucas Keyser was charged with first-degree murder and a weapons enhancement.
At an in-chambers conference in Feb 2001, the State informed defense counsel of a report that another vehicle near the scene contained a 9-mm handgun that might be relevant; counsel did not disclose this information to Keyser.
On March 5, 2001, Keyser pled no contest to a reduced charge of second-degree murder under a plea agreement; he was sentenced to 60 years to life.
In May 2009 Keyser filed a pro se postconviction motion asserting his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to tell him about the potentially exculpatory in-chambers information, and that he would not have accepted the plea if informed.
The district court granted an evidentiary hearing but allowed the State to present evidence first (a “bifurcated” procedure) limited to prejudice; the State introduced investigative reports and witness testimony showing (1) a report of a Star 9-mm at the other vehicle and (2) eyewitnesses implicating Keyser.
The district court denied relief, finding that even if counsel’s performance was deficient, Keyser suffered no prejudice because he still would have accepted the plea; Keyser appealed.

Issue	Keyser's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by allowing the State to present evidence first ("bifurcation")	Bifurcation violated §25-1107 order and denied Keyser his right to be heard	Court could direct different order for "special reasons"; State should show lack of prejudice first	Bifurcation was unusual but not erroneous; no due process violation
Whether counsel was ineffective for not disclosing in-chambers information	Failure to inform about purportedly exculpatory evidence made plea unknowing; Keyser would have rejected plea	Even excluding that information, strong inculpatory evidence existed; Keyser would still have pled	No prejudice found; postconviction relief denied
Whether Keyser was denied opportunity to present his own evidence at the hearing	Court’s procedure prevented Keyser from presenting supportive evidence	Keyser had cross-examination, could recall witnesses, and voluntarily did not present evidence or offer proof	Court did not err; Keyser had opportunity but failed to present evidence
Whether the court improperly used Exhibit 2 beyond its limited purpose	Exhibit 2 was used to suggest Keyser would have been convicted at trial	Exhibit 2 was admitted only to show what counsel/Keyser knew at plea time	Court used Exhibit 2 properly to show knowledge of inculpatory evidence, not to predict trial outcome

State v. Watkins, 284 Neb. 742 (Neb. 2012) (standards for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Poe, 284 Neb. 750 (Neb. 2012) (appellate review of ineffective-assistance factual findings for clear error)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance test for deficient performance and prejudice)