State v. Newman, 966 N.W.2d 860

In 2013 Newman was convicted (joint trial with Stricklin) of two counts of first-degree murder and related weapons offenses; convictions and consecutive life and term sentences were later affirmed on direct appeal.
Key trial evidence: eyewitness Jose Herrera‑Gutierrez identified Newman at the scene, and Newman’s cell‑phone records placed his phone near the body shop around the relevant time.
Newman later sought postconviction relief alleging trial counsel failed to investigate and present an alibi: witnesses (restaurant owner, employees) would have placed him at his restaurant or on a brief grocery run at the relevant time.
This court previously remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to the alibi‑investigation claim; on remand the district court received depositions and affidavits rather than live testimony.
At the evidentiary hearing counsel testified he had promptly retained an experienced private investigator who interviewed the proposed alibi witnesses and concluded their accounts were weak; counsel did not personally interview them and decided, as strategy, to attack the eyewitness on cross‑examination rather than present the alibi.
The district court found counsel’s investigation reasonable, the alibi evidence not credible or sufficiently corroborated, and no reasonable probability the outcome would have differed; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/present an alibi	Newman: counsel delegated assessment to an investigator and failed to personally investigate or present credible alibi witnesses, causing prejudice	State: counsel reasonably relied on an experienced investigator; investigator’s findings justified strategic decision not to present weak alibi	Court: No ineffective assistance — investigation reasonable, decision strategic, no prejudice shown
Whether district court abused discretion by denying live witness testimony at the postconviction evidentiary hearing	Newman: live testimony needed to establish credibility and could have changed outcome	State: depositions are authorized and the court may weigh their credibility; no showing live testimony would alter result	Court: No abuse — statute permits depositions; credibility and outcome unaffected by live testimony

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (reasonable probability standard for prejudice; likelihood of different result must be substantial)
State v. Newman, 300 Neb. 770 (2018) (remand for evidentiary hearing on alleged failure to investigate alibi)
State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (2015) (trial record and evidentiary background regarding murders and cell‑phone evidence)
State v. Beehn, 303 Neb. 172 (2019) (postconviction relief is narrow and remedies constitutional defects)
State v. Russell, 308 Neb. 499 (2021) (trial court as factfinder resolves witness credibility at postconviction evidentiary hearings)