Facts
- Kyle DeCoteau was tried in federal court on criminal charges brought by the United States.
- At trial, the prosecution called two minors, S.S. and R.S., as witnesses.
- S.S. was nine years old when testifying.
- R.S. was 13 years old when testifying.
- Both S.S. and R.S. had learning disabilities.
- DeCoteau’s defense counsel did not object to either child’s competency to testify or request a competency examination.
- DeCoteau was convicted.
- After conviction, DeCoteau filed a postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to challenge the competency of S.S. and R.S.
Issues
- Did DeCoteau receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney did not challenge the competency of two child witnesses (ages nine and 13) who had learning disabilities?
Decision
- The court denied DeCoteau’s ineffective-assistance motion.
- The court concluded that DeCoteau did not satisfy the requirements for relief based on counsel’s decision not to raise a competency challenge to S.S. and R.S.
Legal Principles
- Ineffective assistance of counsel is evaluated under Strickland v. Washington, which requires a showing of (1) deficient performance and (2) prejudice.
- Deficient performance requires proof that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonable professional judgment under the circumstances.
- Prejudice requires a reasonable probability that, without the alleged error, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
- Witness competency is generally presumed; the party challenging competency bears the burden to show the witness cannot understand the obligation to testify truthfully or cannot perceive, remember, or communicate facts well enough to testify.
- A witness’s youth or a learning disability, standing alone, does not establish incompetency; the focus is on the witness’s abilities related to truthful, intelligible testimony.
- When an ineffective-assistance claim rests on counsel’s failure to raise a competency objection, the movant must show both that a competency challenge likely would have succeeded and that excluding or limiting the testimony likely would have affected the verdict.
- Strategic choices about whether and how to cross-examine a child witness, including whether to seek a competency ruling, are ordinarily assessed with substantial deference unless no reasonable lawyer would have acted similarly.
Conclusion
United States v. DeCoteau, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105504 (2012), denies postconviction relief where the defendant argued that trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the competency of two child witnesses—S.S. (age nine) and R.S. (age 13)—who had learning disabilities, because the defendant did not meet the Strickland requirements for proving deficient performance and prejudice based on the omitted competency challenge.