## Facts

- Lesley Warren was tried and convicted in state court.
- During the prosecution’s direct examinations, the prosecutor asked multiple questions that Warren later characterized as leading.
- In one exchange, the prosecutor asked a witness about a motorcycle: “Did you have information that [the motorcycle] belonged to this defendant, Lesley Warren?” The witness confirmed.
- In another exchange, the prosecutor asked a witness whether Warren mentioned which hotel he left a woman at. The witness answered that he did, but the witness could not remember the name. The prosecutor then asked, “Did he mention the Town House motel?” The witness responded.
- In laying a foundation for two photographic exhibits, the prosecutor showed the witness two items marked for identification and asked whether the pictures “illustrate and depict the residence there on Phillips Avenue.”
- The prosecutor also asked a detective to confirm that the matter “became a homicide sometime later on toward Friday or Saturday of that week,” and the witness confirmed; the timing was not disputed at trial.
- Warren’s trial counsel did not object to these questions.
- After his conviction, Warren filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s questions as leading constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and denied him a fair trial.

## Issues

1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, under Strickland v. Washington, by failing to object that the prosecutor’s cited questions were impermissibly leading on direct examination.
2. Whether Warren showed prejudice—i.e., a reasonable probability that objections to those questions would have changed the trial’s outcome—so as to justify habeas relief.

## Decision

- The court denied Warren’s habeas petition.
- The court concluded Warren did not establish ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to object to the identified questions.
- The court determined that, even assuming one or more questions were leading, Warren failed to show the required prejudice from counsel’s lack of objections, given the limited significance of the exchanges (including that one point was not disputed and others involved identification or foundational matters).
- Accordingly, Warren was not entitled to relief on his claim that he was denied a fair trial due to counsel’s handling of the prosecutor’s questioning.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective-assistance claims are governed by Strickland v. Washington: a petitioner must show (1) deficient performance and (2) resulting prejudice.
- Counsel is not constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise an objection that would not likely be sustained, or for making reasonable tactical choices about when to object.
- Prejudice requires more than showing that an error occurred; the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that, without the alleged deficiency, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
- Allegations that certain trial questions were leading typically require a showing that the form of the questions mattered to the proof at trial; questions used to confirm uncontested background points or to lay a foundation for exhibits generally do not establish Strickland prejudice on their own.

## Conclusion

Warren v. Polk denied habeas relief where the petitioner argued that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to several prosecution questions as leading. The court held that Warren failed to satisfy Strickland’s requirements, particularly the need to show a reasonable probability that objections to those exchanges would have altered the verdict, and therefore he was not entitled to a new trial on that basis.


Warren v. Polk, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7871 (2017)