28 N.Y.3d 558 (2016)

An attorney’s decision to pursue a defense strategy at the explicit direction of the client does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, even if the strategy ultimately proves unsuccessful.

Summary

In People v. Clark, the New York Court of Appeals addressed a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant was convicted of murder and assault. His attorney pursued a misidentification defense at the defendant’s insistence, against the potential alternative of a justification defense. The Court held that counsel was not ineffective because the client explicitly chose the defense strategy. The Court emphasized that counsel must abide by a defendant’s choices regarding fundamental decisions, including the defense strategy, and that in this case, the chosen strategy was not inherently self-destructive. The Court also rejected claims based on courtroom closure during voir dire and the judge’s response to a jury note, holding that counsel’s actions were not ineffective under the circumstances.

Facts

Prince Clark was convicted of murder and assault related to the shooting death of Jamel Wisdom and the assault of Gamard Talleyrand. The prosecution presented surveillance video that the defendant claimed showed the shooter in the building’s lobby. During the trial, defense counsel informed the court that the evidence could support an extreme emotional disturbance (EED) defense, but that the defendant did not want to pursue this defense. The defendant insisted that he was not the person in the video. The defense counsel, in accordance with the defendant’s instructions, pursued a misidentification defense. After the jury inquired about the difference between