People of Michigan v. Jacob Trakhtenberg

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court held that collateral estoppel could not be applied—based on a prior civil judgment that defense counsel's performance fell within the attorney judgment rule—to preclude review of defendant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, because defendant lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate counsel's errors in the malpractice suit, where he sought monetary gain rather than protection of his constitutional right and liberty. On the merits, the Court held counsel was constitutionally deficient under Strickland because she forwent any investigation before settling on a defense strategy—failing to identify the factual predicate of the charged counts, to consult key witnesses, and to develop the defense presented—and that defendant was prejudiced because the verdict rested solely on the complainant's credibility while available impeachment and corroborating evidence was never introduced. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new trial. Chief Justice Young, joined by Justice Zahra, dissenting, agreed collateral estoppel did not bar the claims but would have affirmed because counsel's strategy was objectively reasonable and no prejudice was shown; Justice Hathaway did not participate.