Buck demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel. To satisfy the test, a defendant must first show that counsel performed deficiently. Trial counsel knew that Dr. Quijano’s report reflected the view that race predisposed him to violent conduct and that the principal point of dispute during the penalty phase was future dangerousness. Counsel nevertheless called Dr. Quijano to the stand, specifically elicited testimony about the connection between race and violence, and put Dr. Quijano’s report into evidence. No competent defense attorney would introduce evidence that his client is liable to be a future danger because of his race.
But for counsel’s “specifically eliciting testimony about the connection between race and violence”, counsel’s decision would have likely been written off as a reasonable strategy. Otherwise, the expert’s testimony that Buck was “unlikely to present a future danger” would have been helpful to the defense. On the other hand, this writer believes from firsthand experience that jurors too often disregard testimony and jury instructions and convict (or acquit) based on their own subjective preferences.