After he was convicted of attempted assault in the first degree, Mike H. aruged that certain trial testimony shouldn't have been permitted because of its prejudicial nature. Apparently, a witness claimed he feared for his life and that of his family members.
But the Appellate Division, Second Department, didn't think anything irregular had occurred -- particularly in light of a limiting instruction given to the jury that the testimony only related to that witness's state of mind.
The prosecutor's remark during summation that the eyewitness's testimony took "great courage," was also viewed as a "fair comment on the evidence."
Finally, any failure by Mike's attorney's to object to the summation wasn't seen as "ineffective assistance of counsel" as his advocate's overall performance provided "meaningful representation."
Now that took courage.
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: People v. H.