Gilmer v. the State

Gilmer has shown that his trial counsel’s failure to object to the bolstering testimony of two witnesses was deficient performance and so prejudiced him that, but for the deficiency, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different,. See Daniel v. State, 338 Ga. App. 389, 392 (3) (787 SE2d 281) (2016). Because Gilmer has shown that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, his convictions should be reversed. I therefore respectfully dissent.

1. Deficient performance.

As the majority finds, both the state’s expert witness and the family friend to…