Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ard v. Catoe

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided March 5, 2007No. 26282Published

1Dissent

Chief Justice TOAL:

I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the decision of the PCR court. In my opinion, Ard’s trial counsel adequately investigated the issue of gunshot residue- on the victim’s hands and their failure to cross-examine the State’s gunshot residue expert was neither deficient nor prejudicial to Ard.

In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCR applicant must show (1) the performance of counsel was deficient and, (2) but for the errors of counsel, the result of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Simpson v. MooreSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
  3. Patrick v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API