This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

An 18-year-old woman was sexually assaulted. She had exited a bus and was followed by two men with guns. The men rushed her and forced her off the street. With guns to her head, they robbed her, fondled her, and repeatedly assaulted her sexually, penetrating her orally and vaginally by both penis and gun barrel. After the assaults, the victim spat ejaculate. The victim could not identify her attackers. The State (P) built its case based on evidence collected from her body, her clothing, and the scene. Police recovered a sample of the victim's saliva mixed with semen containing D's DNA. They also recovered evidence containing the DNA of the second man, who eventually pleaded guilty. On the first day of trial, counsel informed the court that McDowell had fired him over the weekend. Later that day, while discussing pre-trial motions, defense counsel informed the court that he did not know what the theory of defense would be because D had become unassistive. Wary of another delay, the court indicated an intent to move forward with the case. The court then told D that he could decide whether to cooperate with counsel. It explained, 'Either you help or you don't help, and that is your decision. Obviously, if you don't help, it obviously hurts your situation more than it helps it, but that is your call, not mine. Fair enough?' D replied, 'Yes.' Defense counsel later informed the court that he would reserve his opening statement until the close of P's case. On the third day of trial, P had rested. Defense counsel expressed reservations to the court about his ability to effectively proceed as counsel. Although not specific, he implied that his concerns related to the possibility that D would testify untruthfully. The court advised counsel that he had two options: (1) he could recommend to D that he not testify if his intended account was untrue or so outrageous that a trier of fact would hold it against him; or (2) take the 'middle ground' by calling D to testify in narrative form.The court rejected in counsel's motion to withdraw. After a short break, counsel indicated this client would testify truthfully. The court instructed counsel that if something should change, counsel must immediately advise the court and then proceed in the narrative form of questioning. Defense counsel gave his opening statement. He told the jury that D would testify that he never assaulted the victim and that the area where the crime took place was behind the building where his father lived. Counsel further explained that D had been in the area the night before the assault, had oral sex with his girlfriend, Sunshine, and had ejaculated, which would account for the semen being found at the scene. D took the stand, and counsel received a note from the public defender's office. Defense counsel began his examination in the conventional question and answer format and asked three questions about D's age and residence. He then stated, 'Mr. McDowell, I want you to look at this jury and tell this jury about the events of April 20 and April 21 of 1997. Take your time and speak loudly and clearly, please.' As D began his answer, defense counsel interrupted and asked the court if it wanted a sidebar conference, and the court responded, 'I certainly do.' After the conference, the court instructed the jury that it was not to consider the opening statements or closing arguments of counsel as evidence. It then directed defense counsel to restate the question. D responded with a narrative answer. When finished, defense counsel asked two more questions relating to D's four juvenile adjudications. The prosecutor then conducted a brief cross-examination during which D admitted that he had attempted to avoid arrest and run from the police. D also revealed that he was a friend of the other man who had been convicted of the assaults. There was no re-direct examination. After the case was submitted to the jury, defense counsel provided an account of the off-the-record sidebar that had occurred when he shifted from question and answer to narrative form. He indicated that he had planned to proceed in the question-and-answer format. However, he acknowledged receiving a note from legal counsel at his office, which changed his mind. Counsel did note, however, that he had previously advised D as to what a narrative entailed. D was found guilty of all counts. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison. After conviction. D testified at the hearing that he never told defense counsel he was going to testify untruthfully. He maintained that he was of the impression that counsel was going to employ the traditional question and answer format, not the narrative. The circuit court denied D's postconviction motion. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court. The court stated that 'absent the most extraordinary circumstances, criminal defense counsel, as a matter of law, cannot know that a client is going to testify falsely absent the client's admission of the intent to do so.' The court of appeals determined that defense counsel was deficient in his performance at trial. It also concluded that the deficient performance was not prejudicial under the circumstances of the case. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.