Can trial counsel reasonably choose not to sever charges involving multiple victims? State v. Vallejo Explained

In State v. Vallejo, the Utah Supreme Court addressed when trial counsel’s decision not to move to sever charges involving multiple victims constitutes reasonable trial strategy under Strickland v. Washington.

Background and Facts

Keith Vallejo was convicted of ten counts of forcible sexual abuse and one count of object rape involving his two sisters-in-law, J.K. and H.K. The charges regarding both victims were tried together in a single proceeding. Vallejo’s defense strategy focused on attacking the credibility of both accusers, suggesting they had colluded to fabricate the allegations. Trial counsel elicited testimony showing delayed reporting, failure to leave the home where abuse allegedly occurred, and potential motives to lie.

Key Legal Issues

Vallejo claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure to move to sever the charges for separate trials. He argued that separate trials would have allowed him to exclude unfavorable testimony about conduct with one sister while still introducing evidence showing the other sister’s motive to fabricate. Vallejo also raised claims regarding hearsay testimony, attorney-client privilege, and prejudicial references to the accusers as “victims.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the Strickland standard, requiring both deficient performance and prejudice. Importantly, the analysis focuses on objective reasonableness rather than counsel’s subjective motivations. The court recognized that while severance might minimize potential prison time by potentially obtaining acquittal on stronger charges, reasonable counsel could pursue an “all-or-nothing” strategy. Such a strategy might use the stronger defense against one victim to “pollute” the weaker case, potentially resulting in complete acquittal on all charges.

The court noted that joint trials allowed counsel to argue that both victims’ similar patterns of delayed reporting and failure to leave the home undermined their credibility. Additionally, counsel could suggest the sisters colluded after comparing their accounts in December 2014.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that strategic decisions regarding joinder receive significant deference under Strickland. Even when severance might be available and potentially beneficial, counsel may reasonably choose joint trials to implement coordinated defense strategies. Practitioners should carefully weigh whether attacking all victims’ credibility simultaneously might be more effective than isolating stronger defenses in separate proceedings.