An Argument That a Lawyer Should Have Cross-Examined a Witness on Certain Issues

In Brown v. State, 846 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2003), the court rejected an argument that trial counsel should have cross-examined a witness on certain issues, or more strenuously examined him on certain issues, because such an argument "is essentially a hindsight analysis." Id. at 1121. "The standard is not how present counsel would have proceeded, in hindsight, but rather whether there was both a deficient performance and a reasonable probability of a different result." Id. (quoting Cherry v. State, 659 So. 2d 1069, 1073 (Fla. 1995)).