Court of Appeals hears arguments in State v. Medina over alleged ineffective counsel and unavailable witness

A three-judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in State v. Medina over whether Mr. Medina received ineffective assistance of counsel and whether a key witness was properly deemed unavailable so prerecorded testimony could be played at trial.

Rachel Phillips Zainzkopf, counsel for appellant Sergio Medina, told the court that trial counsel was deficient for not requesting a unanimity instruction for the obstruction-of-justice count and that the omission prejudiced Medina because the prosecution relied on multiple acts to support that single charge. “It was still unreasonable for counsel to ask for an instruction that the jury be unanimous as to the specific act supporting the one charge of obstruction,” Zainzkopf said.

The state, represented by Daniel Boyer, urged the court to defer to the trial court and the jury’s verdict. “Medina’s arguments target isolated pieces of the large evidentiary mosaic,” Boyer told the panel, arguing…