MURDER TRIAL: Defendant wins 1st appeal & is granted a new trial based on the Accomplice-Witness Rule. The star witness for the prosecution was also originally charged w/murder for the same case but, was given a charge of attempted murder in exchange for his testimony against the defendant. There was no physical evidence nor were there any other witnesses to the actual crime other than the witness & the defendant. So, it came down to one person's word against the other.
2nd Trial: Prosecution again calls upon the same witness to testify. The only other witnesses they called upon were character witnesses.There was no witness that could corroborate the accomplice’s testimony and as I have learned from a previous question I posted (http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/accomplice-witness-rule--1257467.html) the jury should not have been able to convict based on the accomplice’s testimony alone. However, that is exactly what happened. Same defense counsel represented in both trails but, different judge and prosecutors. The state did not present any new evidence corroborating the witness’s testimony. Logical assumption especially, since the attorney was defense counsel for the 1st trial, he should have recognized that the state again violated the Accomplice-Rule. However, the defense counsel did nothing. Under these circumstances what should he have done or what options should he have advised the defendant of? Since he did nothing and failed to advise the defendant of any options or possible objections would this also be grounds for a claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?