Counsel, Ineffective Assistance, Expert Witness

Hinton v Alabama, __ US __; 134 S Ct 1081 (2014)(feb’14). Defendant was convicted of two murders where critical evidence was provided by state ballistics experts who testified that bullets found at the scene came from Defendant’s gun. Trial defense counsel actually hired an expert who countered the state’s ballistics testimony, but because he failed to realize that he could have asked the trial court for additional funding to retain a competent expert, trial defense counsel was unable to obtain a fully qualified expert. The United States Supreme Court focused on the need to investigate and hire a defense expert where the case warrants it. Citing a passage in Harrington v Richter, 562 US __, 131 S Ct 770, 788 (2011), the Court reiterated that “[c]riminal cases will arise where the only reasonable and available defense strategy requires consultation with experts or introduction of expert evidence.” And while noting that invalid forensic testimony can contribute to wrongful convictions, the Hinton Court stated that “this threat is minimized when the defense retains a competent expert to counter the testimony of the prosecution’s expert witnesses.” The Court concluded that trial defense counsel was constitutionally deficient for not investigating and retaining a qualified forensic expert to examine and testify regarding the prosecution’s ballistics evidence.