Opinion ID: 3134225
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ill 2d 465, 477 (1994). Defendant's contention regarding his

Text: attorney's failure to adduce mitigation evidence during the sentencing hearing is equally without merit. In his motion, defendant does not reveal the character of the mitigation evidence to which he alludes, nor does he state how it would have changed the outcome. Additionally, the record reveals that his attorney did in fact call a total of eight witnesses during the mitigation phase of the hearing. Thus, this is not a case in which absolutely no evidence in mitigation was presented to the jury. Defendant's remaining claim, that his attorney should have presented the testimony of a forensic expert to dispute the State's fingerprint evidence, fares little better. Trial testimony indicated that the State's expert, Garold Warner, and two of his associates concluded that there were 25 points of agreement between defendant's fingerprints and those found at the scene of the crimes. According to Warner, fingerprint examiners in the United States tend to use between 8 and 10 points of agreement before arriving at a conclusion. Based on this evidence, it cannot be said that defense counsel's decision not to call an independent expert constituted ineffectiveness. It may very well have been a matter of trial strategy to not call an expert--a withering cross- examination as to the points of agreement could only serve to reinforce the strength of the fingerprint identification in the eyes of the jury. As we stated in Nitz, new counsel should be appointed only if the pro se allegations show possible neglect of the case. Nitz, 143