Opinion ID: 1041512
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Retain Experts

Text: Morgan asserts that counsel performed deficiently by failing to retain an expert who could have provided a scientific basis for Morgan’s explanation of events, i.e., the firing of certain shots, where the shots originated, and the sequence of events. He argues that an accident reconstructionist and a ballistics expert could have explained certain matters to support the defense theory. The parties agree—as do we—that the record 13 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 14 State v. Watt, supra note 6. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. MORGAN 565 Cite as 286 Neb. 556 is insufficient to review this claim. We make no comment whether Morgan’s allegations regarding this claim would be sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing in the context of a motion for postconviction relief. We simply decline to reach this claim on direct appeal, because the record is insufficient to do so.