Opinion ID: 2598757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failure to Adequately Question the State's Expert

Text: [¶ 18] Barkell concedes on appeal that the testimony of the State's expert was probably admissible under applicable case law and criticizes his attorney for vigorously objecting to its admission at trial. Barkell fails to demonstrate how the making of an objection, ultimately and correctly overruled by the trial court, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudiced his defense. [¶ 19] Barkell then proceeds to criticize the quality of the cross-examination. Through cross-examination, defense counsel attacked the credibility of Dr. Dietrick-MacLean by admission that her services are available for hire by both prosecution and defense. He obtained an admission that there can be other causes for the symptoms the doctor associated with sexual abuse, and that child victims may incorporate into their memory of sexual abuse information obtained from an interviewer's questions. He also obtained an admission that the doctor did not know if emotionally disturbed children are more prone to allege sexual abuse than other children. All of these are legitimate points for attacking an expert's credibility on cross-examination and were consistent with the defense theory of the case. [¶ 20] We will not evaluate the trial counsel's efforts from a hindsight perspective. We attempt to reconstruct the circumstances which existed during the trial counsel's challenged conduct and evaluate the performance from his perspective. Owen v. State, 902 P.2d 190, 199 (Wyo.1995). A close review of the record reveals that the trial attorney's cross-examinations were relevant and useful to the theory which the defense was pursuing. Although generally critical, Barkell does not make any concrete suggestions for cross-examination that should have been pursued, and therefore does not rebut the presumption that counsel's cross examination was effective.