Opinion ID: 1286415
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial Counsel's Alleged Ineffective Assistance in Seeking Funds

Text: We first address Lance's contention that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the manner in which he sought funds for forensic experts. We conclude that trial counsel did not perform deficiently, and we further conclude that Lance did not suffer significant prejudice to his defense even if trial counsel could be perceived as having performed deficiently. On direct appeal, this Court rejected a claim that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying Lance's request for additional funds for expert assistance, concluding that Lance's request for the contested funds [had been] too unspecific, uncertain, and conclusory to require the granting of additional funds. Lance, supra, 275 Ga. at 13-14(2), 560 S.E.2d 663. Although this Court's comments, on the surface, might suggest that trial counsel necessarily performed deficiently in making his request, upon closer examination we conclude that he did not. Instead, we conclude that trial counsel's request for funds appeared weak simply because there was no compelling reason for those funds to be granted. See Roseboro, supra, 258 Ga. at 40-41(3), 365 S.E.2d 115 (c) and (d) (holding that a request for funds for expert testimony must show, inter alia, that the testimony is crucial and is subject to varying expert opinions). Lance complains that trial counsel failed to obtain expert assistance in order to show the time of the victims' deaths. Our review of the record reveals that there is, even now, no substantial dispute among the experts regarding the time of death but, instead, that there is merely a dispute over the manner in which the time of death was established. Lance argues that his trial counsel should have obtained an expert to testify that the repeated blows to Joy Lance's face with the butt of the shotgun likely would have resulted in the perpetrator's being spattered with blood and brain matter, which would then have likely left stains in any automobile used immediately afterward. However, not only would this fact have been obvious to the jury, it furthermore would have been consistent with Lance having disposed of any bloody clothes at the same time he obviously disposed of his distinctive shoes and would have been consistent with the testimony from a State witness indicating that Lance said he had initially walked away from the crime scene rather than driving away in his automobile. Lance argues that his trial counsel should have obtained an expert to testify that there were no shoe prints at the crime scene other than the one on the front door and that scientific testing could not establish the time when the shoe print on the door was made. However, the absence of shoe prints was not a matter that was subject to varying scientific opinions, and the time at which the print was left on the door was a matter of common sense given the fact that the door had obviously been kicked in during the murders and the fact that the shoe print matched shoes that Lance wore. Similarly, it was a matter of common sense and not subject to varying scientific opinions that it was possible that the murders could have been committed by more than one person and that the identity of the perpetrator could not be determined by fingerprint evidence because no identifiable fingerprints had been discovered. Finally, Lance complains that his trial counsel failed to obtain an expert in polygraph science to testify that the results of the polygraph examination taken by Joe Moore [2] were inconclusive in response to the testimony volunteered by Joe Moore indicating that he had passed his polygraph test. However, Moore's volunteered testimony was ruled inadmissible, and the jury was instructed to disregard it. See Waldrip, supra, 279 Ga. at 830-831, 620 S.E.2d 829(II)(C) (addressing admissibility of polygraph results in death penalty trials). Because, as we have briefly outlined above, none of the expert testimony that Lance contends his trial counsel should have obtained was crucial to his defense, we hold as a matter of law both that trial counsel did not perform deficiently in the manner in which he sought funds for that testimony and that Lance did not suffer prejudice by trial counsel's failure to obtain funds for that testimony.