Opinion ID: 1286415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence from Forensic Experts

Text: Lance argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the manner in which he sought funds for forensic experts and, alternatively, that the trial court's denial of those funds rendered trial counsel ineffective at trial. We conclude that both of these claims lack merit.
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.
Lance makes the alternative argument that the trial court rendered his trial counsel ineffective by denying his motion for funds for the expert testimony discussed above. We reject this claim for two independent reasons. First, as we have discussed above, denial of those funds was not improper and did not result in significant prejudice to Lance's defense. Second, we hold that this claim is barred because it was raised and rejected on direct appeal. See Head v. Hill, 277 Ga. 255(III), 587 S.E.2d 613 (2003). Although the focus of Lance's argument on direct appeal regarding experts was on Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), which was decided solely on the basis of due process, Lance's argument on direct appeal also invoked the Sixth Amendment. Raising this additional ground on direct appeal, rather than saving it for when new counsel began representing Lance, was appropriate, because this form of Sixth Amendment claim does not involve the potential conflict of interest inherent where a lawyer accuses himself or herself of having made unprofessional choices. See id. at 87, n. 13, 105 S.Ct. 1087 (noting, but declining to address, the possibility that a trial court's denial of expert funds might raise Sixth Amendment concerns, in addition to due process concerns, that could be considered on direct appeal); Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (noting that there are Sixth Amendment claims regarding governmental interference with the right to counsel that are distinct from claims regarding trial counsel's own deficient performance). Compare Glover v. State, 266 Ga. 183, 183-185(2), 465 S.E.2d 659 (1996) (holding that a claim alleging that trial counsel himself or herself acted outside of the bounds of professional competence must be raised at the earliest practicable moment). Having been timely raised, the claim was rejected by this Court. Lance, supra, 275 Ga. at 13-14(2), 560 S.E.2d 663. Thus, it is now barred.