Opinion ID: 1705889
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Examine Available Forensic Evidence.

Text: ¶ 28. This sub-claim contends that counsel were ineffective in not obtaining independent pathology and DNA experts to testify on Spicer's behalf. In support of this claim, Spicer provides the affidavit of Dr. O'Brian C. Smith, M.D., a pathologist from Tennessee, to support Spicer's claim that the sword was not the murder weapon. Dr. Smith went into great detail about wound patterns that he would have expected to find in an autopsy examination of the victim that he asserts were not present. Dr. Smith also admitted that he saw only pictures and drawings of the sword, not the sword itself. ¶ 29. At trial, the State's expert, Dr. Steven Hayne, testified as follows: Q. Have you had an ample opportunity to feel the weight of that particular sword? A. [Dr. Hayne]: Yes, sir. Q. And have you had an opportunity to notice the differences between the edges of that sword? A. Yes, Sir. Q. In reference to your testimony, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, would any part of that sword be consistent with the injuries that you saw to facial area of Edmond Hebert? A. Yes, sir. Q. And would you describe to the ladies and gentlemen the injuries in Exhibit 27 and how they relate to Exhibit 4 [the sword]. A. A weapon such as this delivered with force, striking the decedent on the non-sharpened edge, would produce injury such as that seen on the forehead of the decedent. Q. And is that entirely consistent with that edge? A. It would be consistent with the blunt end. But not consistent with the sharp edge. Q. The blunt edge of Exhibit 4? A. Yes, sir. ¶ 30. Dr. Smith stated in his affidavit that no indicia of sharp force injuries were present. He also stated that Hebert's death indisputably resulted from blunt force trauma to the head, particularly a large abraded laceration. Dr. Smith did not refute Dr. Hayne's testimony. Spicer has not made a showing that his counsel was deficient. ¶ 31. Spicer further contends that his counsel was ineffective in failing to rebut DNA evidence offered by the State. He contends that by consulting with an independent expert or even by interviewing the State's witness, Amrita Lal, counsel would have discovered exculpatory evidence. The State's expert testified that the swabs taken from the blood on the sword were a mixture of more than one person's blood, but the victim's blood was included in that mixture. Spicer relies on Dr. Smith's affidavit, whereby Dr. Smith stated that blood of an unidentified third party is exculpatory evidence because that third party could have put the sword in the truck prior to Spicer driving the truck. First, the record does not indicate that the blood was from a third party. The expert testified only that there was a mixture of blood and Hebert's was included. Second, we fail to see how consulting an independent DNA expert would have helped Spicer, because he claimed self-defense. Spicer's counsel had no questions for the State's DNA expert, which we find is consistent with a self-defense strategy. This issue is without merit.