Opinion ID: 612544
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substance-Abuse Expert

Text: With regard to hiring a substance-abuse expert, however, the state courts were not unreasonable in finding that counsel's performance was adequate. On direct appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that Karpawich's testimony was an alternative device[] that ... fulfilled the same functions that a substance-abuse expert would have served. 823 N.E.2d at 859. Karpawich had testified that Foust was diagnosed with `alcohol dependence.' Id. Karpawich's written report, which was introduced into evidence, stated that Foust reported `abusing alcohol heavily around the time of the present offenses.' Id. Foust speculates that an expert could have testified about the genesis of Foust's addiction, its effect on his judgment and impulsivity, and how it lessens his culpability. Appellant Br. at 35. While Karpawich's testimony could have been more expansive, his testimony was not dramatically different from this speculation about what a substance-abuse expert could offer. Foust has not offered any evidence that a substance-abuse expert could have added any other information. Thus, the Ohio Supreme Court did not act contrary to or unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent on the sub-claim about the substance-abuse expert.