Opinion ID: 1915707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: DNA Expert Unnecessary

Text: Staats' second claim was that his trial counsel failed to retain an expert to evaluate the DNA evidence. Specifically, Staats claimed that the primary issue in the case was the identification of the person who shot the victim and that the DNA evidence, albeit inconclusive, was among the strongest identification evidence in the case. [34] The Superior Court properly recognized, however, that the DNA evidence was not the strongest evidence in the case because there were a number of eyewitnesses to the murder and three people who testified at trial put defendant at the scene. [35] Therefore, the Superior Court concluded, [c]ounsel's decision not to hire an independent DNA expert was reasonable and does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. [36] The record supports that conclusion. In Jackson v. State, the defendant-appellant argued that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to hire independent forensic experts to conduct a proper defense. [37] He could not, however, articulate what exactly trial counsel would have discovered if they had requested and been granted funds for independent forensic tests of the physical evidence and such tests had been conducted before trial. [38] In Jackson, this Court concluded that the Superior Court correctly found that trial counsel's representation fell well within the range of professionally competent assistance because the record indicated that counsel made a tactical decision not to hire or consult additional forensic experts to test the physical evidence placing the defendant-appellant at the scene. [39] As in Staats' case, there was strong evidence that not only placed the defendant-appellant at the scene of the crime but also implicated him in the murder. [40] The defendant-appellant in Jackson presented no alibi, several witnesses testified that he bragged about the killing, several witnesses saw the items stolen from the victim in the defendant-appellant's apartment, and a witness testified that he saw the defendant-appellant put a bloody glove in the trash. [41] There is equally strong evidence placing Staats at the scene of the crime and implicating him in the murder. Therefore, the Superior Court properly rejected Staats' second ground for post-conviction relief based upon ineffective assistance from his trial counsel.