Opinion ID: 1918798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Blood spatter

Text: ¶ 25. Jordan raises a number of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The first several of those claims are that defense counsel, Tom Sumrall, was ineffective for failing to prepare to rebut Melton's blood spatter testimony, for failing to hire a blood spatter expert to refute Melton's testimony and for failing to object, at trial, to Melton's qualifications as an expert on the subject. Jordan asserts that Sumrall could have and should have contacted Robert McDuff, who represented Jordan from 1988 through 1991, to get McDuff's files on this subject. [4] Jordan notes that Sumrall failed even to review transcripts of the previous trials, which would have alerted Sumrall to the subject matter of Melton's testimony. ¶ 26. The State points out that defense counsel, in 1998, may have been somewhat at a loss to challenge Melton's qualifications where this Court had already found no reversible error in permitting Melton to testify as an expert. Jordan v. State, 464 So.2d at 486. The State also notes that Jordan had the services of Dr. Leroy Riddick, also a forensic pathologist, to dispute the theory presented by Melton and Dr. Atchison. ¶ 27. While we agree that Melton had been found qualified to testify as an expert in Jordan's previous trials, we are troubled by Jordan's defense counsel's confession that he failed to realize that blood spatter evidence would be presented. Certainly, Sumrall should have realized that such testimony was possible because Melton had testified on the subject in 1983. We find that Sumrall's performance was deficient on this point. ¶ 28. However, the analysis of this issue does not stop there. Next, we must determine whether that deficient performance prejudiced Jordan's defense. In this petition, Jordan merely states that it was prejudicial and points out that the blood spatter testimony was central to the State's case. A meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires more than the mere statement that the defendant was prejudiced and requires more than just the petitioner's allegations that this subject matter was central to the State's case. As we have noted, Jordan was convicted and sentenced to death twice before David Melton's blood spatter testimony was ever presented to a jury. While the blood spatter testimony is clearly an emotional and highly charged detail of Jordan's trials after 1983, there was enough evidence even without such testimony to convict Jordan twice before. ¶ 29. The Strickland standard is familiar; whether petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance. Prejudice occurs when the defendant shows that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Jordan's petition fails to meet the Strickland standard on the second prong. Jordan's argument that the blood spatter evidence was central to the case is not enough to undermine confidence in the result. This claim is without merit.