Opinion ID: 1751322
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Hiring Experts

Text: The trial court denied Branch's claim of ineffectiveness for not hiring a pathologist and a blood spatter expert to counter the testimony of the State's experts at trial. Trial counsel was questioned extensively about this issue and his testimony essentially was that he believed his ability to cross-examine the State's witnesses coupled with the importance of the right to present first and last closing arguments were sufficient reasons to avoid the presentation of such witnesses. The trial court concluded that this was an acceptable trial strategy, especially in light of Branch's defense and testimony at trial that he did not commit the crime. The trial court also evaluated the credibility of testimony of the blood spatter expert and pathologist presented by the defense at the postconviction hearing and the weight of their evidence in light of the actual evidence presented at trial. Importantly, neither postconviction expert identified any substantial factual mistakes made by the State's experts. Rather, they expressed some differing opinions. The State's medical examiner testified again at the postconviction hearing and emphasized the importance of his actual examination of the victim's body as a basis for his opinions. Furthermore, both experts presented by the defense in postconviction conceded the possibility of the correctness of the State's experts' testimony at trial. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's holding that trial counsel's decision to only cross-examine the State's experts so as to retain both first and last closing arguments was not an unreasonable trial strategy. The court rejected the claim on the basis that it constituted mere second-guessing of defense counsel's trial strategy. We find no error in the trial court's analysis. The standard is not how present counsel would have proceeded, in hindsight, but rather whether there was both a deficient performance and a reasonable probability of a different result. Cherry v. State, 659 So.2d 1069, 1073 (Fla.1995); see also Brown v. State, 846 So.2d 1114, 1121 (Fla.2003).