Opinion ID: 1662575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: failure to call medical expert

Text: At trial, the State called a witness, a forensic serologist, who testified about the possible origin of the blood and semen stains found on the victim's bedding. The witness testified that the victim had type A blood, that she is a secretor, and that her PGM type is 2-1. The defendant also has type A blood, is a secretor, and has PGM type 1-1. After testing the stains on the bedding, the expert testified that the person who had the semen either had to be a type A secretor or a nonsecretor. She testified that 52 percent of the general population could fit within these classifications. Defendant claimed that the failure of his counsel to call a medical expert for the purpose of presenting evidence on the enzyme testing in the light most favorable to the defendant constitutes ineffectiveness of counsel. Defendant feels that the fact that the victim was a 2-1 secretor whereas the defendant was a 1-1 secretor was exculpatory evidence. On cross-examination by trial counsel, the State's expert testified that the test results did not point to any one person, and that the semen could have come from 52 percent of the general population. This is really the only exculpatory value the evidence had for the defendant. The witness further testified that although the PGM type found in the stain on the sheet was 2-1 and the defendant's type is 1-1, this is not necessarily exculpatory, as the expert testified that a semen stain actually contains a mixture of semen and the victim's vaginal fluid, and, thus, the presence of the victim's PGM type 2-1 substance was not unusual. Trial counsel did not conduct an independent analysis of the hair and body fluid samples. His strategy in dealing with the scientific evidence was to concentrate on the fact that the test results did not pinpoint the defendant as the perpetrator and that more than one-half of the general population could not be ruled out as being the victim's assailant. He had read materials on PGM testing. Based on the fact that the victim's body fluid mixes with the semen and that the victim's PGM type was 2-1, he determined that it would be inappropriate to call his own witness and have that witness subject to the State's cross-examination as to how the perpetrator could have been the defendant. He decided instead to concentrate on the fact that the tests could not positively identify the defendant as the assailant. In the present case, defendant's trial counsel performed as a lawyer possessing ordinary training and skill in the criminal law should have performed. He familiarized himself with the materials on the subject of PGM testing, and he knew what the State's evidence would be. He then made a conscious strategic decision not to call an expert witness for the defense, who could have done more harm than good by admitting on cross-examination that the tests did not rule out the possibility that the defendant was the assailant. As stated in State v. Fries, 224 Neb. 482, 486, 398 N.W.2d 702, 705 (1987), [T]he record discloses that the decision not to call an expert witness was carefully made and based on trial strategy, and [t]he fact that the strategy proved unsuccessful [i.e., that the defendant was convicted] does not sustain a finding of ineffectiveness of counsel. Finally, defendant has again failed to show in what manner he was prejudiced by this decision of his counsel.