Opinion ID: 2354151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Present Blood Spatter Expert Witness

Text: [¶ 22] The court found that McGowan's blood spatter expert witness would have corroborated portions of McGowan's trial testimony. Specifically, the court found that the blood spatter expert would have support[ed] McGowan's contention that [the victim] was in a crouched position as though he were an aggressor about to attack him. The court also observed that this evidence might also support a finding that [the victim] was ducking when confronted with a man pointing a gun at him. The court concluded that where physical evidence and its analysis would tend to support his claim, the failure to investigate and secure expert testimony in this regard would meet both prongs of the deprivation of effective counsel test. The court reasoned that [t]his is true, even though [McGowan's blood spatter expert] could not testify that [the victim] was acting aggressively and that another explanation for the deceased's body position could be offered. [¶ 23] The State argues that McGowan's expert's testimony would have contradicted portions of McGowan's trial testimony. The State notes that both blood spatter experts opined that the bloodstains on the wall were caused from the gunshot entrance wound. Accordingly, the State asserts that the victim must have been facing away from McGowan when he was shot because the entry wound was, according to the medical examiner, above and behind the victim's ear. The State also contends that the court's emphasis on whether the victim was crouching is irrelevant, and that the court's factual finding that McGowan's expert's testimony would have corroborated McGowan's is clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the State argues that the court erred as a matter of law in concluding that McGowan was denied effective assistance of counsel. [¶ 24] McGowan acknowledges that the testimony of his post-conviction blood spatter expert witness does not establish that the victim had attacked him but only suggests that the victim was squatting or crouched when shot. McGowan's blood spatter expert reported that the blood patterns represent an odd physical position, one which is certainly not upright at the moment of wounding. The best description would be one of a squat with the head down and upper chest oriented forward (south) of the lower torso and legs. McGowan argues that a jury could have concluded from such evidence that the victim was trying to tackle or lunge at him, and could have reasonably believed McGowan's version of the facts. Consequently, McGowan contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. [¶ 25] McGowan's and the State's post-conviction experts' reports both suggest that the victim was in a crouched position, and both agree that the victim's precise position cannot be determined, although the State's expert opined that it is highly unlikely the decedent was rushing/lunging the defendant immediately prior to the gunshot. Accordingly, the State's assertion that the evidence can only point to the conclusion that the victim was facing away from McGowan is not supported by the record. Nonetheless, the fact that the victim might have been in a crouched position, as opposed to standing upright, lends no greater support to McGowan's claim that the victim was aggressively lunging at him with a knife. Although blood spatter forensic evidence might have bolstered McGowan's testimony to some degree by corroborating his testimony that the victim was in a crouched position at the moment he was shot, it is neutral with respect to the central issue of the case: whether McGowan shot the victim in self-defense because the victim was aggressively lunging at him. [¶ 26] The State did not present evidence at trial that contradicted McGowan's testimony that the victim was in a crouched position at the moment he was shot. [7] Accordingly, a blood spatter expert would not have corroborated McGowan's testimony as to a substantial fact that was disputed at trial. More importantly, it would not corroborate McGowan's claim that the victim was the aggressor and that he shot the victim in self-defense. McGowan's own expert conceded that blood spatter analysis cannot determine whether the victim was in an aggressive posture when shot. As the court itself observed, the fact that the victim was in a crouched position can also be interpreted to mean that the victim was ducking at the time McGowan shot him. [¶ 27] The prejudice, if any, from McGowan's trial attorney's failure to present the testimony of a blood spatter expert witness at trial was insubstantial because the testimony could not establish that the victim was in an aggressive posture at the time he was shot. The court's finding that McGowan's trial attorney's failure to present such testimony was so prejudicial as to render the trial fundamentally unfair is not sustainable under either a clear error or de novo standard of appellate review. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded for entry of a judgment denying the petition.