Opinion ID: 6321839
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Witness Identification Expert

Text: Barrett was the only witness who identified Sheppard as the shooter in the Wimberly murder. She observed the shooter for four or five seconds and made “clear and strong eye contact” with him as he was leaning out of the passenger side window of a moving vehicle while holding a gun. She selected his photograph out of a photospread shortly after the shooting and she identified him at trial. At trial, Barrett and several other witnesses testified that she was extremely stressed during the shooting, in part because she initially believed that the victim was her nephew. Sheppard argues that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different if trial counsel had retained an eyewitness identification expert to educate himself or the jury about the factors that may affect eyewitness identification. Sheppard’s trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that, though the main theory of defense at trial was - 17 - misidentification, he believed the inconsistencies in Barrett’s identification of Sheppard as the shooter were not significant and that any testimony that a witness identification expert could give would be “common sense” and would ultimately be of little use because it could not be used to identify anyone other than Sheppard as the shooter. Moreover, trial counsel testified that Sheppard confessed to him that he was the shooter and trial counsel was concerned an eyewitness expert would bolster Barrett’s identification.5 We agree with the circuit court’s conclusion that trial counsel’s strategic decision not to retain an identification expert was not deficient performance. See Pietri v. State, 935 So. 2d 85, 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (concluding that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to retain an eyewitness expert because the expert’s testimony related to common sense problems with eyewitness identification). As noted, Sheppard confessed to trial counsel that he was the shooter, and trial counsel was understandably concerned that 5. Trial counsel testified that Sheppard told him that “there’s no way that bitch [meaning Barrett] could have seen me.” - 18 - additional testimony about issues with Barrett’s identification— issues that the jurors could have relied on their common sense to resolve—could potentially produce information damaging to his client. Moreover, though the circuit court did not address prejudice with respect to this subclaim, in light of the other evidence of guilt in the case—including ballistic evidence matching a firearm from both shootings; witness testimony that Sheppard and Evans stole Jones’s car, which matched the description of the car used during the Wimberly shooting; and Sheppard’s video confession to stealing Jones’s vehicle—there is no reasonable probability that but for trial counsel’s failure to retain an identification expert the result of the proceeding would have been different. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of relief.