Opinion ID: 5648768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issue #4: ineffective counsel at guilt phase

Text: Cunningham argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to obtain and present testimony from a ballistics expert. We disagree. Because no weapons were recovered from the scene of the crime, see Cunningham I, 2004 WL 2496525, at , eyewitnesses and experts supplied the sole evidence about who shot whom with what. The trial court granted defense counsel funds to hire a ballistics expert. R. 194-1 (Trial Tr. at 4–8) (Page ID #8847–51). Five survivors of the shooting—Dwight Goodloe, Coron Liles, Loyshane Liles, Tomeaka Grant, and James Grant—testified that Cunningham was armed with a revolver, that Jackson wielded a semiautomatic, and that both Cunningham and Jackson shot persons. R. 194-2 (Trial Tr. at 1027–28, 1052–59, 1121–22, 1129–33, 1143, 1153–54, 1175–76, 1195, 1222–27, 1278– 88) (Page ID #10216–17, 10241–48, 10317–18, 10325–29, 10339, 10349–50, 10371–72, 10391, 10418–23, 10482–92). Coron Liles attested that he spat out a bullet a few blocks from the crime scene; the bullet was never recovered by law enforcement. Tomeaka Grant swore that a bullet remained lodged in her arm; the caliber of that bullet is unknown. Id. at 1133, 1226 (Page ID #10329, 10422); Cunningham I, 2004 WL 2496525, at . At trial, Ohio called two experts: John Heile, a forensic scientist with Ohio’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification, and Cynthia Beisser, a coroner. Heile testified that all the recovered cartridges and most of the recovered bullets were .380 caliber and fired from the same pistol. Point 380 caliber casings are typically fired by a semiautomatic—not a revolver. R. 194-2 (Trial Tr. at 1066–67, 1071–74) (Page ID #10262–63, 10267–70). A damaged bullet and a damaged lead core shared the characteristics of .380 caliber bullets, Heile attested. Id. at Nos. 11-3005/20-3429 Cunningham v. Shoop Page 42 1075–76 (Page ID #10271–72). But Heile could not conclusively state that these two nonintact bullets were fired from the same weapon as the other recovered bullets. See id. Because no weapons were located, Heile penned a report that listed the guns that could have fired the recovered bullets. Only semiautomatics made the list—no revolvers. Id. at 1076–77 (Page ID #10272–73). On cross-examination, Heile testified that .380 cartridges could fit into a .38 caliber revolver but that the revolver would probably not fire. Heile also attested that .380 cartridges would not fire in a .44 caliber revolver without alterations to the gun. Id. at 1082–84 (Page ID #10278–80). Beisser autopsied the two murder victims, Leneshia Williams and Jala Grant, who had died of gunshot wounds to the head. Id. at 1252–54 (Page ID #10456–58). Based on her examination, Beisser could not determine the caliber of the bullets that entered Williams and Grant. Id. at 1257 (Page ID #10461). Skin, Beisser explained, is elastic; a hole in skin is not the same size as the projectile that penetrates the skin. Id. On cross-examination, Beisser testified that a .380 caliber pistol could leave entrance wounds of the size found on the victims but that the wounds were also consistent with other different-caliber weapons. Id. at 1265–70 (Page ID #10469–74). On redirect and re-cross-examination, Beisser repeatedly testified that .380 and .38 caliber bullets are the same size. Id. at 1271–72 (Page ID #10475–76). Instead of summoning a ballistics expert, defense counsel called gun-shop owner William Danny Reiff. Reiff testified that .44 caliber revolvers and bullets are much larger than .380 caliber pistols and bullets. R. 194-2 (Trial Tr. at 1363–64) (Page ID #10567–68). On crossexamination, Reiff testified that .38, .357, .380, and .9 caliber cartridges are the same diameter and are indistinguishable to lay persons. Id. at 1366–69 (Page ID #10570–73). In his state postconviction petition, Cunningham asserted that his trial counsel ineffectively failed to obtain and present testimony from a ballistics expert. Cunningham lambasted Reiff’s rebuttal. To clarify that Cunningham could not have fired a .380 caliber cartridge in any of the weapons suggested by Heile, Cunningham asserted, defense counsel should have shown the jury a video of .380 caliber cartridges being placed into different caliber revolvers and fired. R. 192-4 (2003 Postconviction Pet.) (Page ID #5069–72, 5077–80). The Ohio Court of Appeals rejected Cunningham’s assertions on the merits. See Cunningham I, Nos. 11-3005/20-3429 Cunningham v. Shoop Page 43 2004 WL 2496525, at –8. Cunningham restated his claim in his federal habeas petition. R. 19-6 (Habeas Pet. at 61–67) (Page ID #129–35); Appellant’s Br. #1 at 128–29. According § 2254(d)(1) deference to the Ohio Court of Appeals, we assess whether defense counsel performed deficiently and prejudicially. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 691. Perhaps a ballistics expert would have been more convincing than Reiff had been. But trial counsel pushed the theory that Cunningham did not fire any weapon on the night of the murder while questioning all three experts. Indeed, Heile’s and Beisser’s testimony favored Cunningham’s theory. Heile conveyed that no evidence indicated that a revolver fired the bullets and casings recovered; and Beisser insisted that she could not determine the caliber of the gun that caused the victims’ entrance wounds. Multiple eyewitnesses, on the other hand, testified that they saw Cunningham shoot persons. Cunningham does not explain in either his postconviction petition or his brief how a ballistics expert’s testimony would have affected the evidence elicited at trial or altered the outcome of the case. Without evidence of prejudice, we deny relief on Cunningham’s fourth claim.