Opinion ID: 1057230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Post-Conviction Relief Proceedings

Text: ¶ 9. After losing on direct appeal, petitioner filed a PCR petition in superior court claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for three reasons: first, she failed to depose any witnesses prior to trial; second, she failed to retain an expert to testify regarding the likelihood of muzzle flashes from petitioner's rifle and the ability of a person to tell the direction of a shot from a muzzle flash; and third, she failed to have an expert test petitioner's rifle to determine whether it produced a muzzle flash when fired or whether a person could generally tell the directionality of a shot from the muzzle flash. ¶ 10. To make his case, petitioner presented expert testimony from an experienced defense attorney, as well as the experimental results and testimony of two private investigators who tested a variety of firearms for evidence of muzzle flash. The PCR court found that No muzzle flash was observed in the firings. At one shot with the revolver, an apparent `cylinder flash' was seen. This is a flash from the area of the cylinder of a revolver and not from ... the muzzle. The original [bolt-action] rifle obviously did not have a cylinder. The PCR court found that these tests, as conducted, were not sufficiently similar to the conditions of the original incident and the guns tested were not similar enough to the gun used in the alleged assault to provide reliable results. The PCR court concluded that the tests would probably not have been admissible at trial. Testimony at the PCR hearing additionally established that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms held the actual weapon and would not permit petitioner's experts to use it in preparation for the PCR hearing because it was illegal, nor could they make an exact copy because of the gun's illegally shortened barrel. ¶ 11. One of petitioner's investigators also testified that he drove the route followed by the complaining witness and petitioner during the incident while trying to operate a bolt-action BB gun. He said that he was unable to operate the rifle with any success. The other investigator testified that an observer probably could not tell which direction a gun was aimed, even if he or she observed a muzzle flash. ¶ 12. Petitioner's attorney expert witness testified as to the performance of petitioner's trial attorney relative to the professional standards for criminal defense attorneys in Vermont. The expert testified that the trial attorney was ineffective because she made an unprofessional error in not deposing at least the complaining witness and the lead investigating officer, as well as by not investigating other possible witnesses to the incident. While the expert agreed that a lawyer need not depose all witnesses, he stated that pinning the complaining witness down on his version of events would outweigh any concerns over revealing defense strategy. Additionally, the expert faulted the trial attorney's trial strategy generally, opining that she failed to have a coherent theory of the case and ended up jumping between denial of shots being fired and an intent defense that focused on intoxication and emotional distress. ¶ 13. Finally, petitioner's expert was most critical of the trial attorney's failure to have the rifle tested for muzzle flash and to call her own expert to testify as to the flash and directionality. He discounted the State's contention that conducting such tests could have hurt the defense by giving the State more incriminating evidence or foreclosing certain arguments for the defense. He believed the defense had little other evidence on its side in this case; thus, proving there was no flash would be worth the risk. Furthermore, he explained, even without the muzzle-flash tests, defense counsel could have had an expert testify that a muzzle flash does not accurately indicate the direction of gunshots. The expert stated that cross-examining the State's witness, the police officer, in an effort to bring out evidence regarding whether the direction of a gunshot could be determined from a muzzle flash was grossly ineffective because she asked these questions without deposing the witness and because a proper level of representation would have involved using a defense expert on this question. ¶ 14. The State, too, called an experienced criminal defense attorney as an expert to testify that the trial attorney's representation, while not of the highest possible quality, was adequate. The State's own expert expressed doubt about the trial attorney's performance, specifically her decision to question the police officer about muzzle flash when she had not deposed him and did not know how he would answer the questions. However, he opined that testing firearms for muzzle flash in this case was not worth the risk of revealing incriminating evidence or foreclosing a defense strategy, especially when the trial attorney could instead focus on the State's failure to conduct such tests. ¶ 15. After hearing this evidence, the PCR court granted the petition, concluding that the trial attorney's failure to perform the tests for muzzle flash on the rifle and to have a firearms expert testify at trial fell below the standard of professionalism, and that, but for these two failures, petitioner was reasonably likely to have received a different result at trial.