Opinion ID: 2623595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Other Asserted Instance of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Marlow)

Text: Marlow contends his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with the admission of evidence concerning the serological testing of urine stains on Lynell Murray's clothing. Marlow notes that in a hearing prior to the testimony of criminalist Dan Gregonis, who performed the testing, the prosecutor stated he would not seek to introduce evidence of any testing beyond the base tests (identifying the urine as bodily fluid) and ABO typing, and that such testing would, in my opinion [make] Mr. Marlow look less culpable than the base evidence did in my opinion. . . . [ļ] But the record should be clear in case later on someone accuses me of trying to make Mr. Marlow more guilty than he was. . . . The prosecutor continued: I don't try the defense case in this case. I think it's going to look worse for Mr. Marlow the way they are asking me to do it than the way it is. The court observed, There are all sorts of tactical reasons for doing things in the presentation of the case, and asked Marlow's counsel to comment. After noting the necessity of a Kelly-Frye hearing (see People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240; Frye v. United States (D.C.Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013; see also People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 591, 34 Cal. Rptr.2d 663, 882 P.2d 321) on serological evidence going beyond ABO typing, counsel said: [The prosecutor], as he indicated, does not wish to proceed there[;] that is fine. I'm not asking him for advice on our tactics, and it is our belief that it is in Mr. Marlow's interest. Later in the hearing Marlow's counsel observed further: Our tactic has been dictated through the events of this trial that we are not putting up an affirmative defense to the Huntington Beach incident. Before the jury, Gregonis testified that test results were inconclusive as to the identity of the source of the urine. In response to examination by Marlow's counsel, Gregonis acknowledged the stains on Murray's clothing were consistent with the clothing's coming into contact with, and absorbing, a preexisting urine deposit. In declining to present additional serological evidence, Marlow's counsel clearly considered his client's interests and entertained a tactical purpose to which he alluded on the record. Perhaps he sought to minimize the significance of the stains rather than focus the jury's attention on them, as surely would occur if additional evidence of forensic testing of the urine stains was presented. In any event, because this is not a case in which there simply could be no satisfactory explanation for counsel's action, Marlow's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails for purposes of this appeal. ( People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 266-267, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134.)