Opinion ID: 6358387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to retain an eyewitness identification expert

Text: Brown next argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to hire an eyewitness identification expert. He submitted with his petition a report from an eyewitness identification expert, which he contends could have successfully been employed in dismantling the eyewitness testimony of, inter alia, Smith and Ellison. In support of this claim, Brown refers this Court to its decisions in Commonwealth v. Walker , 625 Pa. 450 , 92 A.3d 766 , 792-93 (2014), in which we held that the admission of expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification is no longer per se impermissible in our Commonwealth, and Commonwealth v. Cousar , 638 Pa. 171 , 154 A.3d 287 , 307 n.11 (2017), in which we held that the testimony of an identification expert could be utilized on remand, even though the trial occurred before our decision in Walker . Id. at 792-93. At the time of Brown's trial in 2006, eyewitness identification testimony was inadmissible in this Commonwealth. See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Spence , 534 Pa. 233 , 627 A.2d 1176 , 1182 (1993). As this Court has recognized, it is not ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to predict (and hence comply with) future changes in governing law. Commonwealth v. Mason , 634 Pa. 359 , 130 A.3d 601 , 650 (2017). Our decision in Cousar did not signal any different understanding in this regard, as in that case we held only that because the case was being remanded for further proceedings on other grounds (ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to cross-examine based upon a prior inconsistent statement), counsel could, if appropriate, offer eyewitness identification evidence during the remand proceedings. Cousar , 154 A.3d at 307 n.11.  Remaining Penalty Phase Issues