Opinion ID: 2159715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Refusal to Consider the Report of David Bruck

Text: Defendant argues that the PCR court's denial of his PCR petition must be reversed due to the court's exclusion of the testimony and report of David Bruck, who was offered as an expert in capital defense litigation. The question is whether the PCR court abused its discretion in excluding Bruck's opinion without considering the content of Bruck's report and, if so, whether that error requires reversal of the lower court's ultimate disposition. Defense counsel argued to the PCR court that Bruck, an attorney with over twenty years of experience working in the area of capital defense, should be allowed to present his opinion on the norms for competent capital defense attorneys prevailing at the time of defendant's sentencing retrial. Counsel argued that the defense should be permitted to put an expert on so that a record is made as to the right way to do this. Counsel rejected the State's characterization of Bruck's testimony as calling for a cookie-cutter approach, but rather described it as outlining certain fundamentals of capital defense litigation. The PCR court declined to consider Bruck's testimony and report, as well as any other testimony from other PCR experts on the proper relationship between capital counsel and defense experts. The court concluded, I don't need a lecture from a lawyer as to capital presentations. I presided over the cases. You may argue law to me. I can understand that. But I don't need to hear a separate presentation on that subject. The court added that defendant's case is not complicated either in terms of its proofs or presentation, and that if the content of the expert testimony is within the court's knowledge and experience, then there is no requirement to hear it. We agree with defendant that the PCR court erred when it refused to consider Bruck's opinion. The field of capital defense litigation is a constantly evolving, specialized area of the law. See Bailey v. State, 309 S.C. 455, 424 S.E. 2d 503, 507 (1993) (quoting capital defense expert on specialized area of capital litigation). All judges, irrespective of their experience level, can be informed by such information. Thus, when PCR counsel offers that form of testimony in a capital case, the court should hear it or at least consider it in written form. In this case, however, in view of our earlier conclusion that retrial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel, the PCR court's error was harmless. Significantly, Bruck's report focuses solely on Strickland/Marshall's first prong. Because defendant ultimately has failed to satisfy the second prong of the test, Bruck's opinion would not alter our disposition. Thus, no remand or reversal is required in these circumstances. D.