Court Opinion

ID: 9523996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:49:04.72189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:44.541201
License: Public Domain

DONALD W. STEINMETZ, J.
(dissenting). The issue presented for review in this case by both parties is whether defendant Hicks' Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated by his attorney's choice not to pursue DNA testing which could have resulted in exculpatory evidence. Although the issue on appeal was clearly formulated, the majority has determined that this court should instead answer an entirely different question: whether the real controversy of identification was fully tried. Despite the majority's attempt at avoiding the real controversy, it cannot evade the circularity of its own argument: its conclusion that the issue of identification was not fully tried is based ultimately on the fact that Hicks' attorney did not seek DNA testing. No matter how stated, this case revolves around the conduct of Hicks' attorney and whether his conduct resulted in prejudice to Hicks. Although, the trial court, the court of appeals and both parties understood this, the majority decided the case on the basis that the true issue had not been tried. This issue was not raised before this court.
Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be analyzed under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). In Strickland, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must establish that: *175(1) his counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Id. at 687
It is not necessary, however, to address whether Hicks' attorney's performance was deficient in this case since Hicks cannot meet the second prong of Strickland. Under the second prong, a defendant's Sixth Amendment right is not violated unless he proves that "the decision reached [by the jury] would have been different absent the [alleged] errors" of counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696. Considering the limited exculpatory value of the DNA testing and the abundance of other inculpatory evidence that was presented at trial, such a position is not tenable in this case.
The DNA test results, which the majority finds so significant, actually have limited exculpatory value. There were only two pubic hairs that were tested successfully, sample 012 and sample 013. The defendant's expert could not say that the defendant was excluded as the source of sample 012. The testing on this sample was completely inconclusive: it neither established nor discredited Hicks' guilt. As for sample 013, defendant's expert was perfectly clear in stating that Hicks could only be excluded from being the source of this sample if it was assumed that there was only one source of DNA present on the sample. However, Hicks' expert could not guarantee that there was not another source of DNA, such as blood or saliva, present. In fact, Hicks' expert did not even perform the test which could have determined this fact. The exculpatory value of sample 013 is purely conditional; it is still possible that Hicks was the source.
Sample 013's exculpatory value is lessened even further when one takes into account the possibility that the pubic hair could have been another person's. Although the victim testified that she had never had a *176black man in her apartment before the assault, the record clearly shows that many different people entered her apartment after the assault during the two weeks before the vacuum sweep discovered the hairs. Also, it is not inconceivable that another person's pubic hair was carried into the apartment by Hicks in some manner. Finally, it is also possible that pubic hair was present in the victim's apartment before she even moved in.
Considering all of these possibilities, the exculpatory value of the DNA testing is suspect at best. Even if it has some value, though, it cannot overcome the additional overwhelming inculpatory evidence that was presented at trial. First, the victim positively identified Hicks as her assailant two days after the assault in a police line-up. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of this identification; the victim testified she had ample opportunity to view Hicks during the assault. In fact, she remembered Hicks saying: "You've seen me. You've seen me ... If I'm going to go to jail for something, I may as well get something for it." Second, shortly after the assault, the victim spent two hours with a police sketch artist who produced a drawing of the assailant's face. This drawing bears an uncanny resemblance to Hicks. Third, a piece of Caucasian hair, which the State's expert identified as similar to the victim's, was found in the defendant's pants when he was arrested. Finally, Hicks, who lived upstairs in the apartment complex, testified that around the time of the incident he was home from work because he was "sick." Although the defense attempted to support this alibi with the testimony of his live-in girlfriend, it was significantly discredited by the State at trial. More importantly, even his girlfriend's testimony did not *177account for Hicks' whereabouts during the exact time of the assault.
Between the lack of exculpatory value of the DNA testing, and the abundance of other inculpatory evidence presented at trial, it is inconceivable that the lack of the DNA evidence resulted in prejudice great enough to alter the trial's outcome. This was the conclusion reached by the trial court, which had the opportunity to witness the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, and this is the only conclusion that can be reached by this author after carefully reviewing the record. As such, Hicks' Sixth Amendment claim should fail. Unfortunately, perhaps realizing the difficulty in finding ineffective assistance of counsel in this case, the majority has framed the issue as a question of identification and, in turn, has granted a new trial to man convicted as a rapist by 12 of his peers, which will require the victim to testify again as to this personally violent attack.
I am authorized to state that JUSTICE JON P. WILCOX joins this dissenting opinion.