physical evidence represented a crucial part of the states otherwise overwhelmingly circumstantial case, trial counsel was constitutionally required to make an effort to challenge the states interpretation of this evidence. Indeed, counsel recognized their responsibility to do so shortly before trial, by requesting funds to retain a fingerprint expert, which request was granted by the trial court. Nevertheless, halfway through the trial, counsel still had not retained an expert, and, in fact, never did so (R 881), leaving the states interpretation of this evidence unchallenged. The importance of having an expert is highlighted by a review of the testimony and cross-examination of the states fingerprint expert, Carol Curlee. Ms. Curlee made only one fingerprint identification of Mr. Windsor, that on the cigarette butt. On cross-examination Ms. Curlee admitted that this was only a partial print, and that she could not recall how many ‘points of similarity there were between that print and Mr. Windsors file prints (R 936-937). A defense expert could, in all likelihood, have explained to the jury the weaknesses in Ms. Curlees identification, given these admissions on her part.
Posted on: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 19:43:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015