The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v Ackley shows
just how crucial it is for defense lawyers to adequately investigate their
client’s case and make good use of expert witnesses.
Otherwise, defense attorneys risk an ineffective assistance
of counsel claim.
The defendant in Ackley
was convicted of first-degree child abuse and felony murder after his
girlfriend’s 3-year-old daughter died of a head injury while in his care. Five
experts testified for the prosecution that the child’s death was caused by
blunt force trauma and non-accidental shaking. The defendant maintained that the
child had accidentally fallen out of bed and he found her lying on the floor. The
defense, however, presented no experts to support this theory.
Defense counsel did contact
one doctor as a possible expert. That doctor indicated he was not in agreement
with the defense’s theory in the case, and gave defense counsel the name of a
forensic pathologist to contact. However, defense counsel never got in touch
with the forensic pathologist. Nor did defense counsel read any treatises or
other scholarly articles about the medical issues involved in the case (i.e.,
shaken baby syndrome and abusive head trauma). Instead, defense counsel said
that while it may have been “prudent” for him to have examined the information that’s
available, it “wasn’t the strategy.”
The case came before the Michigan Court of Appeals twice.
The first time, the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing under People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973).
After the defendant was granted a new trial, the prosecution appealed. The Courtof Appeals then held the defendant was not entitled to a new trial
because defense counsel’s decision not to use an expert was part of the trial
strategy.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the justices reversed in a
unanimous opinion written by Justice Bridget M. McCormack.
Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant’s right to an
attorney implicitly includes the notion that the lawyer’s performance will meet
an “objective standard of reasonableness,” the Supreme Court explained. In Ackley, defense counsel did not have
sufficient information to justify his decision to not use an expert witness,
the high court said.
In order to determine whether an expert’s testimony is worthwhile,
defense counsel must consult with experts, the Supreme Court noted. While this does
not mean that every expert must be consulted, the high court said that, in Ackley, it was not reasonable for
defense counsel to stop looking for expert witnesses after only one potential
candidate was interviewed.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case
centered on the testimony of five expert witnesses. Therefore, by failing to
adequately investigate and present expert testimony to rebut the prosecution’s five
experts, defense counsel did not meet the “objective standard of reasonableness,”
the high court ruled.
Accordingly, the Supreme
Court vacated the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.
Labels: appeals, appellate advocacy, ineffective assistance of counsel, michigan supreme court, People v Ginther, Sixth Amendment
