Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; Firearm identification; Expert testimony; MRE 702; Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc; Comparing United States v Brown (7th Cir); Counter expert; Motion to suppress; Search warrant affidavit; Probable cause; Totality of the circumstances; Hearsay

The court held that defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel arising from defense counsel’s decisions not to pursue a counter expert to rebut the prosecution’s firearm and toolmarks testimony, or to seek suppression of the murder weapon. He was convicted of second-degree murder and felony-firearm for shooting and killing the victim during an altercation at a block party outside of a bar. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. First, “excluding firearm match testimony on the basis of the unreliability of its underlying methods would be unprecedented, and defense counsel would have been asking the [trial] court to venture into uncharted waters. Declining to make such a request cannot be described as an unprofessional error.” In addition, defense “counsel’s decision not to call a counter expert to challenge the validity of the prosecution’s firearm identification evidence was a sound exercise of trial strategy.” Calling a “counter expert to cast doubt on whether defendant’s gun was the murder weapon would have undercut this strategy.” Further, defendant failed to show “that this choice of strategy was the result of an incomplete investigation.” Finally, the search warrant affidavit “provided a substantial basis for a finding of probable cause.” Affirmed.