Summary
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the grant of post-conviction relief to Randy McGowan based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that counsel's cross-examination of a witness and failure to present a blood-spatter expert did not prejudice McGowan, vacated the judgment, and remanded for entry of judgment denying the petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel's failure to follow up on two questions during cross-examination of Jamie Merrill constituted ineffective assistance that prejudiced McGowan.
- Whether trial counsel's failure to investigate and present blood-spatter expert testimony constituted ineffective assistance that prejudiced McGowan.
- Whether the Superior Court properly granted post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial on those grounds.
Holdings
- Even assuming that trial counsel's failure to follow up on Merrill's denial of remembering the alleged accusations constituted deficient performance, the omission caused no substantial prejudice and did not deprive McGowan of a fair trial.
- Counsel's failure to present a blood-spatter expert did not constitute prejudicial ineffective assistance because the proposed testimony could show only that the victim was crouched or squatting, not that he was aggressively lunging at McGowan or acting in self-defense.
- A court may address the prejudice prong first and need not decide whether counsel's performance was deficient when the defendant fails to establish prejudice.
Key quotations
“The Supreme Court's test, as set forth in Strickland, holds that: A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction . . . has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” (496-497)
“The prejudice, if any, from McGowan's trial attorney's failure to present the testimony of a blood spatter expert witness at trial was insubstantial because the testimony could not establish that the victim was in an aggressive posture at the time he was shot.” (501)
Factual background
McGowan was convicted of shooting and killing his former girlfriend's boyfriend at McGowan's residence. At trial, counsel cross-examined the former girlfriend about alleged statements that McGowan was a convicted felon and had escaped responsibility for prior murders, but did not introduce follow-up evidence concerning those statements. Counsel also did not present a blood-spatter expert. Post-conviction experts agreed that the victim was crouched or squatting when shot, but the evidence could not establish that the victim was lunging aggressively at McGowan or acting as the aggressor.
Procedural history
McGowan was convicted by a jury of murder in 1999 and sentenced to twenty-eight years' imprisonment. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction in a memorandum decision. McGowan then filed a post-conviction petition and amended petition. After two evidentiary hearings, the Superior Court found that he had not proven fifteen claims but granted relief on claims concerning trial counsel's cross-examination of Jamie Merrill and failure to secure a blood-spatter expert. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated that judgment and remanded for entry of an order denying the petition.
Remand instructions
Remand for entry of a judgment or order denying McGowan's amended petition for post-conviction relief.