Whether trial counsel's failure to consult and call an expert witness in the field of accident reconstruction was objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms

QUESTION PRESENTED The Sixth Amendment guarantees effective assistance of counsel. “Criminal cases will arise where the only reasonable and available defense strategy requires consultation with experts or introduction of expert evidence.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 106, 131 S. Ct. 770, 788 (2011). Katie was charged in connection with a hit and run. Trial counsel failed to investigate the use of expert accident reconstruction testimony in her defense, resulting in the State presenting uncontested evidence regarding the mechanics of the accident at trial. Following her conviction, postconviction investigation produced accident reconstruction experts who opined that, with a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, Katie’s vehicle was not involved in the accident and the State’s case theory violated the laws of physics. Further, expert attorney witnesses opined that trial counsel’s failure to investigate the use of accident reconstruction experts fell below prevailing professional norms in Montana. Finally, trial counsel averred that her failure to engage such an expert witness was not strategic. Despite this evidence, the Montana Supreme Court found that trial counsel’s performance was not objectively unreasonable. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687— 691, 1048. Ct. 2052, 2064-2066 (1984). The question presented is: Whether trial counsel’s failure to consult and call an expert witness in the field of accident reconstruction was objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms.