California Court Of Appeal Rules That Lack Of Expert Identification Witness Was Not Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
In People v. Datt, the Sixth District of the California Court of Appeal held that appellant trial counsel’s failure to present an expert witness in a trial where an uncorroborated identification is at issue did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
On September 30, 2007, at 2:00 or 2:30 a.m., Santa Clara County Sheriff Ramon Marquez testified that he observed a “suspicious” looking Honda Civic with two people who appeared to be Hispanic inside. Marquez testified that he checked the registration, determined that it had expired, and attempted to initiate a traffic stop. Marquez testified that the vehicle sped off, but the driver eventually abandoned the vehicle and fled on foot.
As the driver exited his vehicle, Marquez testified that the driver was about 20 feet away and had about 3.5 seconds to look directly at him. Marquez stated that driver was an adult male, around six feet tall, slender, and wearing dark pants and a black “windbreaker-type” jacket. According to Marquez, the driver had a ponytail and a “very distinctive look.” Marquez also testified that the driver’s skin was darker than he originally thought.
As other police units arrived to assist in the search for the driver, Marquez testified that he described the driver as black, six feet to six feet three inches tall, wearing dark clothing. Marquez testified that he did not mention the ponytail in his description to the search units.
Police found the driver, appellant Yogeshwar Yogi Datt, 30 minutes after the search began. Marquez testified that he was wearing dark pants and a black jacket, but was only five foot ten inches tall. Marquez also testified that Datt appeared to be Middle Eastern or Indian, not African-American.
Datt’s trial counsel rested without presenting evidence. During closing argument, Datt’s trial counsel attempted to discredit Marquez’ identification of Datt by emphasizing the dark early morning hour, the stress of a high-speed chase, the distance between Marquez and Datt when Datt abandoned his vehicle, and the discrepancies between Marquez’ initial descriptions of Datt and his actual appearance.
On appeal, Datt claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to call an expert witness to testify to the possible inaccuracy of Marquez’ identification.
The court of appeal affirmed, holding that it was not necessary to call an expert identification witness for every uncorroborated witness identification. The court found that the jury instruction set forth multiple relevant factors to guide the jury in determining whether an identification was credible, and defendant’s trial counsel made specific reference to these factors.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel. Ineffective assistance of counsel occurs when the defense attorney’s representation is deficient, meaning that the representation fell below the reasonable standard expected of attorneys. The law presumes that an attorney’s representation is not deficient, so this is a high standard for the defendant to overcome. Furthermore, the deficiency must have prejudiced the defendant, meaning that if representation had not been deficient, the outcome of the case would have been different.
If you or someone you know is facing a criminal trial, you need an attorney who will explore every possible defense. If you or someone you know has already gone through trial, then you will need a competent appeals attorney who will review the trial record and identify any errors made by trial counsel or the court. We have over 40 years experience in all aspects of criminal trial, and we will zealously represent you at trial and on appeal. Call us today at (888) 280-6839. We will be there when you call.
