Dugas v. Coplan
428 F.3d 317, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 23511, 2005 WL 2840535 (2005)
Rule of Law:
Under the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel, an attorney renders deficient performance by failing to consult a scientific expert or adequately educate themselves when challenging the prosecution's central scientific evidence, and such failure warrants habeas relief if it prejudices the outcome.
Facts:
- Peter Dugas was the manager and part-owner of a grocery store in Nashua, New Hampshire, which suffered a major fire in October 1998.
- Fire investigators determined the fire was arson, based on burn patterns and chemical analysis detecting 'medium petroleum distillates' and 'normal alkanes' on papers in the basement.
- Dugas hired Ray Raimo, an experienced criminal defense attorney who admitted to having no training in arson investigation or science beyond high school chemistry.
- Raimo visited the fire scene and spoke with state experts but decided not to hire a defense arson expert or independent consultant.
- Raimo pursued a defense strategy arguing that the fire was not arson, and alternatively, that if it was arson, someone else committed it.
- At trial, Raimo attempted to cross-examine the state's scientific experts regarding the chemical evidence and fire origins but lacked the technical knowledge to do so effectively.
- Dugas admitted on the stand that he returned to the store shortly after closing, contradicting his initial statements to police.
- Following his conviction, Dugas obtained a new expert who identified potential flaws in the state's chemical analysis, suggesting the chemicals found could have been from innocuous sources like pesticides or ink.
Procedural Posture:
- Dugas was convicted of arson in New Hampshire Superior Court.
- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
- Dugas filed a motion for a new trial in state Superior Court alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The state Superior Court denied the motion for a new trial.
- The New Hampshire Supreme Court declined to review the denial of the new trial motion.
- Dugas filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
- The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment for the Warden, denying the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defense attorney's failure to consult an independent expert or adequately self-educate regarding the prosecution's central scientific evidence constitute ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Lipez
Yes, counsel's failure to consult an expert regarding the core scientific evidence constituted deficient performance. The court reasoned that while attorneys are not required to hire experts in every case, Raimo's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because the 'not arson' defense was critical to his client's case. Raimo admitted he lacked knowledge of arson forensics, yet he abandoned the investigation into the scientific evidence without a reasonable tactical justification. The court rejected the state court's finding that this was a 'strategic decision,' noting that a strategy based on ignorance is not a valid legal tactic. Furthermore, the court found the state court's conclusion—that hiring an expert posed a 'peril' of disclosure to the prosecution—was an unreasonable application of the law. Regarding prejudice, the court held that while the issue was close, the potential for an expert to challenge the chemical analysis (proving the chemicals could be innocent items like bug spray) might have swayed the jury. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if this deficiency actually prejudiced the outcome.
Dissent - Judge Howard
No, the state court's determination that counsel acted competently was reasonable and should be upheld. The dissent argued that Raimo was an experienced attorney who conducted a thorough pretrial investigation, including visiting the scene and interviewing state experts. Judge Howard contended that Raimo made a calculated tactical decision to allocate resources to the 'identity' defense (that someone else did it) rather than spending money on an expert who likely would have confirmed the state's findings. The dissent warned that the majority's decision effectively creates a new rule requiring defense counsel to hire 'counter-experts' in almost every case involving prosecution experts, which would burden the justice system.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'duty to investigate' under Strickland v. Washington in the context of scientific evidence. It establishes that a defense attorney cannot claim a 'tactical' reason for failing to investigate the core scientific underpinnings of the prosecution's case, especially when the attorney lacks personal expertise in that field. The ruling suggests that when science is the cornerstone of a conviction (like arson or DNA), the Sixth Amendment effectively mandates that defense counsel either become proficient in that science or hire someone who is. This prevents attorneys from 'flying blind' during cross-examination and ensures that scientific evidence is subjected to meaningful adversarial testing.
