Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appellant argues trial counsel was ineffective for not retaining blood‑pattern expert; evidentiary hearing testimony deemed potentially outcome‑determinative
Summary
In Commonwealth v. Tompkins (24p26), defense counsel argued trial counsel’s failure to consult or call a blood‑stain pattern expert was manifestly unreasonable and prejudicial; the Commonwealth said trial strategy was reasonable and that the overall trial evidence would still support conviction.
The panel heard argument in a long‑running appeal where the defendant, Daniel Tompkins, contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to retain or present a blood‑stain pattern expert at his 2011 trial of charges arising from a violent single‑vehicle crash.
Stephen Gagne, for the Commonwealth, urged the court to defer to trial counsel’s strategic judgment, arguing counsel pursued a plausible defense theory that the blood evidence and other testimonial evidence did not require…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
