☢ test - Í

enough time to secure its witnesses for similar transaction evidence against Pierce. Also, trial counsel advised Pierce that a continuance would keep him in jail longer before the trial would begin. Finally, it was not clear that an expert would be beneficial to Pierce. Trial counsel discussed these factors with Pierce and he agreed that a continuance was not in his best interest. This was a tactical decision made by trial counsel with Pierce's consent and does not amount to ineffective assistance.” Hinds v. State, 296 Ga.App. 80, 673 S.E.2d 598 (February 13, 2009). No ineffective assistance for failure to present testimony of expert witness on battered woman syndrome, where witness expressed doubt to counsel about viability of the defense. Citing Ballard v. State , 281 Ga. 232, 634 S.E.2d 401 (2006). Hampton v. State, 294 Ga.App. 857, 670 S.E.2d 502 (November 25, 2008). No ineffective assistance where counsel failed to seek funds for independent psychiatric evaluation. “Counsel testified that he did not request funds to hire an independent psychiatrist to evaluate Hampton because he found [state psychologist] Gunnin well qualified and somewhat sympathetic to the defense. This … was a reasonable strategic decision. See generally Winfield v. State, 278 Ga.App. 618, 621(2) (629 S.E.2d 548) (2006). Hampton also complains that the evaluation that Gunnin was requested to perform was deficient, because it regarded only his competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility and not his ability to understand his Fifth Amendment rights. But in her initial report, admitted in evidence at the Jackson v. Denno hearing, Gunnin did find that Hampton did not exhibit sufficient understanding of his rights against self-incrimination. And she testified that Hampton would have had difficulty understanding the Miranda warnings. Under these circumstances, we find no prejudice to the defense.” Thomas v. State, 284 Ga. 647, 670 S.E.2d 421 (November 17, 2008). “ The decision of how to deal with the presentation of an expert witness by the opposing side, including whether to present counter expert testimony, to rely upon cross-examination, to forego cross-examination and/or to forego development of certain expert opinion, is a matter of trial strategy which, if reasonable, cannot be the basis of a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Eason v. State, 283 Ga. 116(4) (657 S.E.2d 203) (2008); Smith v. State, 283 Ga. 237(2a) (657 S.E.2d 523) (2008); Wallace v. State, 272 Ga. 501(3)(b) (530 S.E.2d 721) (2000). Here, trial counsel filed an unsuccessful motion in limine to exclude the State's expert testimony and otherwise relied upon cross-examination to challenge the State's expert. At the hearing for the motion for new trial, trial counsel clarified his strategy, testifying that he did not want to challenge the State's firearms expert on the issue of the force necessary to pull the trigger because [defendant] had testified that he carried the gun in the waistband of his pants and it would not make sense to carry a weapon in that manner if it discharged with little force. Also, at the hearing for the motion for new trial, [defendant] presented testimony from his own expert who agreed with the State's expert that there were no means to test for the “human” factor (i.e., the door hitting [defendant]'s arm) in this case. Counsel's strategic decision to forego calling a defensive expert and to proceed with other tactics was reasonable and did not constitute deficient performance. Id.” Accord, Phillips v. State , 285 Ga. 213, 675 S.E.2d 1 (February 9, 2009); Hughes v. State , 289 Ga. 98, 709 S.E.2d 764 (April 18, 2011) (decision to attack State’s expert through cross-examination rather than hiring another expert was reasonable “in light of the extreme difficulty in extracting DNA evidence from burned biological material” available here); Gawlak v. State , 310 Ga.App. 757, 714 S.E.2d 354 (June 21, 2011) (decision to attack child interview techniques through cross rather than with expert not unreasonable); Brown (February 18, 2013), above; Dority v. State , 335 Ga.App. 83, 780 S.E.2d 129 (November 20, 2015). Davis v. State, 293 Ga.App. 799, 668 S.E.2d 290 (October 2, 2008). No ineffective assistance for failure to hire accident reconstructionist when defense was not cause of accident, but whether defendant was driver of vehicle in question. Smith v. State, 283 Ga. 237, 657 S.E.2d 523 (January 28, 2008). “‘A defendant is not constitutionally entitled to any certain level of effective assistance from experts that are reasonably selected by trial counsel,’” quoting Schofield v. Holsey, 281 Ga. 809(II) (642 S.E.2d 56) (2007). Nichols v. State, 288 Ga.App. 118, 653 S.E.2d 300 (September 17, 2007). No ineffective assistance where counsel failed to hire expert witness, “a forensic psychiatrist to challenge the techniques used by the police and DFCS to interview the child [molestation victim].” “Although such expert testimony concerning interviewing techniques of children is admissible in molestation cases, See Barlow v. State, 270 Ga. 54, 55 (507 S.E.2d 416) (1998), ‘[t]he decision on whether to call an expert witness is one of trial strategy.’ Weeks [ v. State, 270 Ga.App. 889, 894(3)(a) (608 S.E.2d 259) (2004)].” Accord, Towry v. State , 304 Ga.App. 139, 695 S.E.2d 683 (May 20, 2010); Haynes v. State , 326 Ga.App. 336, 756 S.E.2d 599 (March 19, 2014).