☢ test - Í

of death. Dewberry suggests no such reason in his post-conviction attack on the effectiveness of his attorney. Funds are not made available for speculative inquiries. ‘[A] request for funds by an indigent must create a reasonable probability that expert assistance is necessary to the defense and that without such assistance the defendant's trial would be rendered fundamentally unfair. [Cits.]’ Tatum v. State, 259 Ga. 284, 286(2), 380 S.E.2d 253 (1989). Even with the benefit of hindsight, Dewberry is unable to show that an independent examination of the victim's body would result in any possible exculpatory finding. It follows that his trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request funds for the speculative reautopsy of the victim.” 45. EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION ISSUES Powers v. State, 314 Ga.App. 733, 725 S.E.2d 848 (March 12, 2012). Rape and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failing to object to victim’s in-court identification of defendant. “Powers' defense was that the victim consented to sexual activity; therefore identification was not an issue at trial .” Gadson v. State, 289 Ga. 117, 707 S.E.2d 868 (April 18, 2011). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance “for failing to offer the testimony of an expert on the vagaries of eyewitness identification, [as] appellant did not show that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance, in that he did not call any eyewitness identification expert to testify at the hearing on his motion for new trial or provide a legally recognized substitute for such an expert's testimony. See Jennings v. State, 288 Ga. 120(6)(d) (702 S.E.2d 151) (2010).” Davis v. State, 286 Ga. 74, 686 S.E.2d 249 (November 2, 2009). No ineffective assistance where counsel made strategic decision not to present expert testimony on eyewitness identification. “The type of expert testimony Davis contends trial counsel should have offered, i.e., testimony regarding the effects of stress and suggestiveness on eyewitness memory, would have been inconsistent with counsel's theory that Martin intentionally misidentified Davis in order to shield himself.” Accord, Gawlak v. State , 310 Ga.App. 757, 714 S.E.2d 354 (June 21, 2011) (expert testimony that victim “behavior was inconsistent with that of a child who had been sexually abused … would have been inconsistent with counsel's defense theory that the child was in fact sexually abused by someone other than Gawlak.”). Battise v. State, 295 Ga.App. 833, 673 S.E.2d 262 (January 15, 2009). 1. No ineffective assistance for failing to cross- examine detective on studies showing no link between the accuracy of an eyewitness’s identification with the witness’s confidence level in his identification. Detective here only showed the victim a single photograph of defendant, and didn’t prepare a photographic lineup because the victim “had known Battise for years” and “had no doubt that Battise was the person who ran out of his girlfriend’s apartment on the night of the incident.” “Trial counsel's tactical decision about how to most effectively cross-examine the State's witnesses at trial did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. Simpson v. State, 277 Ga. 356, 359(4)(b) (589 S.E.2d 90) (2003).” 2. “Battise argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek to suppress Gadson's out-of-court and in-court identifications of Battise. At the hearing on the motion for a new trial, trial counsel testified that he did not move to exclude the identification evidence because he thought the identification procedure ‘fit into a pattern that my client ... was a victim of very sloppy police work.’ Given that trial counsel ‘made a strategic choice not to attempt to suppress the identification evidence, but instead to attack the identification testimony on cross-examination,’ Battise cannot establish that his trial counsel was ineffective. Clay v. State, 232 Ga.App. 656, 657(1)(a) (503 S.E.2d 560) (1998).” Further, based on “the totality of the circumstances and especially the fact that Gadson had known Battise for years, Battise has not made a strong showing the identification evidence would have been excluded.” 46. FAILURE TO APPOINT COUNSEL See subheading DENIAL OF COUNSEL, above 47. FELONY STATUS, FAILURE TO STIPULATE Poole v. State, 291 Ga. 848, 734 S.E.2d 1 (November 5, 2012). Convictions for murder and related offenses affirmed; no ineffective assistance in failing to stipulate to defendant’s status as a convicted felon “ since appellant's prior convictions were not likely to inflame the jury's passions to the point that the State's entitlement to choose the evidence needed to prove its case needed to be abrogated. See Tanksley v. State, 281 Ga.App. 61(2), 635 S.E.2d 353 (2006) (burglary conviction not likely to inflame the jury).” 48. GENERALLY Adams v. State, 322 Ga.App. 782, 746 S.E.2d 261 (July 10, 2013). Burglary conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance shown despite defendant’s claims that counsel “was 91 years old, that he drank an alcoholic beverage during lunch each day of his three-day trial, and that he was so ill and hard of hearing that he could not effectively advocate for him at trial.”