James Kulbicki v. State of Maryland
Court of Appeals, Battaglia, Filed Dec. 17, 2015,
Motion to remand for further argument denied (following a sharp reversal by the USSC in Maryland v. James Kulbicki). Summary here

In a 2014 opinion the Court of Appeals found counsel constitutionally deficient for failing to “fully explore” a report drafted by a witness that was “at odds with the scientific method.”

J. McDonald drafted a dissent, noting that “it does not suffice to recite [the Strickland] criteria. A court must apply them.”

And in Maryland v. James Kulbicki the Supreme Court agreed. (“Applying [the Strickland] standard in name only, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that James Kulbicki’s defense attorneys were unconstitutionally ineffective. We summarily reverse.”)

The USSC noted that “Counsel is unconstitutionally ineffective if his performance is both deficient, meaning his errors are “so serious” that he no longer functions as “counsel,” and prejudicial, meaning his errors deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” Citing Strickland.

The USSC concluded that “Counsel did not perform deficiently by dedicating their time and focus to elements of the defense that did not involve poking methodological holes in a then-uncontroversial mode of ballistics analysis.”