Harrington v. Richter

Richter (defendant) was convicted of murder and attempted murder after a trial centered on disputed forensic blood evidence: the prosecution argued the victim was shot on a couch, while the defense argued he was shot in self-defense in a doorway and later moved, pointing to a pool of blood at the doorway. Prosecution experts testified the blood pattern on the victim's face made it unlikely he had been moved, and that a doorway blood sample could belong to the surviving victim but not the deceased; Richter's attorney cross-examined these experts to expose weaknesses rather than retaining his own blood-spatter experts. After conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and habeas relief was denied in state court, Richter's federal habeas petition, claiming ineffective assistance for failing to consult blood experts, was denied by the district court and initially by a Ninth Circuit panel, but the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing and reversed.