DEBELBOT v. THE STATE (Two Cases), 308 Ga. 165

Albert and Ashley Debelbot were convicted by a Muscogee County jury for the murder of their infant daughter, McKenzy; Dr. Lora Darrisaw (GBI medical examiner) testified McKenzy died of blunt‑force trauma constituting a criminal homicide.
The prosecution’s case was largely circumstantial: unrebutted expert testimony that the death was homicidal and unrebutted proof that only the parents had opportunity; there was little direct evidence identifying which parent inflicted the trauma.
At trial a jailhouse witness testified Albert said he left to buy drugs and that Ashley said she had spanked McKenzy; both defendants maintained neither harmed the child.
On appeal (Debelbot I, 305 Ga. 534) this Court previously found the evidence legally sufficient but called it a “close question” and remanded for further consideration of ineffective‑assistance claims; the trial court again denied relief.
On the second appeal the Debelbots argued, inter alia, that counsel were ineffective for (1) failing to call expert testimony rebutting Dr. Darrisaw and (2) failing to object when the prosecutor misstated the reasonable‑doubt standard in closing argument (arguing below a 50%+ or even lower probability could suffice).
The Court reversed the convictions because defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor’s gross misstatement of the reasonable‑doubt standard; the Court did not resolve the expert‑testimony claim on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor's closing that "you don't have to be 51% sure" (and similar quantifications) when defining "beyond a reasonable doubt"	Debelbots: counsel performed unreasonably by not objecting to an ‘‘egregious’’ and legally incorrect reduction of the State's burden, and that omission prejudiced the verdict	State: either no deficient performance or no resulting prejudice; State also argued procedural default for Ashley's late assertion	Held: counsel were deficient and prejudice shown because the misstatement was obviously wrong, uniquely harmful given the circumstantial 50/50 risk between parents; convictions reversed
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present expert witnesses to rebut the medical examiner	Debelbots: reasonably competent counsel would have offered rebuttal experts to challenge the homicide / blunt‑force conclusions	State: trial rulings and strategic choices justified the lack of experts (and issues were litigated below)	Held: Court did not decide this claim; reversal on the closing‑argument ground made it unnecessary though the Court expressed reservations about the trial court's rulings on experts

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (defense counsel’s duty regarding evidence and expert assistance)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (clarifying prejudice inquiry under Strickland)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (suppression of exculpatory evidence claim)
Debelbot v. State, 305 Ga. 534 (prior opinion in this case addressing sufficiency and remanding ineffective‑assistance claims)