James Britt v. State of Tennessee, W2016-00928-CCA-R3-PC

James Britt was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for the fatal shooting of his wife; sentenced to life; convictions affirmed on direct appeal and Tennessee Supreme Court denied review.
Key crime-scene facts: victim died from a contact gunshot wound behind the left ear; .357 revolver belonging to Britt was recovered on the bed; two fired cartridges were in the cylinder; TBI ballistics matched the bullet to Britt’s gun.
Neighbor Kristi Tackett testified she saw the couple fighting earlier and heard two gunshots; at trial she could not positively identify Britt in the courtroom.
Britt gave statements claiming the shooting was accidental (variously describing an intruder, tripping and the gun discharging, or an altercation causing the gun to fire); he admitted to shooting his wife but insisted it was accidental.
Post-conviction, Britt argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) inadequate cross-examination of Tackett and (2) failure to retain ballistics/blood-spatter experts to rebut the State’s theory that the gun was fired in contact with the victim’s head. He presented no expert testimony at the evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for inadequate cross-examination of Kristi Tackett	Britt: counsel should have more rigorously impeached Tackett’s ability to see/identify the alleged fight; stronger cross would undermine State’s narrative	State/Post-conviction: counsel did cross-examine Tackett; Tackett’s inability to ID Britt was before the jury; petitioner offered no specifics or live testimony showing what additional questioning would have produced	Denied — petitioner failed to show deficient performance or prejudice; claim speculative without testimony or specifics
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to retain ballistics or blood-spatter experts	Britt: experts could have shown the shooting occurred while both were standing, undermining contact-muzzle finding and State’s theory	State/Post-conviction: petitioner produced no expert at the evidentiary hearing, had not consulted experts pretrial, and offered only speculation about what experts would say	Denied — petitioner failed to prove deficiency or prejudice; absent expert testimony, court could not speculate on what expert evidence would have shown

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Goad v. State, 938 S.W.2d 363 (Tenn. 1996) (counsel performance judged by objective reasonableness under professional norms)
Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (post-conviction ineffective-assistance review is de novo with deference to trial court’s factual findings)
Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (appellate courts should not reweigh facts from evidentiary hearings)
Ruff v. State, 978 S.W.2d 95 (Tenn. 1998) (review of trial court’s application of law is de novo)
Tidwell v. State, 922 S.W.2d 497 (Tenn. 1996) (post-conviction factual findings are conclusive unless evidence preponderates otherwise)
Black v. State, 794 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (post-conviction courts may not speculate about what uncalled witnesses would have testified to)
Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930 (Tenn. 1975) (standards for effective assistance under Tennessee law)
Burns v. State, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999) (ineffective-assistance claims present mixed questions of law and fact)