People of Michigan v. Michael Dwayne Carver, 328157

Background

Defendant Michael Carver was convicted by a jury of first-degree criminal sexual conduct based primarily on the testimony of a then-five-year-old victim; sentence 25–50 years.
Victim initially gave a different account (blaming her three-year-old brother) after mother saw a speck of blood; mother’s repeated questioning led the victim to identify defendant, who lived in the home.
Defense at trial highlighted inconsistencies among the victim’s statements and elicited testimony from the forensic interviewer (Westfall) and lead detective (Higby); Higby testified she was "comfortable" an assault occurred.
On appeal the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to whether trial counsel (Jones) provided ineffective assistance by failing to consult or call an expert on child suggestibility; Dr. Daniel Swerdlow-Freed testified for the defense on suggestibility, source-monitoring, false memories, and risk factors for taint.
The trial court found Jones lacked sufficient knowledge of child-memory science, unreasonably declined to consult an available expert, and that this failure prejudiced the defense; it granted a new trial.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: counsel’s limited investigation fell below professional norms and there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different with expert evidence explaining suggestibility and false-memory risk factors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Carver)	Held
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to consult/call a child-suggestibility expert	Trial court erred: counsel’s investigation was adequate; jury instructions and cross-examination sufficed; no prejudice.	Counsel should have consulted/called an expert to explain suggestibility, source-monitoring, and false memories; failure prejudiced the defense.	Held for Carver: counsel’s failure to investigate and consult an available expert fell below objective standards and created a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
Whether expert testimony on child suggestibility was necessary or cumulative given standard credibility instructions	Expert unnecessary; credibility instruction (M Crim JI 3.6) and cross-examination were adequate.	Expert needed because suggestibility and false-memory phenomena are beyond common knowledge and could materially affect assessment of a very young witness.	Held for Carver: such topics are beyond common knowledge; expert testimony would have materially aided the jury.
Whether inconsistencies in victim’s statements alone provided an adequate defense strategy without expert support	Defense strategy to highlight inconsistencies was reasonable and sufficient.	Strategy was inadequate because inconsistencies did not negate central allegation and left defense forced to argue the child lied absent evidence of motive.	Held for Carver: without expert support counsel’s strategy was objectively unreasonable given the facts and available expert.
Whether prejudice was shown under Strickland (reasonable probability of different result)	No: jury believed victim; other evidence (phone records, medical exam) undermined parts of victim’s account; outcome not plausibly different.	Yes: expert testimony could have explained how a young child might form a false belief after suggestive questioning, supplying a non-lying explanation and materially altering juror evaluation.	Held for Carver: reasonable probability of different outcome—new trial warranted.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing ineffective-assistance standard)
People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (counsel unreasonable for failing to investigate multiple interviews/leading questioning; new trial warranted)
People v. Ackley, 497 Mich. 381 (failure to seek available expert left defense unsupported)
People v. Gioglio (On Remand), 296 Mich. App. 12 (standard of review for ineffective-assistance mixed question)
People v. Grissom, 492 Mich. 296 (abuse-of-discretion review for new-trial rulings)
People v. Pickens, 446 Mich. 298 (permissible trial strategies and limits of strategic choices)
People v. Grant, 470 Mich. 477 (reasonableness of strategy measured against adequate investigation)
People v. Bynum, 496 Mich. 610 (expert testimony may be necessary when matters are beyond common knowledge)
People v. Christel, 449 Mich. 578 (recognizing need for expert testimony to explain behaviors of very young victims)