936 N.W.2d 117
S.D.2019Background
- Brad Reay was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder in the 2006 stabbing death of his wife, Tami, and sentenced to life without parole; Reay claimed at trial he only concealed the crime after his daughter Haylee murdered Tami.
- Key forensic evidence: a dashed linear abrasion on Tami’s left breast (argued at trial to be a bite matching Haylee’s gapped teeth), a towel with Tami’s and an unidentified DNA profile found in Reay’s vehicle, and a blood‑stained tarp with slits found near the body.
- Trial counsel Tim Rensch did not retain or call expert witnesses on odontology (bite marks), DNA testing, or tool/ puncture marks; instead he relied on the State’s pathologist testimony and a defense strategy emphasizing surprise and investigation flaws to suggest Haylee as the perpetrator.
- Reay later filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to engage those experts; the habeas court denied relief but issued a certificate of probable cause limited to the IAC claims.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the denial under Strickland, concluded Rensch’s decisions were reasonable tactical choices, found no prejudice, and affirmed the habeas denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not retaining experts (bite mark, DNA, tool marks) | Reay: Rensch’s failure to hire experts left key physical evidence unexplained and deprived Reay of a possibly exculpatory, expert‑backed defense; cumulative omissions were per se ineffective | State/Reay’s counsel: Strategic nonuse avoided alerting prosecutors, prevented a damaging ‘battle of experts,’ preserved surprise, and avoided risk that testing would undermine the defense | Court: Affirmed denial of habeas relief — counsel’s choices were reasonable tactics and Reay failed both Strickland prongs (no deficient performance; no reasonable probability of different outcome) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (discusses deference to counsel and role of experts in IAC claims)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (framework for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Madetzke v. Dooley, 2018 S.D. 38, 912 N.W.2d 350 (standard of review for habeas IAC claims)
- Jenner v. Dooley, 1999 S.D. 20, 590 N.W.2d 463 (presumption that counsel was competent)
- Knecht v. Weber, 2002 S.D. 21, 640 N.W.2d 491 (prejudice requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Weddell v. Weber, 2000 S.D. 3, 604 N.W.2d 274 (definition of reasonable probability that undermines confidence in result)
- Huber v. State, 2010 S.D. 63, 789 N.W.2d 283 (treatment of expert testimony admissibility in South Dakota)
- Randall v. Weber, 2002 S.D. 149, 655 N.W.2d 92 (courts should not second‑guess reasonable tactical decisions)
- Sprik v. Class, 1997 S.D. 134, 572 N.W.2d 824 (counsel’s investigation and consideration of defenses relevant to IAC analysis)
- New v. Weber, 1999 S.D. 125, 600 N.W.2d 568 (rejecting cumulative error where individual errors are insufficient)