State of Arizona v. Vaughn Miles Denz, 232 Ariz. 441

Background

Denz was convicted after a jury trial of child abuse and two counts of aggravated assault for severe injuries to his infant (skull fractures, torn frenulum, liver and spleen lacerations, bruised adrenal gland, healing rib fractures) and sentenced to concurrent terms (longest 18 years). His convictions were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
Denz testified he accidentally dropped the infant; state medical experts testified the injuries were inconsistent with that explanation and some abdominal injuries required intentional force.
Post-conviction, Denz claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult or present testimony from an independent medical expert and for failing to present character witnesses; he also raised an actual-innocence claim and a multiplicity claim.
At the Rule 32 evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified he interviewed the State’s three experts, believed their testimony was speculative, and chose to rely on cross-examination of those experts rather than retain a defense expert; he acknowledged lack of medical training and limited child-abuse experience and that he would have presented a defense expert if the expert supported Denz.
An independent forensic pathologist (submitted by Denz) would have testified that the abdominal injuries were consistent with deceleration/fall injuries, some skull findings might not be fractures, and imaging was not specific for non-accidental injury.
The trial court denied relief, finding counsel’s decision was a reasoned tactical choice and that Denz was not prejudiced; the Court of Appeals granted review, concluded counsel’s failure to consult an independent medical expert was not a reasoned strategic decision and prejudiced Denz, and ordered a new trial. The court also held Denz’s actual-innocence claim was not precluded but failed on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Denz)	Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Court)	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to consult/present an independent medical expert	Counsel’s failure to consult an independent expert was uninformed and below professional norms given counsel’s lack of medical knowledge; an expert’s testimony contradicted the State’s medical evidence and would have created reasonable doubt	Counsel made a reasoned tactical decision to rely on cross-examination of the State’s experts and feared a hired defense expert or a “battle of experts” could harm the defense; no prejudice shown	Court held counsel’s decision was not a reasoned strategic choice (given lack of investigation, expertise, and available funds); deficient performance and prejudice shown; new trial ordered
Whether Denz’s newly proffered expert and character evidence established actual innocence (Rule 32.1(h))	The pathologist’s report and character letters establish evidence that would show no reasonable factfinder would convict	Trial court treated some claims as precluded and rejected actual-innocence claim as not proving innocence beyond reasonable doubt	Court held the actual-innocence claim was not precluded but the new evidence did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard to establish innocence; claim denied

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within wide range of reasonable professional assistance)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference under AEDPA; trial strategy and expert evidence context)
Dugas v. Coplan, 428 F.3d 317 (1st Cir.) (counsel ineffective where lack of scientific understanding and no independent expert was obtained)
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir.) (decisions not to hire experts ordinarily fall within trial strategy)
Towns v. Smith, 395 F.3d 251 (6th Cir.) (strategic decision unreasonable when counsel fails to investigate options)
State v. Castaneda, 150 Ariz. 382 (Arizona 1986) (remedy for ineffective assistance: new trial)
State v. Schurz, 176 Ariz. 46 (discussing deference to counsel’s tactical choices)
State v. Gerlaugh, 144 Ariz. 449 (strategic choices need some reasoned basis)