P.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends his counsel was ineffective in the following five instances: (1) failure to request exclusion of the gunshot residue testimony because it was unreliable; (2) failure to call an expert to challenge the scientific value of Hooks’s gunshot residue testimony; (3) failure to adequately cross-examine Hooks; (4) failure to challenge Hooks’s “lack of scientific expertise and objectivity”; and (5) failure to introduce (instead of successfully excluding from evidence) defendant’s misdemeanor convictions from his first trial and the fact that marijuana was found near defendant when he was arrested. Defendant concludes his contentions with an argument that these five instances of counsel’s deficient performance were cumulatively prejudicial. As we explain, we disagree on all points. I Failure To Seek Exclusion Of Gunshot Residue Testimony Based On Unreliability Defendant contends defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to ask the court to exclude Hooks’s gunshot residue testimony as unreliable based on People v.

2 Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30. “In Kelly, the [California] Supreme Court held the admissibility of expert testimony based on ‘a new…