Daniel Esparza v. Leland McEwen

MEMORANDUM

Daniel Esparza was convicted of second degree murder. In this appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Esparza argues that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to highlight the inconsistencies in the state’s ballistic evidence; and (2) failing to adequately investigate reports that another person had been identified as the shooter.

1. There were two different types of casings at the crime scene, including two .40 caliber spent casings directly across the street from where the victim was shot and two 9-millimeter spent casings approximately 400 feet away. The ballistics evidence established that the Glock handgun found in Esparza’s possession (three weeks later) had fired the .40 caliber spent casings at the crime scene directly across from the victim. There was, however, evidence to support an argument that the bullet which struck the victim may have been fired from a 9-millimeter weapon. This evidence was developed by petitioner’s trial counsel during cross-examination of the ballistics expert and, in his summation, he called attention to both the location of the shooting and the fact that the 9-millimeter casings…