People v. Smith: Forensic Pathology, Appellate Investigation, and the Missing Defense Expert

A criminal appeal is not always limited to finding a legal error on the pages of a trial transcript. Sometimes the more important question is what never made it into the trial record at all.

• Who was never interviewed?
• What evidence was never investigated?
• What expert was never consulted?
• And what would the jury have heard if the defense had properly developed that evidence before trial?

The post-conviction litigation in People v. Mario Smith presented precisely that problem. This article is Part II of the first Smith article discussing the reversal of the life without parole sentence in this case.

Michigan criminal appellate attorney James Czarnecki represented Mario Smith in post-conviction proceedings under MCR 6.500 over 10 years after Smith had been convicted of first-degree felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He used the criminal appeal process to attack Smith’s conviction and sentence.

Czarnecki’s representation ultimately involved two very different constitutional issues.

The first involved Smith’s juvenile life-without-parole sentence. Czarnecki raised and preserved the argument that Miller v. Alabama should apply retroactively—an argument that ultimately benefited Smith after the United States Supreme Court decided Montgomery v. Louisiana. The Michigan Supreme Court subsequently vacated Smith’s murder sentence and remanded for resentencing.

But there was another significant part of the case. It concerned the medical evidence underlying the murder conviction itself.

And it raised an important question about ineffective assistance of counsel when a criminal prosecution depends heavily upon forensic evidence but the defense goes to trial without its own forensic expert.

The Medical Evidence Was Central to the Murder Case

Smith’s case involved the death of an infant.

According to the Michigan Court of Appeals’ original opinion, the prosecution relied upon medical testimony to establish that the child’s death resulted from blunt-force trauma.

The defense advanced a different theory involving the child’s medical treatment and aspiration of barium before her death.

Medical records concerning the child’s treatment were provided to the defense shortly before trial. The Court of Appeals noted that the records reflected that the child had aspirated some barium while undergoing medical treatment.

The prosecution’s witnesses rejected the proposition that medical malpractice and barium ingestion caused the child’s death.

A treating physician testified that the death resulted from severe injury to the chest and abdomen. The individual who performed the autopsy likewise attributed the death to blunt-force abdominal trauma.

That medical testimony was critical.

But the trial lawyer did not present its own forensic pathologist at trial.

Trial Counsel Recognized the Need for an Expert—But Too Late

The record was particularly significant because trial counsel apparently understood that expert testimony could be important.

During trial, defense counsel requested an adjournment so an expert could address the medical records and the effects of barium on the lungs.

The trial court refused to postpone the proceedings long enough for the proposed expert to appear.

In Smith’s first appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court concluded that Smith had not established sufficient prejudice from the absence of that witness.

One reason was especially important.

The Court of Appeals observed that Smith had not demonstrated what the missing expert actually would have said.

The original appellate record did not contain expert testimony establishing that another forensic specialist would contradict the prosecution’s medical witnesses or support the defense’s causation theory.

That evidentiary gap became highly significant during the later post-conviction investigation.

Appellate Counsel Went Back and Developed the Missing Evidence

When James Czarnecki later represented Smith in post-conviction 6.500 proceedings, the analysis did not stop with the existing transcript.

Czarnecki investigated whether a qualified forensic pathologist could actually evaluate the underlying medical evidence and determine whether the prosecution’s conclusions were scientifically justified.

That investigation led to the Oakland County Medical Examiner, who was identified in the appellate filing as also a physician with extensive experience in forensic pathology.

Czarnecki obtained a written forensic opinion from the chief medical examiner and submitted it to the trial court with the motion for relief from judgment as an offer of proof in support of Smith’s request for an evidentiary hearing.

That was important for a simple reason.

The original Court of Appeals had essentially said: you have not shown us that a defense expert would contradict the prosecution.

Now Czarnecki counsel had found one.

And the medical examiners conclusions raised substantial questions about the fairness of the conviction.

The Medical Examination Questioned the Scientific Basis for the Cause-of-Death Determination

Dr. Dragovic’ review challenged several aspects of the medical investigation. One of his principal concerns involved the lungs.

The medical history included reported aspiration of barium during treatment. Yet according to Dr. Dragovic’s analysis, no microscopic examination of the lung tissue had ever been performed.

He found that omission significant given the documented history involving barium aspiration.

Dr. Dragovic concluded that, based upon the autopsy findings and the limitations he identified in the examination, the cause and mechanism of death remained “elusive and unclear.”

That was a dramatically different assessment from the medical theory presented to the jury in the first trial.

Dr. Dragovic also criticized what he considered inadequate photographic documentation of the autopsy findings.

Because those findings had been relied upon to support allegations of intentional injury, he considered complete photographic documentation important to an independent forensic evaluation.

Czarnecki’s brief further argued that Dr. Dragovic questioned whether the medical evidence was sufficiently reliable to attribute the child’s death to Smith in the manner alleged by the prosecution.

These were not simply arguments made by an appellate attorney reading a cold transcript.

They were conclusions developed through consultation with an independent forensic pathologist.

Why a Defense Expert Could Have Changed the Trial

Cross-examining a prosecution expert and presenting a competing expert are not necessarily the same thing.

An attorney can ask questions.

An attorney can identify inconsistencies.

An attorney can argue that the prosecution’s conclusions are wrong.

But an attorney is not a physician or forensic pathologist.

In a homicide prosecution built substantially upon medical causation, a qualified defense expert may be able to do something the lawyer cannot: provide the jury with an alternative scientific interpretation of the physical evidence.

The post-conviction argument therefore focused upon trial counsel’s failure to adequately investigate and present forensic-pathology evidence before the case went to the jury.

The appellate filing noted that trial counsel had challenged the prosecution witnesses through cross-examination but ultimately lacked a defense forensic expert who could independently explain why the prosecution’s medical conclusions might be wrong.

According to the post-conviction argument, that distinction mattered because Dr. Dragovic was prepared to challenge important portions of the prosecution’s forensic analysis.

Trial Counsel’s Performance Is Often an Investigation Question

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Michigan requires more than showing that another attorney might have handled the case differently.

Under Strickland v. Washington, a defendant generally must establish both constitutionally deficient performance and resulting prejudice.

When the allegation involves the failure to call an expert witness, an appellate attorney therefore must investigate more than the fact that no expert appeared at trial.

The important questions can include:

What investigation did trial counsel conduct?

Was an expert consulted?

What information was provided to the expert?

Was a written opinion obtained?

Was additional investigation reasonably necessary?

What would a qualified expert actually have testified to?

And could that testimony reasonably have affected the jury’s decision?

Those are precisely the types of questions that can require factual development beyond the original trial transcripts.

For that reason, Michigan Ginther hearings can become critically important in ineffective-assistance litigation.

Czarnecki Sought the Evidentiary Hearing to Develop the Record Further in Support of a New Trial

Czarnecki asked the court to conduct a Ginther evidentiary hearing.

The purpose was not simply to reargue the trial.

It was to create a factual record concerning evidence that had never been properly developed before the jury.

Czarnecki’s filing argued that the hearing was necessary to examine trial counsel’s failure to secure appropriate expert assistance and to permit the court to evaluate Dr. Dragovic’s forensic conclusions.

Dr. Dragovic was prepared to testify. His testimony was not about newly discovered evidence, but instead about how trial counsel and medical examiner in the original trial made mistakes that undermined the confidence in the conviction.

The trial court nevertheless denied the request for a Ginther hearing.

The post-conviction litigation therefore demonstrates an important reality of criminal appellate practice:

Sometimes identifying the appellate issue is only the beginning.

The attorney must then investigate the missing evidence, locate the appropriate witness, obtain the expert analysis, prepare an offer of proof, and attempt to create the factual record necessary for meaningful appellate review.

The Expert Issue Did Not Ultimately Vacate Smith’s Conviction

It is important to distinguish this portion of Smith’s litigation from the sentencing victory that ultimately occurred.

The courts did not vacate Smith’s murder conviction on the basis of Dr. Dragovic’s opinion or the ineffective-assistance claim.

That claim was litigated but did not result in a new trial.

Smith ultimately obtained relief on a different constitutional issue argued and preserved by Czarnecki.

Czarnecki had separately raised and preserved the argument that Miller v. Alabama should apply retroactively to Smith’s mandatory juvenile life-without-parole sentence.

After the United States Supreme Court decided Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated Smith’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.

The murder conviction itself remained intact but the sentence did not.

That distinction matters.

A responsible discussion of a case result should separate the arguments an attorney developed from the relief the courts ultimately granted.

But the fact that a court does not grant relief on a particular argument does not mean that the appellate investigation itself was insignificant.

In Smith’s case, the forensic investigation produced expert evidence that had never been presented to the jury and directly addressed an evidentiary deficiency identified during the original appeal.

The Problem With the Court of Appeals’ Treatment of the Medical Evidence

The procedural history of People v. Mario Smith presents a troubling appellate problem.

In Smith’s original appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the defense argument concerning the absence of a medical expert in part because the record did not establish what such an expert would actually have said. The court emphasized that Smith had not demonstrated that a defense medical expert would contradict the prosecution’s witnesses or support the theory that the medical evidence permitted a different explanation for the child’s death.

That observation effectively identified what was missing from the appellate record.

Years later, James Czarnecki supplied it.

Rather than merely repeating the argument that an expert should have been called at trial, Czarnecki undertook the work necessary to answer the Court of Appeals’ earlier concern. He reconstructed the old case, located and examined the available medical materials, pursued pathology evidence and slides, searched for an appropriate forensic specialist, and ultimately obtained an independent forensic review from Dr. Ljubisa Dragovic, then the Chief Medical Examiner for Oakland County.

Dr. Dragovic’s opinion was not vague or speculative. He identified specific concerns with the underlying forensic work, including the absence of microscopic examination of lung tissue despite the reported aspiration of barium-containing contrast material. He questioned the adequacy of the autopsy documentation and concluded that the cause and mechanism of death remained unclear.

In other words, the later post-conviction investigation produced essentially the type of evidence whose absence had been relied upon in rejecting the earlier claim.

That creates a difficult question.

If the first appellate decision concluded that Smith had failed to demonstrate what a defense medical expert would have said, what should happen when later appellate counsel actually finds the expert and supplies that testimony?

At a minimum, there was a substantial argument that the new evidentiary proffer warranted a hearing at which the medical evidence could be tested.

Czarnecki did not ask the courts simply to accept Dr. Dragovic’s conclusions because they appeared in a letter. He sought an appellate evidentiary hearing where Dr. Dragovic could testify under oath, explain his conclusions, be cross-examined by the prosecution, and have his methodology evaluated by the court.

That distinction is important.

A hearing would not have automatically resulted in a new trial.

It would have allowed the judicial system to answer the question that the earlier appellate record could not answer: What would a qualified defense forensic pathologist actually say about the medical evidence?

Czarnecki had now supplied an answer.

Yet the requested hearing was denied, and the conviction remained intact.

The result is difficult to reconcile with the reasoning of the earlier appellate decision. The original opinion effectively faulted the defense for the absence of concrete expert proof. When later counsel obtained that proof and sought an opportunity to place it into an evidentiary record, the courts declined to permit the factual development.

That creates a broader problem in post-conviction litigation.

An appellate court may properly decline relief when a defendant offers only speculation about what a missing witness might have said. But if later counsel actually locates the witness, obtains a qualified expert opinion, and presents a detailed offer of proof, the rationale that the evidence is merely speculative becomes considerably weaker.

The judicial system then confronts a choice.

It can permit an evidentiary hearing and test the evidence through the adversarial process, or it can leave the conviction undisturbed without ever determining whether the expert’s criticisms are scientifically persuasive.

In Smith, the latter occurred.

That does not establish that Dr. Dragovic’s opinion would necessarily have produced an acquittal or even required a new trial. Courts remain responsible for deciding questions of admissibility, credibility, prejudice, and the applicable standards for post-conviction relief.

But those questions are different from whether the defense had finally produced the expert evidence previously identified as missing.

It had.

From the standpoint of appellate advocacy, Czarnecki could do little more.

He identified the deficiency described in the earlier appellate opinion.

He personally reconstructed an old murder case.

He located the medical and pathology evidence.

He found a highly qualified forensic pathologist.

He obtained a substantive expert opinion addressing the prosecution’s medical theory.

He converted that investigation into an evidentiary offer of proof.

He asked the trial court for a hearing.

He pursued the issue through the appellate courts.

And he placed the medical challenge before the judiciary in a form capable of being tested through testimony and cross-examination.

An appellate attorney cannot order a court to conduct a hearing or grant a new trial.

Counsel’s responsibility is to identify the issue, investigate it, develop the supporting evidence, preserve it procedurally, and present the strongest legally supportable request for relief.

In Smith, that work was done.

The ultimate decision belonged to the courts.

That is what makes this portion of the Smith case both frustrating and instructive. The later investigation appears to have answered the very evidentiary question that had troubled the original Court of Appeals, yet the judicial system never permitted that answer to be fully developed through testimony.

For appellate lawyers, the case illustrates a hard reality: sometimes counsel can uncover the missing evidence, find the expert, build the record that should have existed, and present the court with the precise proof previously found lacking—and still be unable to obtain the evidentiary hearing necessary to have that evidence fully adjudicated.

That does not mean the investigation failed.

It means that appellate advocacy and judicial relief are two different things.

The attorney can develop the issue.

Only the court can grant the remedy.

The Difference Between Reading a Record and Investigating an Appeal

The Smith litigation illustrates two very different forms of appellate advocacy.

The Miller issue required identifying a developing constitutional question, raising it despite unfavorable existing precedent, and preserving it until the United States Supreme Court changed the governing law.

The Dr. Dragovic issue required something different.

It required going beyond the transcripts.

It required asking whether the prosecution’s forensic evidence could withstand independent scientific scrutiny.

It required locating an appropriate forensic expert.

And it required converting that investigation into an evidentiary offer of proof that could support an ineffective-assistance claim and request for a Ginther hearing.

Together, the two issues demonstrate why serious post-conviction representation involves considerably more than simply rereading an old appellate opinion.

When Failure to Obtain an Expert May Matter in a Michigan Criminal Appeal

The lesson extends well beyond Smith’s case.

Criminal cases frequently depend upon specialized evidence, including:

• forensic pathology;
• accident reconstruction;
• DNA;
• toxicology;
• firearms evidence;
• digital forensics;
• psychology or psychiatry;
• medical causation; and
• other scientific disciplines.

When the prosecution’s case depends heavily upon specialized evidence and defense counsel fails to adequately investigate the relevant science, the question may become whether that failure deprived the defendant of constitutionally effective representation.

The answer depends upon the evidence, the investigation counsel actually performed, what a competent expert could have contributed, and whether the absence of that evidence affected the reliability of the verdict.

That is why ineffective-assistance claims often require investigation beyond the existing appellate record.

A Criminal Appeal Sometimes Requires Building the Record That Should Have Existed at Trial

One of the most difficult problems in appellate law occurs when the strongest evidence supporting an appellate claim does not appear anywhere in the trial transcript.

The appellate attorney may then need to find a lawful way to develop that evidence.

In People v. Mario Smith, James Czarnecki did precisely that.

After the original appellate record lacked expert evidence supporting the defense’s medical-causation challenge, Czarnecki obtained an independent forensic review from Dr. Dragovic and used it as an offer of proof supporting a request for a Ginther hearing and post-conviction relief.

The court ultimately declined to grant a new trial on that basis.

But the litigation illustrates an important part of appellate representation:

A strong appellate lawyer does not merely ask what the trial record says. Sometimes the more important question is what competent investigation could have placed in that record—but did not.

Contact Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC About a Michigan Criminal Appeal

If you or a family member has been convicted of a serious criminal offense and there are questions about whether trial counsel adequately investigated the case, consulted appropriate experts, challenged forensic evidence, or presented an available defense, Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC can review the record and determine whether those issues may have appellate or post-conviction significance.

James Czarnecki has experience litigating Michigan criminal appeals, evidentiary hearings, applications for leave to appeal, and MCR 6.500 post-conviction proceedings.

We are pleased to review serious appellate and post-conviction matters and explain what the record does—and does not—support. Clients and families considering an appeal should have confidence that their case will be evaluated carefully, based upon the actual transcripts, evidence, procedural history, and applicable law rather than promises about a result.

Call Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC at (586) 718-2345 to discuss a Michigan criminal appeal or post-conviction matter.

Use the button below to send Czarnecki & Taylor a confidential email:

Past results do not guarantee future results. Every criminal appeal and post-conviction matter depends upon its own facts, evidence, procedural history, preservation requirements, applicable law, and deadlines.