have defendant testify that his confession was coerced or to present other evidence to corroborate defendant’s torture allegations because he believed that reversible error had occurred earlier during the trial when one of the State’s witnesses, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91, 96 S. Ct. 2240 (1976), commented on defendant’s post-arrest silence. Unfortunately for defendant, this court did not agree with counsel’s assessment of the Doyle violation. Although this court agreed that a Doyle violation had occurred, the court held that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Patterson, 154 Ill. 2d at 467-68. We recognize that a mistake as to the law can be a basis for finding that an attorney was ineffective. See People v. Wright, 111 Ill. 2d 18 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Here, however, counsel’s error lies not in
holding that an attorney was ineffective for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense because he did not understand the elements holding such intoxication to be voluntary holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue holding that under florida precedent trial court erred in excluding expert testimony on intoxication as voluntary intoxication was a valid defense to a specific intent crime and expert testimony is relevant to a disputed voluntary intoxication defense holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense