Moreover, to the extent this claim is properly preserved, Elliott has failed to demonstrate that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to engage his own forensic pathologist at the time of trial to refute the medical examiner’s calculation of the time of death, as he did in the PCRA proceeding by presenting the report of Dr. Arden. We emphasize that the PCRA court did not base its grant of a new trial on the opinion of Dr. Arden or even reference his report, but rather grounded its grant of a new trial on the non-existent inconsistency between the medical examiner’s autopsy report and trial testimony. Further, Elliott has not demonstrated that Dr. Arden or any similar expert was available at the time of trial. See Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 612 Pa. 333, 30 A.3d 1111, 1143 (2011) (<HOLDING>). Counsel is not obligated to call a forensic
holding that counsels failure to call an expert rebuttal witness does not constitute ineffectiveness the pcra petitioner must demonstrate that an expert witness was available who would have offered testimony designed to advance his cause holding that for a habeas petitioner to prove that he was prejudiced by counsels failure to investigate and to produce a certain type of expert witness he must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that an ordinarily competent attorney conducting a reasonable investigation would have found an expert similar to the one eventually produced holding that witness immunity does not bar a claim against a retained expert witness for negligence performance of his duty recognizing that a surveyor was an expert witness holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify