would have shown or how it would have changed the sentence he ultimately received. Thus, he cannot establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in this regard be admission of hearsay was unlikely to have contributed to the verdict when other admissible evidence established the same fact). 10 We note that Pepe-Frazier was tried in 2012, making the former Evidence Code 392-93 (IV) (A) (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting that expert testimony on “pimping patterns and the pimp-prostitute relationship” might have assisted the jury in determining whether the defendant was a pimp or simply a “gambler with a flashy lifestyle and a penchant for travel,” as well as the credibility of the government’s prostitute-witnesses); cf. Edge v. State, 275 Ga. 311, 313 (5) (567 SE2d 1) (2002) (<HOLDING>); Lowe v. State, 310 Ga. App. 242, 244-45 (2)
holding appellate counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to appeal district courts decision to admit evidence that defendant was a member of a gang because gang membership was relevant to show motive and intent holding that a gang expert could testify on what it meant to be a rat in gang culture because it was relevant to help understand discrepancies between some of the wit nesses statements to the police and their testimony at trial holding that expert testimony from a detective about the reluctance of witnesses residents of gang neighborhoods to testify in cases involving gang activity is relevant to the credibility of a witness holding that experts testimony as to aspects of gang culture relevant to the case including requirements of members obedience silence and staunch defense of other gang members and the punishment meted out to a gang member who violates these requirements went to factual matters outside the experience of the average juror holding that murder committed by minor gang members was not foreseeable result of sale of alcohol to gang members