U.S. Supreme Court - March 7, 2016
by: Aalvarez • March 11, 2016 • no comments
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | *Brady - Evidence that the States' Witnesses Had Personal | + | *Brady - Evidence that the States' Witnesses Had Personal Reasons to Want to See the Defendant Convicted |
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| − | '''Brady - Evidence that the States' Witnesses Had Personal | + | '''Brady - Evidence that the States' Witnesses Had Personal Reasons to Want to See the Defendant Convicted''' |
Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death based almost solely on the testimony of an informant, Scott, who came forward two years after the murder. Despite having four alibi witnesses, no physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime, and the fact that Scott’s story implicating the defendant changed four times over the course of the investigation, the defendant was convicted. Post-conviction, it came to light that the prosecutor had failed to turn over police records showing that another inmate had heard Scott say he wanted to make sure that the defendant was convicted because he “jacked over me.” Moreover, it was not disclosed that a second witness who testified against the defendant was offered a reduced sentence for an unrelated conviction. Instead, the prosecutor told the jury that he had no deal on the table and was testifying because the victim’s family “deserves to know what happened.” Finding that the suppression of that exculpatory evidence violated the defendant’s due process rights under ''Brady'' and its progeny, the court stated: "Beyond doubt, the newly revealed evidence suffices to undermine confidence in Wearry’s conviction. The State’s trial evidence resembles a house of cards, built on the jury crediting Scott’s account rather than Wearry’s alibi." Reversed. [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10008_k537.pdf Wearry v. Cain] | Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death based almost solely on the testimony of an informant, Scott, who came forward two years after the murder. Despite having four alibi witnesses, no physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime, and the fact that Scott’s story implicating the defendant changed four times over the course of the investigation, the defendant was convicted. Post-conviction, it came to light that the prosecutor had failed to turn over police records showing that another inmate had heard Scott say he wanted to make sure that the defendant was convicted because he “jacked over me.” Moreover, it was not disclosed that a second witness who testified against the defendant was offered a reduced sentence for an unrelated conviction. Instead, the prosecutor told the jury that he had no deal on the table and was testifying because the victim’s family “deserves to know what happened.” Finding that the suppression of that exculpatory evidence violated the defendant’s due process rights under ''Brady'' and its progeny, the court stated: "Beyond doubt, the newly revealed evidence suffices to undermine confidence in Wearry’s conviction. The State’s trial evidence resembles a house of cards, built on the jury crediting Scott’s account rather than Wearry’s alibi." Reversed. [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10008_k537.pdf Wearry v. Cain] | ||
{{wl-publish: 2016-03-11 14:25:53 -0800 | Aalvarez:Amanda Alvarez }} | {{wl-publish: 2016-03-11 14:25:53 -0800 | Aalvarez:Amanda Alvarez }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:34, March 14, 2016
Brady - Evidence that the States' Witnesses Had Personal Reasons to Want to See the Defendant Convicted
Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death based almost solely on the testimony of an informant, Scott, who came forward two years after the murder. Despite having four alibi witnesses, no physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime, and the fact that Scott’s story implicating the defendant changed four times over the course of the investigation, the defendant was convicted. Post-conviction, it came to light that the prosecutor had failed to turn over police records showing that another inmate had heard Scott say he wanted to make sure that the defendant was convicted because he “jacked over me.” Moreover, it was not disclosed that a second witness who testified against the defendant was offered a reduced sentence for an unrelated conviction. Instead, the prosecutor told the jury that he had no deal on the table and was testifying because the victim’s family “deserves to know what happened.” Finding that the suppression of that exculpatory evidence violated the defendant’s due process rights under Brady and its progeny, the court stated: "Beyond doubt, the newly revealed evidence suffices to undermine confidence in Wearry’s conviction. The State’s trial evidence resembles a house of cards, built on the jury crediting Scott’s account rather than Wearry’s alibi." Reversed. Wearry v. Cain
