STATE v. WILLIAMS (2020)

Writ application denied. Applicant has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review and fails to show that any exception permits his successive filing. See State ex rel. Williams v. State, 15-1187 (La. 5/20/16), 191 So.3d 1016.

On Supervisory Writ to the First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo

On March 20, 2000, Mr. Williams was convicted of armed robbery at a brief bench trial.¹ The evidence against him was eyewitness identification testimony by Israel Edwards (the victim), and the victim's two friends, Aurelius Wright and M.C. Mosley. The trial court found Mr. Williams guilty and sentenced him to 65 years in prison without parole, probation or suspension of sentence.

Defendant's prior post-conviction efforts have highlighted discrepancies between the eyewitnesses’ initial statements to police and their trial testimony. These discrepancies were not heard at trial and he has raised them—variously—as violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959).²

This defendant has again challenged his conviction with the benefit of a new affidavit from eyewitness Mosley, which alleges an assistant district attorney pressured him into identifying Williams as the perpetrator. The combined effect of the material discrepancies brought to the courts’ attention by the defendant over the years implicates violations of due process in the defendant's conviction. Although the defendant's prior piecemeal litigation may have obscured the issue for previous reviewing courts, the defendant was convicted by a judge who did not hear the discrepancies between the witnesses’ trial testimony and their original statements, any possible motivations provided by the prosecutor to the witnesses as suggested in the most recent filing, and the discrepancy between the police officer's testimony and the original police reports. No matter whether this favorable information was omitted from trial because of defense counsel's failures, the State's violation of Brady, or a combination of both, the effect on Mr. Williams’ trial was that the convicting court did not have all of the relevant information regarding the strength of the State's evidence when it found Mr. Williams guilty. As such, I would remand to the trial court with instructions to appoint counsel for Mr. Williams for an evidentiary hearing at which the trial court should take witness testimony and assess the cumulative effect that the omission of all the favorable evidence had on the fairness of Mr. Williams’ trial. If the trial court finds that, in light of all the evidence, we cannot be confident in the outcome of his trial, it should vacate his conviction and order a new trial.

FOOTNOTES

1.   His trial spans only 51 pages of transcript, 38 of which are witness testimony.

2.   The record indicates that evidence of the discrepancies may actually have been omitted from trial due to the failures of trial counsel.

Johnson, C.J., would grant and assigns reasons. Crichton, J., recused.