Opinion
No. 2017–KP–0101
06-16-2017
Wilbert JONES v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. The Brady claim presented by relator merits remand to the district court for a full evidentiary hearing. We find no basis to disturb the district court's factual determination that the Brady claim predicated on newly-discovered information surrounding the October 29, 1971 rape and the alleged perpetrator of that rape was not procedurally barred. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. However, we find relator has made a sufficient showing to warrant an evidentiary hearing on whether the State withheld material exculpatory evidence such that relator was denied a fair trial. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the district court to conduct a hearing as soon as practical in view of relator's failing health and to determine whether the State was obligated under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), to disclose the information to relator's trial counsel.
JOHNSON, C.J., concurs and assigns reasons.
WEIMER, J., would deny the writ.
GUIDRY, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
CLARK, J., dissents and would deny the writ.
HUGHES, J., would deny the writ.
CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
JOHNSON, C.J., concurring
I agree that relator's Brady claim regarding the October 29, 1971 rape requires further evidentiary development and a ruling on the merits from the district court. I am also gravely concerned about the apparently premature destruction of evidence that might have otherwise been tested for DNA and the potential that some evidence remains and could be tested but has been misplaced.
Through the pioneering work of the Innocence Project, DNA testing has led to numerous exonerations of the wrongly convicted. In this rape case from over 40 years ago, in which relator has steadfastly maintained his innocence, DNA testing could very likely determine if relator was in fact wrongly convicted. It is not apparent to me from the materials presently before the court what evidence was destroyed, why it was destroyed, what evidence has been lost, and whether any might remain to be found and tested. Given the pivotal role such evidence could play in determining whether relator was wrongfully convicted, and in light of relator's declining health, I urge the district court to expeditiously take all necessary steps to account for the evidence and determine whether any can be found and tested.
GUIDRY, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
I concur in the majority's determination that relator has made a sufficient showing to warrant a full evidentiary hearing on whether, in the absence of the material exculpatory evidence within the possession of the State, relator received a fair trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. See State v. Marshall , 94-0461, pp. 12-17 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 819, 825–27. Relator has identified too many similarities between the instant victim's description of the man who raped her and another man who allegedly committed at least one similar rape in the same vicinity and during roughly the same time frame to determine without an evidentiary hearing whether there is a substantial likelihood relator was misidentified by the victim. Although the State asserts relator's trial counsel was aware of the allegedly exculpatory information regarding this viable alternative suspect, this fact, if true, does not resolve the question of whether relator received a fair trial because such an assertion would suggest that trial counsel, who also represented the other man, may have labored under an actual conflict of interest. In any case, even if trial counsel had some knowledge of the other rapes, the State remained under the obligation set forth in Brady to disclose any and all exculpatory evidence to the defense. Accordingly, I agree that a prompt and full evidentiary hearing on these issues is merited.
CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
I agree that relator has made a sufficient showing to warrant a narrowly focused evidentiary hearing and a ruling on the merits on the limited question of whether the State withheld material and exculpatory information regarding the October 29, 1971 rape of the unnamed victim, which crime was never prosecuted but may bear some similarities to the crime for which relator was convicted. I also note that this alleged misconduct, which occurred under Assistant District Attorney Ralph Roy, may be consistent with Mr. Roy's record of reversed convictions. See, e.g. , State v. Vaughn , 431 So.2d 358 (La. 1982) ; State v. Day , 400 So.2d 622 (La. 1981) ; State v. Woodruff , 281 So.2d 95 (1973). In my view, the remand of relator's case is appropriate and necessary under the highly unusual circumstances presented here.
WEIMER, J.
I would deny the writ.
CLARK, J., dissenting.
I would deny.