December, 2014

BB 237960:  DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO IMPEACH THE COMPLAINANT WITH A RECORDED CONVERSATION IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT ADMITTED BEING UNSURE OF IDENTIFICATION OF THE PERPETRATOR.

BB 237960:  DUE PROCESS REQUIRES A NEW TRIAL BASED ON DISCOVERY OF A RECENT PRISON PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING APPELLANT’S BROTHER WEARING BRAIDS, ESTABLISHING HIS STRIKING SIMILARITY TO APPELLANT’S APPEARANCE, AND SUPPORTING THE DEFENSE THAT THE COMPLAINANT MISTAKENLY IDENTIFIED APPELLANT AS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO RAISED HIS HANDS AS IF ABOUT TO SHOOT THE COMPLAINANT.

BB 239520:  THE TRIAL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENDANT’S EX-WIFE CONCERING PRIOR BAD ACTS THAT HE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED AGAINST HER, OVER THE DEFENSE’S OBJECTION.

BB 239520:  THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND STATE LAW BY ORDERING THAT HIS SENTENCE FOR FELONY FIREARM BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE FOR ALL OF THE OTHER CONVICTIONS, RATHER THAN JUST THE SENTENCE FOR UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT THAT THE PROSECUTOR CHARGED AS THE PREDICATE FELONY.

BB 239520:  THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING THAT THE HOME INVASION SENTENCE BE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCES FOR UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT AND FELONIOUS ASSAULT.

BB 240179:  THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE EVIDENCE WHERE THE PROSECUTION CLAIMED THE SEARCH WAS AN INVENTORY SEARCH BUT DID NOT EVEN PROVIDE THE AGENCY’S REGULATIONS FOR SUCH A SEARCH. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH FELL WITHIN A RECOGNIZED EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT.

BB 240227:  DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY FAILED TO OBJECT TO ANY OF THE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS BY THE COMPLAINANT WHICH WERE ADMITTED TO CORROBORATE HER TRIAL ACCUSATIONS, HER CREDIBILITY WAS THE KEY TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE, AND THE STATEMENTS TO THE LAY WITNESSES WERE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY.

BB 240227:  DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHERE HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY FAILED TO OBJECT TO TESTIMONY DISCLOSING THE RESULTS OF A LAB TEST, WHERE THE TECHNICIAN WHO CONDUCTED THAT TEST AND REACHED A CONCLUSION DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE TRIAL, AND THUS DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION WAS IGNORED. 

BB 240273:  THE TRIAL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED WHERE AFTER THE DEFENSE OBJECTED TO TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT’S SISTERS ALLEGEDLY SENT THREATENING FACEBOOK MESSAGES TO THE COMPLAINANT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT KNEW OF OR INSTIGATED THOSE MESSAGES, AND THE TRIAL PROSECUTOR STIPULATED THAT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE STRICKEN, THE COURT FAILED TO STRIKE THAT TESTIMONY AND INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DISREGARD THIS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE.

BB 240324:  DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF THE GUN FELL WITHIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE CRIMINALIZING THE CARRYING OF A CONCEALED WEAPON.  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLINING TO DISMISS THE CHARGE

BB 240492:  THE COUNSELOR’S TESTIMONY IMPERMISSIBLY ENCROACHED ON THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY, WHEN HE PURPORTED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO; AND TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN HE FAILED TO OBJECT.

BB 240572:  THE PROSECUTOR VIOLATED APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY ELICITING THAT TWO ALLEGED ACCOMPLICES WERE NOT ONLY TESTIFYING UNDER PLEA AGREEMENTS, BUT HAD ALREADY PLEADED GUILTY BEFORE TRIAL, THEREBY IMPROPERLY VOUCHING FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ACCOMPLICES; ALTERNATIVELY, DEFENSE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO OBJECT.

BB 240572:  THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO INTRODUCE APPELLANT’S ALLEGED OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENT ABOUT AN UNRELATED CARJACKING WHICH WAS INADMISSIBLE AND HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL CHARACTER EVIDENCE.

BB 240658:  THE TRIAL JUDGE’S QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT -  DURING WHICH THE JUDGE TOOK ON THE ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR, CLEARLY IMPLIED THAT HE DISBELIEVED DEFENDANT AND BELIEVED THE COMPLAINANT, EMPHASIZED THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE, AND REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO COMMENT ON THE COM-PLAINANT’S CREDIBLITY - DEMONSTRATED BIAS AGAINST THE DEFENSE, DENYING DEFENDANT A FAIR TRIAL.

BB 240666:  THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DIMINISHED THE PROSECUTION’S BURDEN OF PROOF AND DENIED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND TRIAL BY JURY WHEN HE TOLD THE DELIBERATING JURY THAT THE PROSECUTION NEED PROVE ONLY TWO OF THE THREE ELEMENTS OF FIRST-DEGREE CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT.