In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: Ju ly 5 , 2 0 1 6

S 1 6 A0 1 4 8 . WAS HINGTON v

. HOP S ON.

NAHMIAS , Ju stic e

.

In th is h a b e a s c o rp u s pro c e e d in g

, th e C h a t to o g a Co u n ty S u p e rio r Co urt

se t a sid e Ja so n Ho p so n ’s ra p e c o n v ic t i o n d u e t o th e c on du c t o f fo rm e r F u lto n

Co u n ty a ssista n t d istric t a tto rn e y Ash u to sh J o s h i

, w h ic h, th e h a b e a s c o urt

c o n c lu d e d

, v io la te d H o p so n ’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to d ue pro c e ss a t h is t ria l.

Jo sh i’s c o n d u c t a fte r Ho pso n ’s tria l wa s u n p ro fe ssio n a l, a n d t h i s C o u rt ha s

p re v io u sly o rd e re d th a t Jo sh i b e p u b lic ly re p rim and e d fo r h is e th ic a l v io la tio n

.

S e e In th e Ma tte r o f Jo sh i, Ca se No

. S 0 9 Y0 4 2 9 (F e b

. 23

, 2 0 0 9 ). Ho we v e r, we

re v e rse th e h a

b e a s c ou rt’ s o r d e r, p rim a rily b e c a use th e fa c tu a l fin d in g s

u n d e rly in g th e h a

b e a s c o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s t

h at c o n s t i t u tio na l v io la tio n s o c c u rre d

a t Ho p so n ’s tria l a re c le a rly e rro n e o u s.

1

. (a ) On N o v e m

b e r 5

, 2 0 0 4

, Ho p so n wa s in d ic te d in F ulto n Co u n ty

fo r ra p e

, k id n a p p in g

, a g g ra v a te d a ssa ult, a g g ra v a te d se x u a l b a tte ry

, a n d

a g g ra v a te d so do m

y

. His tria l wa s h e ld fro m D e c e m b e r 7 to 1 0

, 2 0 0 4

. Jo sh i wa sth e S ta te ’s p ro se c utin g a tto rn e y

. Th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls h a s s u mm a riz e d th e

e v id e n c e p re se nte d a t th e tria l a s fo llo ws:

Vie we d in th e lig h t m o st fa vo ra b le to th e v e rd ic t, th e e v id e n c e

re v e a ls th a t [o n Ju n e 1 9

, 2 0 0 4 ] th e v ic tim a n d a fe m a le fri e n d

a tte n d e d a p a rty a t Zo o Atla nta th a t wa s sp o n so re d b y a lo c a l ra d io

sta tio n

. A fte r c o n su m in g so m e a lc o h o l, th e v ic t i m a n d h e r frie n d

m e t Ho p so n

, wh o in v ite d th e wo m e n to h a ve a d rin k with h im a n d

h is frie n d s. Ea c h o f th e wo m e n d ra n k a lc o h o l f r o m a b o ttle th a t

Ho p so n a n d his frie n d s we re sh a rin g

. Ho p so n sta rte d a c o nv e rsa tio n

with th e v ic tim a n d a t t e mp te d to flirt with h e r, b u t th e v ic tim

b e c a m e u n c om fo rta b le

, a n d sh e a nd h e r frie n d le ft Ho p so n a n d h is

frie n d s to g o to a n o th e r a re a o f th e p a rty

. Th e v ic tim a

n d he r frie n d h a d a fe w mo re d rin k s, a n d th e

v ic t i m’ s frie n d b e c a m e ill. Wh ile th e v ic tim wa ite d fo r h e r frie n d

o u tsid e a re stro o m

, Ho p so n a p p ro a c h e d th e v ic tim a g a in . Ho p so n

p u t his a rm a ro u n d h e r a n d a tte m p te d to kiss h e r, b u t th e v ic tim

re fu se d a n d trie d to m o v e a wa y fro m h im

. Wh e n th e v ic tim ’s frie n d re tu rn e d fro m th e re stro o m

, Ho p so n

o ffe re d th e frie n d a g la ss o f wh a t a p p e a re d to b e wa te r. Th e frie n d

to o k a sip fro m th e g la ss b e fo re g iv in g it to th e v ic tim

, wh o th e n

d ra n k “ q u ite a b it” o f it. With in m in u te s, th e v ic tim fe lt d iz z y a n d

lig h t-h e a de d

, a n d wa s u n a b le to m o v e or u n d e rsta nd wo rd s b e in g

sp o k e n to h e r. He r frie n d , wh o wa s d iso rie nte d a n d v o m itin g

, d id

n o t se e wh a t wa s h a

pp e nin g to th e v ic tim

. Ho p so n th e n d ra g g e d th e

se m ic o n sc io u s v ic tim to a se c l u d e d a n d re stric te d a re a o f th e z o o

, wh e re h e ra

pe d h e r.

A Zo o Atla n ta ma i n t e n a n c e wo rk e r la te r fo u n d th e v ic tim

u n c o n sc io us in th e re stric te d a re a

, with he r p a n ts p u lle d d o wn a n d

h e r sh irt lifte d

, with Ho p so n sta n d in g n e a r h e r an d p u llin g h is p a n ts

u p

. Ho p so n le ft th e sc e n e wh e n h e sa w t h e m a in te n a nc e wo rk e r,

a n d th e wo rk e r su m m o n e d se c u rity to h e lp th e vic tim

. Th e p o lic e

la te r fo u n d Ho p so n in a n o th e r a re a o f th e p a rty

.

2Ho p so n v . S ta te , 2 8 1 Ga . Ap p . 5 2 0 , 5 2 1 (6 3 6 S E2 d 7 0 2 ) (2 0 06 ) (Ho p so n I).

Th e tria l re c o rd sh ows th a t t h e v i c tim a nd h e r frie n d te stifie d th a t th e

v ic tim fe lt u n c o m fo rta b le with Ho p so n ’s a tte n tio ns a t th e p a rty

. Mu c h o f th e

e v id e n c e o f th e ra

p e c a m e fro m th e v ic tim ’s te stim o ny

, b ut th e d o c to r a n d n u rse

wh o e x a m in e d h e r a lso te stifie d th a t th e v ic tim ’s v a g i n a w a s to rn

, sh e h a d

b ru ise s o n h e r g e n ita lia

, lo we r e x tre m itie s, n e c k, a n d fa c e

, a n d th e ta m p o n sh e

h a d b e e n we a

rin g wa s c ru m

ple d a n d p u sh e d in to th e fro n t of h e r c e rv ix

. Ho p so n

te stifie d th a t h e h a d c on se n su a l se x with th e v ic tim an d th a t sh e we n t willin g ly

with h im to th e re stric te d a re a o f th e z o o

. Two o f h is frie n d s wh o a c c o m p a n ie d

h im to th e p a rty a lso te stifie d th a t th e v ic tim we nt v o lu n ta rily with Ho p so n.

Afte r th e a g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt c h arg e wa s n olle p ro sse d

, th e ju ry fo u n d

Ho p so n g u ilty of ra

p e bu t a c q u itte d h im o f th e re m a in in g c h a rg e s. O n Ja n u a ry

1 8

, 2 0 0 5

, h e wa s se n te nc e d to se rv e 1 5 y e a rs in p riso n fo r th e ra p e c o n v ic tio n

.

S till re p re se n te d b y h is tria l c o u n se l, Ho p so n f i l e d a m otio n fo r n e w tria l,

a rg u in g th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in re fu sin g to a llo w him to r e

- c r o s s

- e x a m in e

witn e sse s d urin g th e S ta te ’s c a se

- i n

- ch ie f a n d th a t th e c o u rt’s in stru c tio n o n

c o n se n t wa s e rro n e o u s. T h e m o tio n fo r n e w tria l wa s d e n ie d

, a n d Ho pso n ra ise d

th e sa m e two issu e s o n d ire c t a p p e a l. Th e C o urt of Ap pe a ls a ffirm e d h is

3c o n v ic tio n o n S e p te m b e r 1 2, 2 0 0 6 . S e e Ho pso n I, 2 8 1 Ga . Ap p . a t 5 20

.

(b ) On Ja n u a ry 2 1 , 2 0 0 7, Ho p so n file d a n e x tra o rd in a ry m o tio n

fo r n e w tria l, a lle g in g th a t Jo sh i kn e w th a t th e v ic tim a n d th e v ic tim ’s frie n d h a d

lie d in th e ir te stim o n y a t tria l a n d n e v e rth e le ss a llo we d th e tria l t o p r o c e e d

.

Ho p so n a lle g e d th a t h e le a rn e d o f th is in fo rm a tio n wh e n

, du rin g a m e e tin g in

S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 6

, Jo sh i o ffe re d to re pre se n t Ho p so n in c h a lle n g in g h is

c o n v ic t i o n

. H o p so n’s fa m ily d e c lin e d to h ire Jo sh i b u t to ld Ho p so n ’s tria l

c o u n se l a

b o u t th e o ffe r, a nd tria l c ou n s e l a n d a n o th e r la wy e r file d th e

e x tra o rd in a ry m o tio n fo r n e w tria l. Th e tria l c ou rt h e ld a h e a rin g o n th e m o tio n

o n Ma rc h 7

, 2 0 0 7

. Th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls d e sc rib e d th e e v id e nc e p re se n te d a t

th e h e a rin g a s fo llo w s:

Th e e v id e nc e a t th e m o tio n h e a rin g e sta b lish e d th a t so m e tim e a fte r

Ho p so n ’s tria l, Jo sh i le ft th e d istric t a tto rn e y ’s o ffic e a n d we n t in to

p riv a te p ra c tic e

. H o p so n ’s fa m ily su b se q ue n tly c o n su l te d Jo sh i a n d

a n o th e r la wy e r with wh o m Jo sh i sh a re d a su ite

, a bo ut H o p so n ’s

c a se

. Ho p so n ’s fa m ily re c o rd e d th e c o n v e rsa tio n

, a n d it w a s p la y e d

fo r th e c o u rt d u rin g th e m o tio n h e a rin g

. In th a t c o n v e rsa tio n

, Jo sh i

sta te d h e kn e w a t o n e p o in t in th e tria l th a t th e v ic tim a n d h e r frie n d

lie d o n th e sta n d

. At th e m o tio n h e a rin g

, h o we v e r, Jo sh i e x pla in e d

th a t h e h a d m a d e a n o v e rsta te m e n t wh e n h e sa id h e k n e w th a t th e y

h a d lie d be c a

u se it wa s o n ly h i s o p i n i o n

. He w a s re fe rrin g to a

c o n flic t in th e e v id e n c e a s to wh e th e r th e v ic tim h a d w ilfu lly g o n e

with H o p so n th e n ig h t o f th e ra p e

, or wh e th e r sh e w a s d ra g ge d to

th e lo c a tio n wh e re th e a ssa u lt o c c urre d. Jo sh i sta te d th a t th is re la te d

4o n ly to th e c h a rg e o f k id n a p pin g

, n o t th e ra

p e c ha rg e

. A f

te r th e

ta p e wa s p la y e d

, Jo sh i a c kn o wle d g e d th a t h e to ld Ho p so n ’s fa m ily

th a t h e d id no t b e lie ve Ho p so n ra p e d th e v ic tim

, b u t h e sa id th a t h is

sta te m e n t wa s “in a rtfu lly wo rd e d ,” a n d th a t h e o n ly m e a n t to

a d d re ss th e k id na

p p in g c h a rg e

. Ne v e rth e le ss, Jo sh i to ld H o p so n ’s

fa m ily th a t fo r $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 h e c o u ld g e t Ho p so n re le a se d. He to ld th e m

th a t h is n a m e c o u ld n o t b e o n a n y o f th e p le a d in g s b e c a u se h e h a d

a n a b so lu te c o n flic t o f in te re st. Jo sh i e x p la in e d a t th e m o tio n

h e ar i n g th a t h e k n e w th a t h e c o u ld no t b e in vo lv e d in a n y

re p re se n ta tio n o f Ho p so n

, b u t h e sta te d th a t h e ha d d isc usse d with

th e o th e r la wy e r with wh o m h e sh are d a su ite th a t th e la wy e r wo u ld

n o t b e p re v e n te d fro m b a sin g a n a p p e a l o n a n y m ista k e s Jo sh i m a d e

a t tria l.

Ho p so n v . S ta te , 3 0 7 Ga . Ap p . 4 9 , 5 0 (7 0 3 S E2 d 7 1 9 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (Ho p so n II).

T h e tria l c o u rt de n ie d th e e x tra o rd in a ry m o tio n fo r n e w tria l o n Ja n u a r y

6

, 2 0 0 9

, a nd th e Co u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm e d th a t ru lin g o n No ve m b e r 2 3

, 2 0 1 0

.

S e e id

. a t 5 2

. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld th a t th e m o tio n fa ile d un de r th e te st se t

fo rth in Tim

b e rla k e v

. S ta te

, 2 4 6 Ga

. 4 8 8 (2 7 1 S E2 d 79 2) (1 9 8 0 ), b e c a u se “ [t] h e

e v id e n c e th a t c a m e to Ho pso n ’s k n o wle d ge a fte r th e tria l

– th a t Jo sh i b e lie v e d

th e v ic tim a n d h e r frie n d we re ly in g – wa s m e re l y

, a s t h e tria l c ou rt fo u n d

,

Jo sh i’s o p in io n a s to h is tria l witn e sse s’ c re d ib ility .” Ho p so n II, 30 7 Ga

. Ap p

.

a t 5 1. T h e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls a l s o h e l d : “ [N] o n e w tria l is wa rra n te d o n th e

g ro u n d o f p ro se c u t o ria l m isc o n du c t. Th e fa c t th a t Jo sh i b e lie v e d o n e witn e ss

o v e r an o th e r in th e fa c e o f c o n flic tin g te stim o n y d o e s n o t p ro v id e a g ro u n d fo r

5g ra n ti n g a n e w tria l.” Id

. H o p so n file d a pe titio n fo r writ o f c e rtio ra ri, wh ic h

th is Co u rt d e n ie d o n Ap ril 1 8 , 2 0 1 1 . S e e Ca se No

. S 1 1 C0 5 1 6

.

(c ) On Ja nu a

ry 1 4

, 2 0 0 9

, wh ile h is a pp lic a tio n to a

p p e a l th e

d e n ia l o f h is e x tra o rd in a ry m o tio n fo r n e w tria l w a s p e n d in g

, H o p so n

,

re p re se n te d b y o n e o f h is la wy e rs fro m th a t p ro c e e d in g

, file d a p e titio n fo r

h a b e a s c o rp u s in th e C h a tto o g a Co u n ty S u pe rio r Co u rt a g a in st An th o n y

Wa sh in g to n

, th e wa rd e n o f th e p riso n in Ch a tto o g a Co un ty wh e re H o p so n wa s

d e ta in e d

. Th e h a

b e a s p e titio n ra ise d th e sa m e fa c tu a l a lle ga tio n s a b ou t Jo sh i’s

c o n d u c t a n d c o n te n d e d th a t it v io la te d H o p so n ’ s c o n stitu tio n a l d u e p ro c e ss

rig h ts.

Mo re th a n fiv e y e a rs la te r, o n Ju n e 1 0

, 20 1 4

, th e h a b e a s co u rt h e ld a n

e v id e n tia ry h e a rin g

. N o te stim on y wa s p r e s en t e d

. Th e c o urt a dm itte d in to

e v id e n c e th e tra n sc rip t o f H o p so n ’s tria l, th e p le a d in g s a n d tria l c o u rt o rd e rs

file d in c o nn e c tio n with h is m o tio n fo r n e w tria l a n d e x tra o rd in a ry m o tio n fo r

n e w tria l, a

n d th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls’ o pin io n in Ho p so n I; in th e ir a rg u m e n ts, th e

p a rtie s a lso d isc u sse d th e C o u rt of Ap pe a ls’ p u b lish e d o p in io n in Ho p so n II.

Ne ith e r th e tra n sc rip t o f th e e x tra o rd in a ry m o tio n fo r n e w tria l h e a rin g n o r th e

re c o rd in g o f Jo s h i ’ s m e e tin g w ith H o pso n’s fa m ily wa s in c lu d e d in th is

6m a te ria l. D u rin g th e h a b ea s h e a r i n g

, H o p so n’s c o u n se l n o te d th is de fic ie n c y

a n d a sk e d th e c o u rt to le a v e th e re c o rd o p e n so h e c o uld in c lu d e th o se two ite m s

a s e vid e n c e

. Th e wa rd e n h a d n o o b je c tio n

, a nd th e c o u rt a g r e e d

. It a p p e a rs,

h o we v e r, th a t Ho pso n n e ve r su p ple m e n te d th e re c ord

. 1

On Ju n e 3 0 , 2 01 5 , th e h a be a s c o u rt g ra n te d Ho p so n re lie f, se ttin g a sid e

h is c o nv ic tio n o n th e g ro u nd th a t h is c on stitu tio n a l d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts h a d b e e n

v io la te d b y Jo sh i’s c o n d u c t. Th e wa rd e n file d a no tic e o f a p pe a l to th is Co u rt,

se e OCGA § 9 -1 4 -5 2 (a ), a n d th e c a se wa s o ra lly a rg u e d o n Ja n u a ry 4 , 2 0 1 6

.

2

. “ Wh e n re v ie win g a h a b e a s c o u rt ’ s d e c isio n to g ra n t h a b e a s re lie f,

th is C o u rt a c c e p ts th e h a b e a s c o u rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s u n le ss th ey ar e c l e a rly

e rro n e ou s, b u t we a

p p ly th e la w to th o se fa c ts de n o v o

. ” S ta te v

. Ga rla n d

, 2 9 8

Ga

. 4 8 2

, 4 8 4 (7 8 1 S E2 d 7 8 7 ) (2 0 1 6 ). Th e h a b e a s c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t Jo sh i’s

c o n d u c t wa s in a

p p ro p ria te in two wa y s, b o th o f wh ic h ju stifie d g ra n tin g h a b e a s

re lie f. F irst, Jo sh i al l o we d th e v ic tim to te stify de sp ite k n o win g th a t sh e wa s

ly in g. S e c on d

, a fte r tria l, Jo s h i p ro m ise d to u se kn o wle d g e g a in e d wh ile

1 I n Hopson’s brief to this Court, his counsel a sserts that he filed a motion to supplement the

record in the habeas court, but the record transmitted to this Court does not include that motion. I n

any event, the record indicates that the habeas c ourt did not have the e x traordinary motion for new

trial transcript or the recording of the meeting to consider before reaching its decision.

7wo rk in g a t th e d istric t a tto rn e y ’s o ffic e to g e t Ho pso n ’s c o n v ic tio n re ve rse d

. A s

e x p la in e d b e lo w , th e h a

b e a s c o u rt e rre d in b o th re sp e c ts. 2

(a ) Th e h a

be a s c o u rt ru le d th a t Jo sh i vio la te d c o n stitu tio n a l

m a n d a te s b y “ k n o win g ly p re se n t[in g ] te stim on y th a t h e b e lie v e d to b e fa lse ” a t

Ho p so n ’s tria l a n d b y “ d [o in g] n o th in g to sto p th e tria l, e v e n wh e n h e c a lle d a

witn e ss wh o m h e k n e w to be ly in g .” T h e c o u rt b a se d th e se le g a l c o n c lu sio n s

o n its fa c tu a l f

i n d i n g s t ha t Jo sh i “ pro se c ute d M r. Ho p so n in sp ite o f h is

k n o wle d g e th a t Mr. Ho p so n wa s in n o c e nt a n d in sp ite o f h is k no w le d ge th a t th e

2 T h e w a rd en initially arg ues that b e cause Hopson raised J oshi’s misconduct in hi s

e x t r a o r d inary motion for n ew trial and that motion was d enied, r es judicata (claim preclusio n )

required the habeas court to deny relief. The claim Hopson asserts in this habeas corpus proceeding

is based on the same facts that were litig ated in the ex traordinary motion f or new trial proceeding

, and the Court of Appeals held there that “no new trial is warranted on the g round of prosecutorial

misconduct,” Hopson I I

, 307 Ga. App. at 51. N evertheless, Hopson arg ues, a s the h abeas court held,

that the leg al question is different because his claim in the prior proceedin g w a s b a sed on newly

discovered evidence and his claim now is based on constitutional due process, which is a claim he

could raise only in a habeas corpus proceeding

. W e have said that “[ h] abeas corpus is the ex clusive

p ost-appeal procedure available to a criminal defendant w ho asserts the denial of a constitu t i o n a l

rig ht.” State v. Smith, 276 Ga. 1 4, 15 (573 SE2d 64) (2002), disapproved of on other g rounds by

W ilkes v

. Terry

, 2 9 0 Ga. 54, 55-56 (717 SE2d 644) (2011). B ut we h ave also said that an

ex traordinary motion for new trial can be “ predicated on circumstances other than newly discovered

evidence” that alleg edly

should h ave been considered by the jury . F ord Motor Co. v. Conley , 294

Ga. 530, 540 (757 SE2d 20) (2014) ( citation and quotation marks omitted). B ecause, as discussed

below, we conclude that the habeas court erred in g r anting relief for a different reason, we need not

decide w hether Hopson could have (and thus should have) raised h is constitut ional claim in his

ex trao rd i n a r y m o t i o n f

or new trial. See McCorquodale v. State, 2 42 Ga. 507, 507 n.1 (249 SE2d

211) ( 1978) (rejecting on the merits t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s claims that his c onstitutional rig h ts to due

process and a f

air trial were violated, ex pressly leaving open the issue of whether an ex traordinary

motion for new trial was an appropriate proceeding to raise such constitutional claims). However,

collateral estoppel ( issue preclusion), which bars r e litig ation of facts found in a prior proceeding

, does apply

in this situation, as we discuss below.

8a lle g e d v ic tim wa s ly in g ,” “ su b o rn e d th e v i c t i m’s te stim o n y in sp ite o f h is

k n o w l e d g e th a t su c h te stim o n y wa s fa lse ,” an d “ with h e ld e x c u lp a to ry

in fo rm a tio n in v o lv in g h is k n o wle d g e [o f] th e fa lsity o f th e a lle g e d v ic tim ’s

te stim o n y .” (Em

p h a sis a d d e d .) In th is wa y

, th e h a b e a s c o u rt a sse rte d

, Jo sh i “ le t

a m an h e k n e w to b e in n o c e n t b e c o n vic te d o f ra p e .”

If Jo sh i h a d

, in fa c t, d o n e th e se th in g s, h e wo u ld h a v e v io la te d H o p so n ’s

d u e pro c e ss rig h ts. “[A] c o n v ic tio n ob ta i n e d t h r o u gh u se of fa lse e vid e n c e

,

k n o w n to b e su c h b y re p re se n ta tiv e s of th e S ta te

, m u st fa ll u n d e r th e F o urte e n th

Am e n dm e n t.” Na

p u e v

. Illin o is, 3 60 U.S

. 2 6 4

, 2 6 9 (7 9 S Ct 1 1 7 3

, 3 L E2 d 1 2 1 7 )

(1 9 5 9 ). S e e a lso Un ite d S ta te s v

. Cla rk e

, 4 4 2 F e d

. Ap p x

. 5 4 0

, 5 4 3 -5 4 4 (1 1 th

C i r

. 2 0 1 1 ) (e x p la in in g th a t to o b ta in a re v e rsa l o n th e g ro u n d th a t t h e

g o v e rn m e n t fa ile d to c o rre c t fa lse te stim o ny

, th e d e fe n d a nt m u st e sta b lish th a t

“ (1 ) th e c o n te ste d sta te m e n ts we re a c tu a lly fa lse

, (2 ) th e g o v e rn m e n t k n e w th e

sta te m e n ts to b e fa lse [,] a n d (3 ) th e sta te m e n ts we re m a te ria l” ). Lik e w ise

, “ th e

su p p re ssio n b y th e p ro se c u tio n o f e v id e n c e fa v o ra b le to a n a c c u s e d up o n re q u e st

v io la te s d u e p ro c e ss wh e re th e e v i d en c e i s m a te ria l e ith e r to g u ilt o r to

p u n ish m e n t.” Bra d y v

. Ma ry la n d

, 3 7 3 U.S

. 8 3

, 8 7 (8 3 S Ct 1 1 9 4

, 1 0 LE2 d 2 1 5 )

9(1 9 6 3 ). 3

At th e e x tra o rd in a ry m otio n fo r n e w tria l h e a rin g

, th e tria l c o u rt h e a rd th e

re c o rd in g o f Jo sh i’s m e e tin g with Ho p so n’s fa m ily a n d wa tc h e d Jo sh i’s

te stim o n y a

b o u t th e re c o rd in g a n d th e c a se i n g en e r a l

. In th e a p p e a l o f th a t

p ro c e e d in g

, t h e Co u rt o f A p p e a ls re v ie we d th e re c o rd in g an d th e h e a rin g

tra n sc rip t. Th e tria l c o u rt fo un d

, a n d th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls a ffirm e d

, th a t Jo sh i

d id n o t k n o w th a t th e vic tim a n d h e r frie n d te stifie d fa lse ly a t Ho pso n ’s tria l; h e

a t m o st b e lie v e d th a t, a n d h is o p in io n wa s b a se d so le ly o n in fo rm a tio n th a t wa s

a v a ilable to th e d e fe n se a n d th e ju ry

. Se e Ho p so n II, 3 07 Ga

. A p p

. a t 5 0 -5 1

. At

th e m o tio n h e a rin g , “ Jo sh i e x p la in e d th a t he h a d m a d e a n o v e rsta te m e n t wh e n

3 The habeas court also pointed out that conduct o f this sort would violate the Georg ia Rules

of Professional Conduct that p rohibit a prosecut o r f r om knowing ly offering false testimony and

failing to disclose ex c u l p at ory information. See Rule 3.3 (a) (4) (prohibiting any lawy er from

“knowing ly

. . . o ffer[ ing ] evidence that t h e l a wy e r k n o w s to be false”); Rule 3 .8 (a) (requiring

prosecutors to “refrain f

rom p r osecuting a charg e that the prosecutor k n o w s i s n ot supported by

probable cause”) and (d) (requiring pros e c u tors to “make timely disclosure to the defense o f all

evidence or information k nown to the prosecutor that tends to neg ate the g uilt of the accused or that

mitig ates the o ffense”). However, a violation of these ethical rules is not in itself a constitutional

violation and thus not alone a g r o und for habeas corpus. See OCGA § 9-14-42 (a) (limiting postsentencing habeas corpus p roceeding s to claims that the petitioner suffered “ a substantial denial of

his rig hts under the Constitution of the United States or of this state”); B ritt v

. Smith, 274 Ga. 611,

612 (556 SE2d 435) (2001) (holding that a violation of the Uniform Superior Court Rules, which,

like the Rules of Professional Conduct, are promulg a ted by this Court, is n ot in itself c og niz able in

habeas), overruled on other g rounds by L ejeune v. McL aug hlin, 296 Ga. 291, 299 (766 SE2d 803)

(2014). See also B lackshear v. State, 274 Ga. 842, 843 (560 SE2d 688) (2002) (ex plaining that “[ a] n

ethics viola t ion

. . . does not necessarily establish a [ constitutional] claim of ineffectiveness of

counsel”).

1 0h e sa id h e k

n e w th a t [th e witn e sse s] h a d lie d b e c a u se it wa s o n ly h is o p in io n ,”

a n d th e tria l c o u rt sp e c ific a lly f o u n d Jo sh i’s sta te m e n ts to H o p so n ’s fa m ily to

b e o f q u e s t i o n a

b le c re d ib ility

, e x p la in in g th a t a t th e tim e h e m a de th e m

, Jo sh i

wa s se e k in g to b e h ire d b y th e fa m ily . Id . a t 5 0

.

Mo re ov e r, th e o n ly ba sis th a t Jo sh i g a v e fo r his p u rp o rte d o p in io n th a t th e

v ic tim a n d h e r frie n d h a d lie d wa s “ ‘in c o n siste n t te stim o ny a b o u t wh e th e r [th e

v i c t i m] w as d ra g g e d o r we n t v o lu n ta rily to a pa rtic u la r a re a .’” Id

. a t 5 0

, 5 2

(q u o tin g th e tria l c o u rt). T h e se in c o n siste n c ie s, h o we v e r

, “ ‘we re disc lo se d to

[Ho pso n ’s] tria l c ou n se l an d we re pre se n te d a t [th e ] tria l.’” Id

. a t 50 (q u o tin g

th e tria l c o u rt). In fa c t, Ho p so n ’s tria l c o u n se l “ re lie d u p o n [th e ] d isc re p a n c y

in c lo sin g a rg u m e n t,” a

n d th e ju ry a c q u itte d Ho p so n o f th e k id n a p p in g c h arg e

to wh ic h th e te stim o n y dire c tly re la te d

. Id

. a t 5 2

. Ho p s o n “ c o u ld p oin t to n o

o th e r ou tsid e e v id e n c e to su pp o rt Jo sh i’s c o n c lu sio n ” ; th e re w a s n o e vid e n c e

,

fo r e x a m p le

, th a t th e v ic tim e v e r re c a n te d to th e pro se c uto r o r a n y o n e e lse

. Id

.

a t 5 0 , 5 2.

Ho p so n p re se n te d n o n e w e v id e n c e o n t h is issu e to th e h a be a s c o u rt.

In d e e d

, wh e n th e h a

b e a s c o u rt ru le d

, it d id n o t e v e n h a ve th e re c o rd in g a n d th e

t r an sc rip t o f Jo sh i’s te stim o n y to re v ie w

, se e fo o tn o te 1 a b o v e ; fo r th e fa c t s

1 1a

b o u t wh a t o c c u rre d wh e n Jo sh i m e t with Ho p so n ’s fa m ily a n d wh a t Jo sh i sa id

a n d th o u g h t a

b o u t th e c a se

, th e h a

be a s c o u rt h a d to r e l y en t i re ly on th e tria l

c o u rt’s o rd e r a n d th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls’ o p in io n a ffirm in g th a t o rd e r in Ho p so n

II. Th u s, th e h a

b e a s c o u rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s th a t Jo sh i k n e w th a t th e v ic tim wa s

ly in g, p re se n te d te stim o n y h e k n e w to b e fa ls e a t tria l, a n d fa ile d to d isc lo se

e v id e n c e h e k

n e w to be e x c ulp a to ry we re c le a rly e rro n e o us, b e c a u se th e y we re

n o t su p p o rte d b y t h e e v i d e n c e b e fo re th e c o urt. Mo re o v e r, su c h fin d in g s,

c o n tra ry to th e fa c tu a l fin d in g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u rt a ffirm e d by th e Co u rt o f

A p p e a l s a n d b a se d o n n o ne w e v id e nc e

, we re b a rre d a s a m a tte r o f c o lla t e r a l

e sto p p e l (issu e p re c lu sio n ). S e e S e s s i o n s v

. S t a te

, 29 3 Ga

. 3 3

, 34 (7 4 3 S E2 d

3 9 1 ) (2 01 3 ); S imm o n s v . S ta te , 2 76 Ga . 5 2 5 , 5 2 6 (5 7 9 S E2 d 7 3 5) (2 0 0 3 ).

Th e h a b e a s c o u rt a lso o p in e d th a t Jo sh i “ h a d a du ty to sto p th e tria l wh e re

h e b e lie v e [

d ] th a t th e m a in witn e ss w a s ly in g ” a n d th a t “ H o p so n ’s

[c o n stitu tio n a l] rig hts we re v i o l a te d wh e re [Jo sh i] p ro c e e d e d with h is

p ro se c u tio n o f M r. Ho p so n wh e re h e d id n o t b e lie v e th a t th e m a in p ro se c u tin g

witn e ss wa s tru th fu l in h e r c la im .” (Emp h a s i s a d d e d .) Bu t th e re le v a n t

c o n stitu tio n a l d o c trin e s a n d e th ic a l ru le s a re fra m e d in te rm s o f k n o wle d g e a n d

e v id e nc e

, no t m e re su b

je c tiv e b e lie f. Pro se c u to rs c e rta in ly h a v e th e disc re tio n

1 2to d ism iss a c a se wh e n th e y b e lie v e it w o u ld b e u n ju st to p ro c e e d

, b u t th e h a b e a s

c o u rt a n d Ho pso n c ite no a u th o rity re q u i r i n g a p ro se c u to r to d ism iss a c a se

b a se d so le ly o n p e rso n a l d o u b ts a b o u t th e c re d ib ility o f a witn e ss th a t a rise fro m

th e sa m e e v id e n c e a v a ilab le to th e d e fe n se

, th e c o u rt, a n d th e ju ry

. “ ‘In G e o rg ia

,

th e c re di b i l i t y o f a witn e ss is to b e d e te rm in e d b y th e ju ry

, ’” a n d th e

p ro se c u to r’s o p in io n o f a witn e ss’s c re d ib ility is n o t a dm issib le e v id e n c e

. S e e

Ho p so n II, 3 0 7 Ga . Ap p . a t 5 1 (c ita tio n o m itte d ).

P ro se c u to rs m a y n o t p re se n t e v id e n c e th e y k no w is fa lse or fa il to d isc lo se

m a te ria lly e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e to th e d e fe n se

, b u t th e y n e e d n ot sh are th e ir

su b je c tiv e c o n c e rn s a

b o u t th e stre n g t h s o r w e a k ne sse s o f th e S ta te ’s c a se a n d

witn e sse s. Esp e c ia lly in c lo se a n d se rio u s c a se s, th e p ro se c u to r m a y a llo w th e

ju ry to d e c id e if a

n a lle g e d c rim e vic tim

– h e re

, a n a lle ge d ra p e v ic tim

– is

te llin g th e tru th a n d th u s is e n title d to th e ju stic e sh e se e k s, ra th e r th a n m a k in g

th a t d e te rm in a tio n u n ila te ra lly a n d p re e m ptiv e ly

. S e e Ru le 3 .3 (a ) (4 ), c o m m e n t

[8 ] (“ Th e p ro h ib itio n a g a in st o ffe rin g fa lse e v id e n c e o n ly a p p lie s if th e la wy e r

k n o w s th a t th e e v id e nc e is fa lse

. A la wy e r’s re a so n a ble b e lie f th a t e v id e n c e is

fa lse d o e s n ot p re c lu d e its p re se n ta tio n to th e trie r o f fa c t.” ). Ac c o rd in g ly

, e v e n

if Jo sh i re a lly d o u b te d th e tru th fu ln e ss o f th e v ic tim ’s te stim o n y a t th e tim e o f

1 3Ho p so n ’s tria l

– ra th e r th a n o n ly in re tro sp e c t o r o n ly wh e n a sse rtin g th a t b e lie f

se rv e d h i s a tte m

p t to e x tra c t m o n e y fro m Ho p so n ’s fa m ily

– th a t wo u ld n o t

a m o u n t to a c o n stitu tio n a l v io la tio n

. Ba se d o n th e sa m e in fo rm a tio n a v a ilab le

to Jo sh i, th e ju ry b e lie v e d th e v ic tim ’s te stim o n y th a t sh e wa s ra p e d by Ho p so n

,

a n d th a t is wh a t c o u n ts. F o r th e se re a so n s, th e ha b e a s c o u rt e rre d in c o n c lu d in g

th a t Jo sh i v io la te d Ho p so n ’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b y a llo w in g th e v ic tim to

te stify

.

(b ) Th e se c o n d a sp e c t of Jo sh i’s c o n d u c t on wh ic h th e h a b e a s

c o u rt re lie d did c o n stitu te a b la ta n t v io la tio n o f h is e th ic a l r e s p o n sib ility a s a

la wy e r

– Jo sh i’s a tte m

p t to pa rla y h is p rio r wo rk fo r th e S ta te in to g e ttin g h ire d

to a ssist a m a n h e o n c e p ro se c u te d , u sin g a no th e r a tto rn e y with o u t a n o b v io u s

c o n flic t o f in te re st a s a fr o n t ma n t o re p re se n t th e c lie n t a n d a sse rt Jo sh i’s

a lle g e d m isc o n d u c t. Se e Ru le 1 .1 1 (a ) (“ E x c e pt a s la w m ay o th e rwise e x p re ssly

p e rm it, a la w y e r sh a ll n o t re p re se n t a p riv a te c lie n t in c o n n e c tio n with a m a tte r

in wh ic h th e la wy e r p a rtic ip a te d p e rso n a lly a n d su b sta n tia lly a s a p u b lic o ffic e r

o r e m p lo y e e

, u n le ss th e a

p p ro p ria te g o v e rn m e n t e n tity g iv e s in fo rm e d c o n se n t,

c o n firm e d in w ritin g.” ). Th is Co u rt a nd th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls ha v e p re v io u sly

in d ic a te d o u r a g re e m e n t with th e h a b e a s c o u rt’s c o n d e mn a tio n o f Jo sh i ’ s

1 4c o n d u c t in th is re sp e c t, a n d we re ite ra te th a t it wa s u n s c r u p u lo u s. S e e In th e

Ma tte r o f Jo sh i, su p ra (a c c e p tin g Jo sh i’s p e titio n fo r v o lu n ta ry d isc ip lin e b a se d

o n h is a d mi s s i o n th a t h e v io la te d Ru le 1 .1 1

, a n d o rd e rin g th a t he b e g iv e n a

p u b lic re p rim a

n d a n d a tte nd th e S ta te Ba r’s e th ic s sc h o o l); Ho p so n II, 3 0 7 Ga

.

Ap p

. a t 5 2 n .1

. 4 Ho we ve r, a ssu m in g th a t a c o n flic t o f in te re st o f th is so rt m a y

c o n stitu te a c o n stitu tio n a l d u e p ro c e ss v io la tio n, se e fo o tn o te 3 a b ov e

, Jo sh i’s

m isc o nd u c t o c c u rre d lo n g a fte r Ho p so n ’s tria l e n d e d

.

R e c o g n iz in g th is tim in g issu e

, th e h a b e a s c o u rt e x pla in e d th a t i t w a s

“ c o n c e rn e d a

b o u t th e p o ssib ility th a t Mr. Jo sh i’s fin an c ia l m o tiv e s a ro se d u rin g

th e p ro se c u tio n

, ” a n d th e n c o n c lu d e d th a t “ be c a u se [Jo sh i’s] p ro fit m o tiv e c o u ld

h a v e a rise n a s e a rly a s du rin g o r b e fo re tria l,” h is p ro se c utio n o f Ho p so n

c o n stitu te d stru c tu ra l e rro r, wh ic h re q u ire s a u to m a tic re v e rsa l o f a c o n v ic tio n

.

(Em p h a sis a d d e d .) Cf. Cu y le r v

. S u l l iv an

, 4 46 U.S

. 3 3 5

, 3 4 9 -3 5 0 (1 0 0 S Ct

1 7 0 8, 6 4 LE2 d 3 3 3 ) (1 9 8 0 ) (“ [A] de fe n d a n t wh o sh o w s th a t a c o n flic t o f in te re st

a c tu a lly a ffe c te d th e a d e q u a c y o f h i s re p re se n ta tio n ne e d n o t d e m o n stra te

p re ju d ic e in o rd e r to o b ta in r e l i e f .” ). Th e p ro ble m with th e h a b e a s c o u rt’s

4 W e note that our F e b ru a r y 2 0 0 9 d ecision in J oshi’s disciplinary case was based on the

limited admissions he made in h is p et i t i o n for voluntary discipline, which was unopposed by the

State B a r.

1 5re a so nin g is th a t th e r e i s n o e vid e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t Jo sh i wa s e v e n

c o n sid e rin g le a v in g th e d istric t a tto rn e y ’s o ffic e a t th e tim e o f Ho pso n ’ s tria l,

m u c h le ss th a t h e h a d a t th a t tim e c o n te m p la te d th e situ a tio n c re a tin g th e c o n flic t

o f in te re s t h e pro p o se d to Ho p so n ’s fa m ily so m e 2 0 m o n th s la te r. Co m pa re

S ta te v

. Wa k e fie ld

, 3 2 4 Ga

. Ap p

. 5 8 7

, 5 9 0

, 5 93 ( 7 5 1 S E2 d 1 99 ) (2 0 1 3 )

(a ffirm in g th e r e v e r s a l o f c o n v ic tio ns b a se d o n stru c tu ra l e rro r wh e n th e

“ u n disp u te d e vid e n c e su p p o rte d th e tria l c ou rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g” th a t th e ju d g e

p re sid in g o ve r th e tria ls a n d a n a tto rn e y fo r so m e o f th e de fe n d a n ts h a d a n

“ o n g o i n g a n d in tim a te re la tio n sh ip ” d u rin g th e tria ls). Ha b e a s re lie f m

u st b e

su p p o rte d b y e v i d e nc e in th e re c o rd

, n o t m e re sp e c u la tio n

. A c c o rd in g ly

, th e

h a b e a s c ou rt a lso e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t Jo s h i v i o l at e d H o p so n ’s c o n stitu tio n a l

rig h ts b y u n e th ic a lly so lic itin g h is b u sin e ss lo ng a fte r h is c o nv ic tio n

.

Ju d g m e n t re ve rse d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

1 6