UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BROWN,

 

Petitioner, Case Number 5:09-cv-11655

 Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.

LLOYD RAPELJE,

Respondent.

________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING [Dkts. 40 and 41]

Petitioner, Ronald Brown, a state prisoner, filed this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August

8, 2013, the Court denied the amended petition. Petitioner has filed a motion for rehearing. He

argues that he is actually innocent, and challenges the credibility of the prosecutor’s witnesses and

asserts that the police planted evidence against him. Petitioner also asserts that his counsel conceded

his guilt during jury selection.

Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. However, a motion for

reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or

by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F.

Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by

which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of the

case must result from a correction thereof. A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear,

unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

In the present case, the arguments raised by Petitioner in his motion for rehearing were

already raised and decided, either explicitly or by reasonable implication, in Petitioner's amended

petition. The motion for reconsideration will therefore be denied. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp.

5:09-cv-11655-JCO-RSW Doc # 42 Filed 10/01/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1804
2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Petitioner again asserts that his children were coerced to testify

against him, that he had an alibi, and that the police planted the bullet fragments fired from his gun

by the victim’s house. As explained in detail in the opinion denying the amended petition, contrary

to his arguments, the evidence of Petitioner’s guilt was overwhelming. After shooting up the

victim’s house, Petitioner gave his handgun to a friend to hide. Instead of hiding it, the friend

revealed its location to the police. Testing of the weapon then revealed that it was the handgun used

to eject the bullet casings found in Petitioner’s car, and another matching casing was found in

Petitioner’s bedroom. Gunshot residue was found on his hand. Petitioner had a motive to commit

the crime because someone from the victim’s house had severely injured his daughter with a brick

the day before. Petitioner has not demonstrated his actual innocence. 

With respect to his counsel’s statement during jury selection. Counsel started by telling the

jury, rhetorically, that they might assume that Petitioner did something wrong if he was on trial.

Counsel then went on, however, to explain that as jurors they could not made such an assumption,

and that they must presume that Petitioner was not guilty. Petitioner’s claim simply reads the

passage out of context. 

Petitioner’s motion for rehearing is therefore DENIED.

SO ORDERED. 

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: October 1, 2013

-2-

5:09-cv-11655-JCO-RSW Doc # 42 Filed 10/01/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1805
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record

on this date, October 1, 2013, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

-3-

5:09-cv-11655-JCO-RSW Doc # 42 Filed 10/01/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1806