SUPERIOR COURT

of the

STATE OF DELAWARE

Jeffrey J Clark Kent County Courthouse

Judge 38The Green

Dover, DE 19901

Telephone (302)735-2111

April 5, 2018

Jason C. Cohee, Esq. Alexander Funk, Esq.

Lindsay Taylor, Esq. Curley & Funk, LLC

Department of Justice 250 Beiser Blvd.

102 West Water Street Suite 202

Dover, Delaware 19901 Dover, DE 19904-7790

Edward C. Gill, Esq.

Law Office of Edward C. Gill & Associates

16 North Bedford Street

Georgetown, DE

RE: FIRST DEGREE MURDER CASE

State v. Abdul T. White

ID#1508010489

Submitted: April 4, 2018

Decided: April 5, 2018

Counsel:

This matter is set for sentencing on April 10, 2018. The Court received

Defendant Abdul White’s (hereinafter “Mr. White’s”) motion to compel on March 28,

2018 and the State’s response on April 4, 2018. In his motion, Mr. White seeks to

compel production of evidence that he alleges is exculpatory and that the State has

refused to produce. Specifically, Mr. White seeks production of information relevant
to the State’s Firearms Identification Expert, Carl Rone’s, suspension, discipline, and

resignation from State employment. Mr. White argues that this information is

necessary to file post-trial motions prior to his sentencing.

After a two week trial, the jury returned its verdict on November 2, 2017,finding

Mr. White guilty of Murder in the First Degree, as well as numerous other offenses

surrounding a home invasion, weapons possession, and the threatening and kidnaping

of multiple victims. In its written response, the State represents that it did not learn of

the investigation regarding Mr. Rone until January 19, 2018, more than two months

after the verdict. The State also represents that it has no definitive answer to Mr.

White’s inquiry because the investigation has not concluded. Moreover, the State has

not represented that it will refuse to voluntarily produce information regarding the

investigation once it is concluded. Rather, the State alleges that it is not yet in a

position to determine if exculpatory information exists.

With regard to the applicability of this information to post-trial motions, Mr.

White has not adequately set forth a basis to consider such issues prior to his

sentencing. The only background available to the Court at this point regarding any

possible motions includes its own observations of the trial. Of note, Mr. Rone, the

subject of the inquiry, did not testify at trial. Rather, Mr. White introduced his report

(jointly with the State)through a stipulation between the parties. Moreover, Mr. White

relied upon Mr. Rone’s report when arguing that he did not fire the shot that killed the

murder victim, Mr. Harmon. Given this evidentiary background, without further

support, the Court declines to speculate as to what post-trial issues Mr. White will

raise.

Under the circumstances of this case, since Mr. White cites no authority

supporting his application and merely argues that exculpatory evidence may exist that

2
justifies a new trial, his motion is not availing at this stage. Furthermore, the Court is

not convinced that proceeding with sentencing will prejudice Mr. White’s rights to

challenge the jury’s verdict. Namely, we are well beyond the seven day deadline for

filing a motion for a new trial based on most grounds.

1 We are also well less than the

two year deadline after “final judgment” for filing a motion based on newly discovered

evidence.2 Accordingly, postponing sentencing in this case will not impact Mr.

White’s rights to pursue other avenues to challenge his conviction through post-trial

motions, a direct appeal, or collateral proceedings.

Accordingly, since no good cause exists for a delay in sentencing, it will

proceed on April 10, 2018 as scheduled. Mr. White’s motion to compel is DENIED

without prejudice to be raised after sentencing, if desired, provided it is supported by

adequate authority and is otherwise procedurally appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED

/s/Jeffrey J Clark

 Judge

1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 33.

2

Id.

3