Opinion ID: 782363
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DeNeal's testimony at the post-conviction hearing

Text: 30 In support of his post-conviction motion for a new trial, Murrell also theorized that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call to the stand Mr. Danny DeNeal, the witness with the ever-changing testimony. Because DeNeal at one point allegedly told a private investigator that he had seen someone else other than Murrell throw the gun down in the Roxy parking lot, in all likelihood, Murrell probably was hoping that DeNeal would give this similar account of the night's events at the post-conviction hearing. Instead, on this occasion, DeNeal came up with still another story and testified that, just after the shooting, he and Davis ... ran outside, and there was a Glock nine-millimeter laying under the car ... The gun was already there when we ran outside. It was already laying on the ground. (PC Tr. at 62-63.) 7 When asked at the post-conviction hearing on direct examination whether he had see[n] anybody throw down the gun in the parking lot, DeNeal replied, No ... The gun was already there when we ran outside. It was already lying on the ground. ( Id. at 63.) During cross-examination, DeNeal also claimed (in spite of the fact that Davis and a number of officers had testified extensively regarding Davis's participation in the footchase) that he never saw Davis chasing ... Murrell after the shooting. ( Id. at 68.) 31 After DeNeal's testimony at the probation revocation hearing, Charles Haase, an investigator with the public defender's office, took the stand and it became clear that DeNeal had given Haase still another entirely different version of the night's events on a prior occasion. Investigator Haase recounted that on April 25, 1996 (about three months prior to the post-conviction hearing, and approximately one year after the trial), he interviewed DeNeal. According to Haase, during this interview with DeNeal, DeNeal initially informed him that he had not seen who dropped the gun on the ground. Then, during the same questioning, DeNeal took an end-run around that statement and  changed his story  to reflect a statement he had previously given to police — that he had seen the man who dropped the gun, and that the person was a bald, black male, around 5' 7, who was not Murrell. (RH Tr. 74-76.) DeNeal went on to elaborate that the bald man whom he had allegedly seen drop the gun had shortly thereafter driven by and pointed a shotgun at him (this new addition to the story was not even included in his prior statement to the police). ( Id. at 77.) Also during the interview, DeNeal went further beyond all realms of truthfulness and further expanded his most recent version of the night's events and told Haase that he remained with the gun, guarding it until Milwaukee Police arrived [to] tak[e] control of the evidence ( Id. at 75) — this is not recorded in any police report. 8 32 Despite the fact that Haase's testimony highlighted DeNeal's tendency to repeatedly contradict himself, and to switch around and embellish the facts, Murrell presented Haase's testimony at the post-conviction hearing in support of his theory that the presentation of these statements (DeNeal) would likely have changed the outcome of his trial — but he failed to specify which version he would have used.