Opinion ID: 1490004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Relationship Between Janikuak, Brown, and Al Brown

Text: The hearing justice discussed the relationship between Janikuak, Brown, and Al Brown and said: The credible evidence, both documentary as well as testimonial, which emerged at hearing, proves that Pastor Janikuak did know Al Browna fact she flatly denied at trial. However, the hearing justice did not indicate whether this contributed to her finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Brown argues that in granting his application, the Superior Court clearly included within its calculus the evidence of the relationship among the Brown cousins and Janikuak, and that the hearing justice was able to obtain a more complete picture of the relationships among the various individuals, providing an even stronger basis for a finding of bias on the part of Pastor Janikuak. He concludes by arguing that Janikuak's bias at the time of the trial was a fair question for exploration. [John Brown's] failure to flush out the bases for this cross examination was part of the ineffectiveness of his representation. [19] The record reveals that John Brown did pursue the issue of Janikuak's bias during the trial but that the trial justice curtailed his line of questioning. Therefore, there seems to be little evidence that John Brown was deficient in this regard. Furthermore, this issue should have been precluded from reconsideration by the Superior Court because this Court already decided the issue in the direct appeal. See Vorgvongsa, 785 A.2d at 547-48; Carillo v. Moran, 463 A.2d 178, 182 (R.I. 1983). There, Brown identified the trial justice's limitation of Janikuak's cross-examination concerning the lawsuit filed against her by Al Brown as one of the errors that warranted a new trial. Brown, 709 A.2d at 473. This Court rejected that claim, and held that the trial justice properly exercised his discretion to limit and control questioning on a collateral matter, and further that any error on this issue was harmless. Id. at 473-75. Therefore, this issue cannot contribute to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel and should not have been reconsidered in the Superior Court. 2