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

Heading: Linking Murrell to the gun

Text: 52 Having established that Davis's prior testimony would not have affected his credibility, we turn now to the question of whether, as Murrell claims, introducing Davis's prior testimony that he had not in fact seen the gun drop would have challenged the accuracy of the most important part of [Davis's] trial testimony. Appellant's Br. at 24. Murrell speculates that, if Davis had been challenged on his claim to have seen the gun drop, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. But the single statement that Murrell attacks — regarding a split second time differential in Murrell's observation of the gun — was but a segment of one minute of what was, overall, a detailed, clear and convincing recitation of the facts, given by Davis, corroborated by other law enforcement officers and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury. And unfortunately for Murrell, even without Davis's statement at trial that he in fact saw Murrell drop the gun, Davis's clear, unequivocal and convincing testimony regarding Murrell's behavior just after the shooting, and his discovery of the gun right in Murrell's path of flight, combined with the corroborating testimony of other witnesses (Burrage, Arndt, Henson, forensic expert), as well as the videotape (Shaw), presented more than ample evidence to the jury and trial judge establishing that Murrell was in possession of and used the Glock nine-millimeter weapon to perpetrate the shootings at the Roxbury Club. 53 Notably, the State presented eyewitness testimony that Murrell committed the crimes charged. As recounted above, Burrage testified — consistent with a statement given to police the morning of the shooting — that while he was in the men's bathroom just prior to the shooting, he saw Murrell pull out a Glock nine-millimeter gun and work the slide in preparation for firing it. Burrage's testimony provided a motive for the shooting — namely, that Murrell had been informed by his friend (Owens) that there was a fight going on, and that Murrell was needed to attend to the situation by getting out the strap (the gun). Burrage also recounted that, after he followed Murrell and Owens out of the bathroom, he personally witnessed Murrell fire five or six shots into the crowd. 17 54 Even excluding Davis's single alleged inconsistent statement, his testimony linked Murrell to the Glock nine-millimeter gun used in the shooting. As we have already explained, Davis noticed that as Murrell exited the Club he was acting very suspicious because he appeared to be too calm considering what he had just witnessed, and that (as supported by the Club's videotape) he was tucking into his pants something that Davis could have sworn was a gun. Furthermore, Davis testified that Murrell refused to stop when Davis asked him to, and at that time took off at an accelerated pace. According to Davis, he either saw the gun drop (trial) or was made aware of the gun drop when he saw the Glock nine-millimeter on the ground (and, indeed, he stepped right over the gun) right at the place that Murrell had just passed (revocation hearing). In any case, Davis's observation of the Glock nine-millimeter gun — right in Murrell's path — helped confirm his prior suspicion that Murrell was the shooter (too calm, tucking what he thought was a gun into his pants, and under his sweater at the beltline) and that he was trying to discard the weapon in an attempt to do away with the most incriminating evidence — the gun used in the shootings. 18 55 Moreover, as discussed above, Officer Henson's trial testimony, as well as Davis's probation hearing testimony 19 , established that there was no other person in the Club's parking lot immediately after the shooting (the time frame when Davis observed the Glock nine-millimeter right in the immediate vicinity where Murrell had just passed). See supra note 15 and accompanying text (discussing Henson's observations of the footchase). In the absence of any other persons in the area, it is most unlikely that anyone but Murrell could have dropped the gun in the parking lot. 56 Circumstantial evidence is of equal probative value to direct evidence and in some cases is even more reliable. United States v. Reyes, 270 F.3d 1158, 1169 (7th Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted). In this case, prosecutors presented both circumstantial and direct evidence of Murrell's guilt, and one would be hard-pressed, in the face of this wealth of overwhelming evidence of Murrell's guilt, to find that there is a reasonable probability that Davis's previous testimony regarding the dropping of the gun would have resulted in a different outcome at trial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) (to demonstrate prejudice, defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different). After reviewing the record, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not find that there was such a reasonable probability; nor do we upon federal appellate review. We are convinced that, in light of the totality of the consistent and damaging testimony that Davis presented (both at the probation revocation hearing and at trial), the statements of the police officers, as well as the eyewitness testimony of Jermaine Burrage, the state court's decision was both reasonable and proper.