Opinion ID: 1735759
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: facts and procedural history of state v. cousin:

Text: Before addressing the merits of the case, it is necessary to discuss, in some detail, the underlying facts and procedural history of Shareef Cousin's criminal case. On March 2, 1995, Michael Gerardi was shot at point-blank range during an armed robbery attempt outside the Port of Call restaurant in New Orleans. Connie Ann Babin, Mr. Gerardi's date that evening and the only eyewitness to the murder, gave three separate statements to the New Orleans Police Department during the homicide investigation. When questioned on the night of the murder, a visibly shaken Ms. Babin told the police that she did not get a good look at the perpetrators and probably could not identify them. (Statement 1). [4] In the second statement, which was tape recorded by police at Ms. Babin's home on March 5, 1995, three days after the murder, Ms. Babin was asked by a New Orleans Police Department detective whether she could describe the person who did the shooting, his clothing? In response, Ms. Babin said that she remembered the shooter was wearing an oversized denim jacket (Statement 2). She continued: I don't know, it was dark and I did not have my contacts nor my glasses so I'm coming at this at a disadvantage.. I.. you know you could see outlines and shapes and things that stick out, but er.. the socks, I remember the colorful socks, because he kept drawing my attention to it when he kept fidgeting at his ankle area, ... Ms. Babin went on to describe the shooter's hair and to say that the shooter was in his late teens and five feet seven or eight inches tall. After providing this description, Ms. Babin stated: As he looked to me.. I keep getting this vision of a young man with, with an older man's face.. er I don't know that if this is coming.. er somewhere, or if I really did see this person ... if this is just coming from my imagination or what, but I.. every time I go over it and close my eyes er.. I remember thinking that he had an older man's face or a young body, on a young person.. how I visualize that, I don't know ... On March 25, 1995, three weeks after the murder, Ms. Babin viewed a photographic lineup presented by the police and positively identified sixteen-year old Shareef Cousin as the shooter (Statement 3). [5] Mr. Cousin was arrested a short time later and indicted for the first degree murder of Mr. Gerardi. In the summer of 1995, the criminal case was assigned to respondent, then an assistant district attorney in Orleans Parish. When respondent was first assigned the case, he recalls that there were three identification witnesses. [6] However, Ms. Babin was the only witness to positively identify Mr. Cousin. [7] In preparing for trial, respondent interviewed Ms. Babin. She informed him that she is nearsighted and only needs her contacts or glasses for nighttime driving, but not to see at close distances. Considering this information, respondent unilaterally determined that the absence of contacts or glasses on the night of the murder did not affect Ms. Babin's identification of Mr. Cousin as the shooter. Respondent testified at his disciplinary hearing that he believed Ms. Babin's second statement provided significant additional details that tended to corroborate her identification of Mr. Cousin, especially the observation of the killer as having an old man's face on a young person's body. [8] Respondent therefore concluded that, in his judgment, Ms. Babin's second statement was not material exculpatory evidence to which the defense would be entitled under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-1197, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). [9] Accordingly, he did not produce that statement to Mr. Cousin's attorneys in response to their motion for the production of exculpatory evidence. [10] Respondent has never maintained that he was unaware of his obligation as a prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady. [11] Prior to the trial, Mr. Cousin's defense team filed a motion to suppress Ms. Babin's identification of Mr. Cousin. Ms. Babin testified at the suppression hearing, and, in response to questions by respondent, explained the manner by which she came to identify Mr. Cousin in the photographic lineup conducted by the NOPD. On cross-examination, Mr. Cousin's attorney questioned Ms. Babin as to whether she had given a description of the perpetrator to the police when they questioned you about this case. Ms. Babin testified she described the perpetrator as youthful, slim, slightly shorter than Mr. Gerardi, with short cropped hair and a very distinctive unusual or evil-looking face. Mr. Cousin's attorney also asked whether Ms. Babin told the police about any characteristics that you felt were outstanding. Ms. Babin said that she could only recall stating that he had an older-looking face on a younger body. While Mr. Cousin's attorney attempted to discover whether or not Ms. Babin had given any additional descriptions to anyone else prior to the photographic lineup, respondent objected, and the question was rephrased. Eventually, Mr. Cousin's attorney questioned Ms. Babin as to whether she had provided any additional statements to the police other than the night of the murder (Statement 1) and the photographic lineup (Statement 3). Ms. Babin testified that her description had been consistent throughout. Thus, the only way that the defense could have known about Statement 2 would have been disclosure by respondent. Ms. Babin testified at trial and repeated her positive identification of Mr. Cousin. Mr. Cousin was convicted of first degree murder. The same jury subsequently sentenced him to death in a bifurcated penalty phase. Several days after the completion of the guilt phase of the trial but before the penalty phase, a copy of Statement 2 was delivered anonymously to defense counsel. On appeal, the defense raised as error respondent's failure to produce Statement 2 prior to trial. This Court did not reach that issue. Instead, a unanimous Court reversed Mr. Cousin's conviction and death sentence based on the erroneous admission of a witness' testimony as impeachment evidence and respondent's improper use of that evidence in closing argument. State v. Cousin, 96-2973 p. 16 (La.4/14/98), 710 So.2d 1065, 1073. Nevertheless, the Court commented in footnotes that Ms. Babin's second statement was obviously exculpatory, material to the issue of guilt, and clearly should have been produced to the defense under Brady and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). Cousin, 96-2973 p. 2 n. 2, 710 So.2d at 1066 and 96-2973 p. 17 n. 8, 710 So.2d at 1073. Following this court's decision in Cousin, the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office elected not to retry Mr. Cousin for the murder of Michael Gerardi.