Opinion ID: 1969802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the merits of defendant's petition for post-conviction relief

Text: We observed in Marshall I, supra, that the testimony of co-defendant Billy Wayne McKinnon was the most incriminating evidence against Marshall, 123 N.J. at 28, 586 A. 2d 85, and that McKinnon's credibility was the most critical issue at trial, id. at 156, 586 A. 2d 85. McKinnon directly contradicted Marshall's claim of innocence by testifying that Marshall had hired him not to investigate his wife but to kill her. McKinnon's testimony provided a detailed account of his dealings with Marshall and the prearranged plan to kill Maria Marshall under circumstances that would create the appearance of a robbery gone awry. See id. at 28-30, 41-49, 586 A. 2d 85. We determined that the evidence at trial indisputably established that McKinnon, who had been hired and paid by Marshall and had met with Marshall at Harrah's on the night of the murder, had been present at the crime scene and had participated in the murder of Marshall's wife. Id. at 30, 586 A. 2d 85. Defendant now raises thirty-two claims that allege errors relating to McKinnon's testimony and defense counsel's impeachment of that testimony.