Opinion ID: 1434436
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Credibility of All Witnesses

Text: We must also consider the credibility of the uncalled witnesses to determine whether Armstrong was prejudiced by his counsel's ineffective assistance. See McCauley-Bey, 97 F.3d at 1106. Armstrong's two uncalled witnesses are both subject to impeachment. Antwon and Solomon have close personal relationships with ArmstrongAntwon is Armstrong's long-time foster-brother, and Solomon is Armstrong's biological brother. This relationship creates a potential bias and a motive to provide false information, which could lead to the release of Antwon's and Solomon's brother from prison. See Williams v. United States, 452 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir.2006) (noting the extent of the witness's personal relationship with the defendant should be considered in evaluating the credibility of the witness). Neither Antwon nor Solomon came forward to testify at Armstrong's trial, despite receiving telephone calls from Armstrong's counsel or her investigator providing them with information about the trial and offering to reimburse them for their travel. See McCauley-Bey, 97 F.3d at 1106 (recognizing the witness's failure to come forward promptly may impact the credibility of the witness). At the time of the habeas hearing, Antwon was serving a 200-month prison sentence for a 1999 drug conviction, which he received three years after Armstrong's trial. Antwon could not have been impeached for this offense at the time of Armstrong's trial, and we have already held Armstrong's attorney should have secured Antwon's attendance at the time of Armstrong's initial trial. However, we must also weigh the credibility of the testimony Antwon provided at the habeas hearing, and Antwon's felony conviction certainly weakens his credibility. See Fed. R.Evid. 609(a)(1), (b). In addition to Antwon's and Solomon's close relationship with Armstrong, and Antwon's criminal history, the credibility of Armstrong's uncalled witnesses must also be questioned on the basis of their inconsistent testimony. Solomon twice changed his testimony when referencing where he was at the time of the shooting. Solomon initially claimed he was walking toward his car and then took cover by his car when the shots were fired. Solomon next asserted he was inside his car, trying to get it out of the mud when the shooting started. Finally, Solomon claimed he was standing beside his car, taking cover when the shots were fired. Despite Solomon's poor memory of his location at the time the shooting began, he testified the shooting came from near the front entrance of C.J.'s nightclub, he could only see approximately five feet in the dark, he did not see who was responsible for the shooting, and he did not see Armstrong until after the shooting began and Armstrong met Solomon at the car. Even if Solomon's testimony were believed, Solomon's testimony that he did not see Armstrong at the time of the shooting, or who did the shooting, is not particularly beneficial to Armstrong's defense. Antwon also provided inconsistent testimony at the habeas hearing. Most significantly, Antwon claimed the shots were fired from the road, whereas the other eyewitnesses who identified the location of the shooting, including Solomon, testified the shooting took place near the front entrance of C.J.'s nightclub. Additionally, both Antwon and Solomon placed themselves inside the vehicle after the shooting, trying to work the car out of the mud. Antwon was also the only witness to testify there was access to a telephone at Channelle's house after the shootings, and instead of contacting the police, Antwon called his aunt. Antwon insists Armstrong did not have a gun in C.J.'s parking lot, but like Solomon, Antwon did not see who was responsible for the shootings. This testimony is contradicted by the government's nine eyewitnesses [8] who testified they saw Armstrong shoot Carlos, Devonne, and Yolanda. [9] See McCauley-Bey, 97 F.3d at 1106 (discounting the credibility of an uncalled witness whose testimony was inconsistent with the testimony of the other witnesses). Armstrong attempts to challenge the credibility of the government witnesses, claiming the relationship of the victims and the witnesses creates a motive to fabricate. This relationship did not exist with the employees of C.J.'s nightclub, including the doorman who testified he saw Armstrong display a gun, as Armstrong stood beside the doorman inside the club. C.J's owner testified Armstrong acted as if he had a gun. We are unconvinced any of the Davises had a recognizable motive to falsely accuse Armstrong of murder. The Davises are each biologically related to Antwon and Tyreese, and Armstrong considers Antwon and Tyreese brothers. Armstrong knew Devonne and Levonne from their visits to Milwaukee, and Armstrong met the other Davises, those who testified at trial, at Channelle's house that day. When Diane and Terrell began to argue, some of the Hamiltons and the Armstrongs came to Diane's defense, putting them on the same side of the argument as the Davises. After the shooting was over, Devonne, who had been shot in the thigh, went to the car Armstrong had driven to the bar and asked for a ride. When Solomon, Antwon, and Tyreese returned to Milwaukee, J. and Devonne followed and stayed with them. Armstrong reported he continued talking to Devonne and J. while he was incarcerated. The relationship Armstrong had with the Davises does not support Armstrong's claim the Davises had a motive to fabricate information about his guilt. Armstrong charges the McGees were biased because they were seeking vindication for Carlos's death. Armstrong puts forth a theory that Carlos was hit by friendly fire and the McGees wanted to pin the death on Armstrong. The remarkable consistency of the McGees's statements with the testimony of the unrelated witnesses lends credibility to the McGees's testimony. We must consider, of course, that the McGees were involved in an altercation with the Armstrongs and the Hamiltons, and would have a bias against Armstrong for that reason.