Opinion ID: 2062476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Post Conviction Judge's Factual Findings Were Clearly Erroneous

Text: Gilliam's next contention is that several of the post conviction judge's findings of fact were clearly erroneous. Most of these findings were discussed in previous portions of this opinion. The remaining contentions are as follows:
The post conviction judge found that Daneman was assisted by an associate. In claiming that this finding was erroneous, Gilliam relies on a portion of the transcript early in Daneman's testimony at the post conviction hearing where when asked if he was assisted by an associate, Daneman said, I don't think so. The short answer to this contention is that Mr. Daneman later corrected the testimony that Gilliam relies upon and testified, I was incorrect in my prior testimony, after reviewing the memos, she [Leslie Leader, Mr. Daneman's associate] did work on this case. Mr. Daneman testified that his memory was refreshed by looking at various memoranda and at the log he had prepared for the hearing, but he could not specifically recall what role Leader played. Daneman was able to recall, however, that Leader tried a portion of the case in Harford County that involved other armed robberies and the same confession admitted in this case; that Leader had sent Gilliam jury instructions at his request; and that Leader had discussed this case with Gilliam on March 13 and April 13, 1989. On the State's examination, Mr. Daneman confirmed that both Leader and a law clerk had assisted him on the case. The post conviction court's finding that Mr. Daneman was assisted by an associate is not clearly erroneous.
Gilliam argues that the post conviction judge was clearly erroneous in finding that Mr. Daneman had previously tried a death penalty case in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court twice. The record reflects Daneman testified as follows: Q. What was the number of death penalty cases you had handled prior to Tyrone Gilliam? A. I had not tried a full death penalty case prior to the Gilliam case. I did represent an inmate in Annapolis who had killed a fellow inmate, but I tried the murder case twice, both times it was hung, and then they nol prossed the case. So, I did not go to the second phase. Q. Okay, but that was a death penalty case? A. Yes. Q. What was the name of the Defendant in that case? A. Clyde Dixon. I spoke to Mr. Dixon about two weeks ago, because I don't have the file, and he, I asked him about the case. He refreshed my memory, and he told me, yes, they were going to the death penalty. Now, that's my only recollection of that case, I must tell you. Q. That's still continuing? A. No, no, it's finished. It's over with. It was just an old case. I didn't go back into my files to pull out that file to see what was done with regard to the death penalty phase; I must tell you, I didn't. The trial court's finding that Mr. Daneman had twice before tried a death penalty case in Anne Arundel County was thus supported by the record.
Gilliam contends that he wanted Arneisha James and Lisa Brown to be called as witnesses at trial, but Daneman did not call them. He now alleges that the post conviction judge was clearly erroneous in finding in his written opinion that Gilliam has not alleged one witness that he wanted called.... While the record indicates that, prior to trial, Gilliam and Daneman discussed Arneisha James and Lisa Brown, there was no testimony that Gilliam wanted these two women called to testify. Thus, the lower court's findings were not clearly erroneous.