Opinion ID: 848709
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: retrial

Text: I also note that, if there is a retrial, the evidence regarding the bicycle accident that Justice KELLY finds so compelling will be subject to intense scrutiny, given the lack of any coherent testimony regarding the alleged bicycle accident. In the characterizations of the testimony regarding the alleged bicycle accident, Justice KELLY willfully omits the many inconsistencies that arose during the testimony. A full review of the testimony, as outlined below, demonstrates that the testimony was conflicting, confusing, and actually undermined the testimony of the defense witnesses at trial. Had defense counsel presented such testimony at trial, the jury would have been presented with five defense witnesses, two of whom contradicted the testimony of the other three. I fail to see how the decision to present a coherent, unified defense theory to the jury constitutes ineffective assistance.
After the verdict was rendered, but before sentencing, new defense counsel moved for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The new evidence presented at the motion relevant to this appeal was that the sisters' cousins witnessed the bicycle accident that defendant had alleged caused the older sister's injuries. The cousins' testimony, however, was confusing and contradictory. At the time of the first-degree sexual criminal conduct offense, the boys were six and eight. Their mother testified that she had not witnessed the bicycle accident, but that her children had. She testified that she was in the bathroom with defendant's girlfriend helping the older sister after she was injured and acknowledged that defendant's girlfriend would have known of her presence and made the same observations. The cousins' mother also stated that the rest of the family knew she was at the house on the day of the accident and also knew that her children were there. She testified that she was aware of the trial and stated that she told defendants mother about her presence in the bathroom and her childrens presence at the accident on the second day of the trial. The older cousin testified that he saw the older sister's bicycle accident and saw her get injured. He testified that, after the accident, the older sister did not cry or scream and walked by herself up to the house, where defendant's girlfriend took her into the bathroom. He testified that the older sister was wearing light blue jeans, but that the jeans turned dark after the accident because of all the blood. He testified that the older sister got hurt on the bicycle handles. He specified that he was at the bottom of the hill when the older sister got hurt and that no one was at the top of the hill. He testified that defendant's girlfriend would have known that he was at the house and that he was also playing with the bicycle when the accident occurred. He also stated repeatedly that he never told his mother or anyone else about the accident and insisted that if his mother said otherwise, she would be wrong. The younger cousin testified that he knew he was at the hearing to testify about the bicycle accident, although he insisted no one told him that. He stated that the front wheel on the bicycle was broken off, but that the handlebars were intact. He testified that he saw the older sister running down the hill with the bicycle and that she fell on some metal when she let go of it and got hurt in her private part. The younger cousin testified that after she got hurt, the older sister just got up and walked to the house. After repeated questioning, he testified that he specifically remembered that the older sister had been wearing blue sweat pants, and not jeans, and that the sweat pants were torn in the front. The younger cousin also testified that, contrary to the older sister's uncle's testimony at trial, the uncle was not at the home on the day the accident happened and that, if he said differently, the uncle would be wrong. Thus, the boy's testimony contradicted that of one of the key defense witnesses at trial. The younger cousin testified that defendant's girlfriend and the older sister's grandfather would have known he was at the house on the day of the accident and that they all knew he was with the older sister when the accident happened. He also testified both that he had told someone about the bicycle accident a couple minutes after it happened and that he never told anyone about the bicycle accident at all. After the hearing, the judge denied the motion for new trial and sentenced defendant to fifteen to forty years for the first-degree criminal sexual conduct count and ten to fifteen years for the two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
The cousins testified again at the Ginther hearing, and their testimony at the Ginther hearing contradicted much of the testimony given previously at the hearing regarding the motion for a new trial. [4] The older cousin testified that the bicycle was like a unicycle and that it was not possible to ride it. Instead, people ran behind the bicycle holding the handlebars. Contrary to his testimony at the motion for a new trial, the older cousin testified,  But I didn't see her get hurt on the bike, though.  (Emphasis added.) He further testified, I didn't see the bike part hit her, but I knew where she was hurt at. He also testified that the older sister did not walk up the hill as he had previously testified, but instead that her mother and an aunt went down the hill and got her. The older cousin testified that the hill was over fifty feet long and that he was at the top of the hill at the time of the accident, not at the bottom of the hill as he had previously testified. He testified that he talked to his mother about the accident shortly after it happened, but later said he didn't remember whether he talked to her or not. Finally, he also testified that on the morning of the hearing he was talking with his mother and grandmother about how the jury screwed up. He stated: Q. Okay. You chatted with somebody this morning about this? A. Just about  well, rumor  well, what I heard about the jury and how they messed and that was about it this morning. Q. Your mom told you what this was all about? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. She told you why you were here? A. Um hm. Q. Yes? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And she told you what to say? A. No. Q. Okay. What did she tell you? A. She told us that we re going here to see if we can help Bill. [Emphasis added.] The younger cousin testified, contrary to his brother's testimony, that both he and defendant actually rode the bicycle the day of the accident. This testimony placed defendant at the scene of the injury and directly contradicted with the testimony of all of the defense witnesses at trial, who had testified that defendant was not at the scene when the older sister was injured. He testified that the bicycle had both a seat and pedals, again contrary to his brother's testimony. He testified that, contrary to his previous testimony, the older sister was riding the bicycle and not running behind it. He stated that he was at the top of the hill with his brother at the time of the accident, and that the older sister was injured by the handlebars on the bicycle, not by the pile of metal at the bottom of the hill as he had previously testified: Q. Okay. So [the older sister] didnt run into a pile of metal at the bottom of the hill? A. No. Q. That didnt happen? A. Right. That did not happen. Finally, when the younger cousin was questioned about the older sisters clothes, the following exchange took place: Q. [The older sister] was wearing clothes? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember if she had on long pants or short pants? A. She had on long pants. Q. Okay. A. And I only know that they were blue. I don't know if they were sweat pants or jeans. I have no idea. Q. What made you say that about sweat pants or jeans? A. Because she had a pair of sweat pants and she had a pair of jeans and I know they were both blue. Recall that, at the motion for a new trial, the younger cousin had insisted that the older sister was wearing sweat pants and not jeans, and that he knew the difference between the two. He was the only person to testify that the older sister was not wearing jeans. His spontaneous statement that he no longer knew if the older sister was wearing sweat pants or jeans prompted the following exchange: Q. Okay. Did your mom or anybody in your family talk to you about what you were going to testify to today? A. Only my mom. Q. Okay. What did your mom talk to you about? A. She said I was testifying to see if I could get Grant-Bill Grant out. Q. Get Bill Grant off? A. Um hm. [Emphasis added.] Thus, the boys' testimony gave no coherent explanation of whether they actually saw or remembered the alleged accident, how the alleged accident occurred, where the alleged accident occurred, or who was present when the alleged accident occurred. Given the numerous inconsistencies in the boys' testimony regarding the bicycle accident and the boys' testimony that they were trying to help defendant or get [defendant] out, the boys' testimony on retrial will be subject to impeachment. Given the inherent problems in using this testimony, it will be difficult on retrial to establish with any certainty any details surrounding the alleged bicycle accident.