Opinion ID: 2981094
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Michelle Woodworth Affidavit

Text: Next, Freeman relies on the September 12, 2002 affidavit of Michelle Woodworth, who was his girlfriend (and was apparently pregnant with their child) at the time of the murder. In relevant part, the affidavit indicates that Woodworth would have testified in support of Freeman’s alibi if she had been called as a witness; that she would have testified that Freeman was with her in Escanaba the entire day of November 5, 1986; and that she made herself available to defense counsel Dean, told him what she knew, and assumed she would be called as a witness, but was neither subpoenaed nor requested to testify. This information is “new” only insofar as Woodworth was not called to testify at trial. The information was known to Freeman’s trial counsel at the time of trial, but he made a strategic decision not to call her. Dean explained to the trial court, arguing for an evidentiary hearing on Freeman’s motion for new trial on June 15, 1987, that he had made the decision not to call her as a witness. Three reasons are evident from the hearing transcript. First, Woodworth’s credibility was subject to impeachment because she was Freeman’s girlfriend and had initially lied to police officers on November 15, 1986—saying she did not know Freeman and the man she was living with did not match Freeman’s description. Second, Dean was concerned that Woodworth—because of her familiarity with Crystal Merrill, Freeman’s behavior and activities, and Freeman’s possession of a shotgun and other weapons—would be used on cross-examination to corroborate the testimony of - 13 - Nos. 10-2419, 10-2420 Freeman v. Trombley prosecution witnesses. Third, Dean believed that Freeman’s alibi would be persuasively established by other disinterested witnesses, one of whom was particularly excellent, rendering Woodworth’s potential testimony cumulative. Dean’s assessment of the value of Woodworth’s potential testimony was altered by the prosecution’s rebuttal proofs. The alibi witnesses who did testify were able to place Freeman in Escanaba several hours before and several hours after the time of Macklem’s murder, approximately 9:00 a.m. on November 5, 1986. Since the record showed that Escanaba is well over 300 miles and at least a five-hour drive from Port Huron, it would have been nearly impossible for Freeman to drive between the two locations between the times he was reportedly observed in Escanaba by these witnesses and the time of the murder. In rebuttal, the prosecution presented evidence that a small plane could make the trip in less than two hours. There was no evidence substantiating the hypothetical possibility that Freeman had ever made such a trip between Port Huron and Escanaba. Still, at this point, Woodworth’s account that she was with Freeman in Escanaba at the very time of the murder arguably became more important. She had not been subpoenaed, however, was not called, and her testimony had not been preserved. After the jury returned its verdict on May 18, 1987, Freeman moved for a new trial, contending that Woodworth had been located and was willing to testify in support of his alibi. The trial court appreciated the significance of Woodworth’s potential testimony, but denied the motion, holding that the proffered evidence was not newly discovered and reasonable diligence was not exercised to preserve it. - 14 - Nos. 10-2419, 10-2420 Freeman v. Trombley Thereafter, the issue of Woodworth’s testimony was not raised in Freeman’s direct appeal. Freeman contends he requested appellate counsel to raise the issue, but counsel declined to do so. The issue re-emerged for the first time in Freeman’s 2004 motion for relief from judgment. The trial court rejected Freeman’s argument as follows: Ms. Woodworth’s testimony would have been cumulative, as several other witnesses testified that they had seen or spoken with Defendant on the day of the incident. The jury heard testimony from these other alibi witnesses, and obviously rejected it as unreliable. R. 19-25, Opinion and Order at 8. The Michigan Court of Appeals and Supreme Court denied leave to appeal this ruling. Freeman offers no explanation for his ten-year delay in pursuing the issue in post-conviction proceedings. Although Woodworth’s testimony was not presented at trial, the information contained in her affidavit was known to Freeman and his attorney at the time of trial. Counsel then made a strategic decision not to call Woodworth because her credibility was questionable, her alibi testimony was cumulative, and she might hurt the defense more than help it. Indeed, if Woodworth had been called, her testimony may very well have entailed all the liabilities that Dean anticipated and done more damage than good. Nor can her affidavit be deemed to clearly demonstrate Freeman’s innocence. The jury clearly rejected the testimony of Freeman’s disinterested, even more credible alibi witnesses, concluding either that they were mistaken about the date of their observations of Freeman in Escanaba or influenced by Freeman’s manipulation. There is no reason to believe that the jurors would not have been just as likely—if not more likely—to view the totality of the evidence as justifying their disbelief of Freeman’s girlfriend’s alibi testimony, too. Although - 15 - Nos. 10-2419, 10-2420 Freeman v. Trombley Woodworth had ceased to be Freeman’s girlfriend at the time she signed the 2002 affidavit, she was then, and apparently remains today, the mother of the child Freeman fathered, with whom she was pregnant at the time of the murder. Woodworth’s credibility thus remains suspect. For all these reasons, Woodworth’s affidavit, signed fifteen years later, falls far short of the sort of extraordinary showing—like exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence—needed to establish Freeman’s actual innocence.