Opinion ID: 1611973
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: most recent proceedings

Text: Following our reversal for further proceedings, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. Pursuant to the remand, the evidentiary hearing in this case was limited to the consideration of Larry Emanuel's testimony, as well as evaluation of the cumulative effect of all the post-trial evidence presented over the past twenty years to determine whether a new penalty phase was required under Lightbourne's Brady or newly discovered evidence claims. At the hearing, Emanuel alleged that he never heard Lightbourne confess to the murder. Lightbourne presented Emanuel's testimony in an attempt to corroborate Chavers' and Carson's claim that they were solicited by the State to act as informants, and to corroborate the veracity of Carson's and Chavers' recantations. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Lightbourne's postconviction motion. The trial court stated: Considering the testimony of Larry Emanuel and the cumulative effect of all evidence in the record, the total picture is abundantly clear that all the jailhouse informants were acting out of self interest and hope of personal gain and that none of them were acting as agents solicited by the State. It is equally clear that much of their testimony is inconsistent, contradictory, and just not worthy of much belief. It appears that they solicited each other, in an effort to bolster their own credibility and/or to gain favor among themselves, rather than being solicited by law enforcement. Their lack of credibility was adequately attacked by defense at trial and the penalty phase. No reasonable juror would place much credence in the testimony of these informants, except such as is corroborated by independent evidence. The Court finds that the testimony of Larry Emanuel, by itself and together with all other post-trial evidence, adds nothing of value to Mr. Lightbourne's claim that Theodore Chavers and Theophilius Carson were acting as agents for law enforcement in soliciting statements from Mr. Lightbourne. To the contrary, Emanuel's testimony shows that these informants were acting on their own and that he, and probably others, would say most anything to help themselves. Emanuel's testimony is so lacking in credibility that it is clear why the State did not call him as a witness at trial. Considering the testimony of Larry Emanuel, by itself and together with all other post-trial evidence, the Court finds as follows: 1. That Theodore Chavers and Theophilius Carson were not acting as agents for law enforcement in soliciting statements from Ian Lightbourne. 2. That the State's use of jail informant testimony did not violate Ian Lightbourne's right to counsel. 3. That there is no reasonable probability that a new penalty phase hearing would result in a different result as to the imposition of the death penalty. 4. That the presentation of this new evidence at a new penalty phase hearing would probably not produce a different result. Therefore, the Court finds that the Defendant's Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence and Special Request For Leave to Amend, filed 17 November 1994, should be and is hereby DENIED. Lightbourne appeals the trial court's denial of his postconviction motion, raising three issues. [4]