Opinion ID: 2273152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to secure the presence of an exculpatory witness

Text: Appellant claims that trial counsel failed to locate Sheila Graham, who was an eyewitness. At trial, counsel proffered that Graham was an exculpatory witness who would have testified that she did not see a weapon in appellant's hand: [Defense counsel]: We believe that it's a Brady witness because Mr. Strozier is charged with second degree murder while armed with a hard object. This witness says in the grand jury that there was nothing in his hand. The only witness that the government now has will say that he does have something in his hand. We believe it is a Brady witness and an essential to our defense. . . . . The court: Do you agree with the proffer that [defense counsel] gives, in other words, that this is the only witness who would say that the defendant had no weapon in his hand? [Prosecutor]: Well, I think perhaps it's a matter of ... how you view her testimony. She sees it from a greater distance than the one witness that we do have. I submit she would testify her eyes fall upon the two to them, the two men, at the time of the punch. She doesn't really see anything that precedes it. It mean, certainly I think the defense can make that argument that she doesn't seeshe does say she doesn't see a weapon in the person's hand. (Emphasis added). Even if we assume that counsel should have done more to find Graham and present her as a witness, we see no prejudice resulting from her absence at trial. Graham's grand jury testimony was admitted into evidence, and Adams, also an eyewitness, flatly denied that he saw appellant use a weapon, but that he inferred from Sharp's injury that appellant had used a weapon. The jury ultimately acquitted appellant of the charge of assault while armed. Because Graham's presence at trial was sought to disprove the government's charge that appellant had a weapon, appellant was not prejudiced by her absence.