Opinion ID: 1360016
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Failing to Impeach Derrick Glaze with Prior Conviction

Text: The Michigan Court of Appeals held that Davis's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to impeach Derrick Glaze, a key prosecution witness, with a prior felony conviction for retail fraud. It reasoned that [t]he marginal impact of the alleged error fails to satisfy the prejudice prong of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel. Davis, 594 F.Supp.2d at 821. The District Court found this to be an unreasonable application of Strickland in the larger context of counsel's other errors and the relative weakness of the prosecutor's case. Id. The Court continued: The prior felony conviction, by itself, may not have persuaded the jury to return a not guilty verdict, but, if that impeachment evidence was introduced along with testimony that there was some evidence that Wilder, not [Davis], was the shooter, it may have been sufficient to sway the jury. Id. at 821-22. The District Court's finding of prejudice for the failure to impeach Glaze for the prior conviction is contingent on Selma's exculpatory testimony. In the absence of testimony from Selma that Wilder was the shooter, then Davis cannot show that the impeachment would have made a difference in the outcome of his trial. Moreover, undisclosed impeachment evidence is cumulative when the witness has already been sufficiently impeached at trial. Brown v. Smith, 551 F.3d 424, 433-34 (6th Cir.2008). Here, Glaze's credibility was already impeached by the facts that he (1) was a drug dealer, and (2) made inconsistent statements to police and at a preliminary hearing. There is no reason to believe that the marginal impact of a retail fraud conviction would have significantly impacted the jury's assessment of Glaze's testimony, much less its final verdict.