Opinion ID: 1708859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the prosecutor systematically and intentionally engage in conduct which effectively deprived jimbo stringer of the use at trial of the testimony of john mack parker, who was an eyewitness to the crime?

Text: Before trial, counsel for the defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus to produce John Mack Parker as a witness for Jimbo Stringer. The state answered that Parker's perjury conviction, which resulted from testimony that he gave during a prior trial, prevented him from testifying. The court held a hearing on the issue, where counsel for the defense argued that the perjury statute was unconstitutional as it applied to Jimbo Stringer, and that the indictment of perjury was void. The state argued that Stringer had no standing to assert those issues, since he was not convicted of perjury. The court took the matter under advisement. During the presentation of the defense's case, the court advised the attorneys that it would allow Parker to testify. Counsel for the defendant made the following response: We talked about that and considered it for some three or four hours and finally came to the decision that we did not want to call him. Jimbo Stringer now argues that the failure to call Parker was induced by the perjury conviction, which rendered him unsuitable as a witness. The right to examine Parker was not withheld by the court, but was precluded by the decision of the defendant's attorneys. Thus, Jimbo Stringer is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal. If that were not the case, this assigned error might well mandate the reversal of this case. The prosecution's maneuverings were obviously intended to prevent Stringer from exercising his fundamental right to call witnesses on his behalf. We hope that this situation will not arise in the future.