Opinion ID: 3158883
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Misrepresentation of Evidence

Text: {¶ 79} Johnson claims that the prosecutor allowed a state witness, Chief Detective McKinley Brown, to testify falsely during the 2011 hearing. 19 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 80} At the first trial and again in 2011, Brown testified that when he questioned Johnson on November 15, 1997, he told Johnson that confessing would prove that he was not an unfeeling sociopath. In 1998, Brown testified that, in response, Johnson “broke down and starting crying, saying: Yes, I do care, I did kill her, and I’m sorry for it.” But in 2011, Brown testified that Johnson responded by “out of the blue    [saying], I killed the bitch.” {¶ 81} On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Brown why he had “change[d]” his testimony about Johnson’s response. Brown admitted that in 1998 he had not testified about Johnson saying, “I killed the bitch.” But he objected to the suggestion that he was “changing the testimony.” Brown said that his memory had not changed; he was simply including additional details that he had not felt it “appropriate to say” 14 years ago at trial. He commented that he should have testified to Johnson’s exact words in the first trial. {¶ 82} Johnson argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct “by falsely portraying Johnson’s actions.” More specifically, he alleges that the prosecutor knew that Brown was testifying incorrectly in 2011 and failed to correct the false statement. To prevail on this claim, Johnson must “show that ‘(1) the statement was actually false; (2) the statement was material; and (3) the prosecution knew it was false.’ ” State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83, 97, 752 N.E.2d 937 (2001), quoting United States v. Lochmondy, 890 F.3d 817, 822 (6th Cir.1989). Due process is violated if there is a “reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.” Lochmondy at 822. {¶ 83} Johnson cannot meet this burden. Brown’s testimony in 2011 was somewhat inconsistent with his testimony in 1998. But the fact that a witness changes his story is not sufficient to establish perjury. United States v. Lebon, 4 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1993). Brown explained that he was merely providing additional information that he should have provided 14 years earlier. In addition, “mere inconsistencies in testimony by government witnesses do not establish knowing use 20 January Term, 2015 of false testimony” by the prosecutor. Lochmondy at 822; see also State v. Widmer, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-02-008, 2013-Ohio-62, ¶ 41. Thus, Johnson cannot prove either that Brown’s statement was false or that the prosecution knew that it was false.