Opinion ID: 559781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: failure to disclose identity of alibi rebuttal witness

Text: 5 Tucker also alleges that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecution failed to disclose the identity of a rebuttal witness, George Wigman, who placed him at the scene of the crime to rebut his alibi defense. 2 The respondent does not deny that the state had a duty to disclose the identity of this witness. 3 The respondent again argues to this court that Tucker procedurally defaulted this issue based on a state procedural bar. However, the respondent failed to raise the question of procedural default on this issue before the district court. Because of this, the petitioner never had an adequate opportunity to show cause and prejudice for the alleged default. 6 The state's omission makes it appropriate for the Court to take a fresh look at the issue. Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 107 S.Ct. 1671, 1675, 95 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987). The objective of this fresh look is to determine whether the interests of comity and federalism will be better served by addressing the merits forthwith or by requiring a series of additional state and district court proceedings before reviewing the merits of [the] claim. Id. To reach this determination we review the record. 7 Washington v. Lane, 840 F.2d 443, 446 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 861, 109 S.Ct. 157 (1988). The district court held: 8 Despite the 'surprise,' Mr. Wigman was thoroughly cross-examined by defense counsel. From my review of the record, it appears that Mr. Wigman's ability to place the defendant at the scene, his recall, and his credibility were squarely placed before the jury. 9 The district court also found that Mr. Wigman was not the only witness to place Tucker at the scene of the crime. As such, the state's error did not deprive Tucker of a fair trial. Our review of the record leads us to the same conclusion. The state's failure to disclose this rebuttal witness was harmless error. 10