Opinion ID: 2446720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The IPA Proceeding

Text: The IPA allows an individual convicted of a criminal offense to file a motion in the Superior Court to vacate his conviction or order a new trial on grounds of actual innocence based on new evidence. D.C.Code § 22-4135(a). In relevant part, the IPA defines new evidence as evidence that [w]as not personally known and could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been personally known to the movant at the time of the trial or the plea proceeding. D.C.Code § 22-4131(7)(A). Appellant's purported new evidence was an affidavit from Croskey, executed in November 2005, in which she maintained that Starks left Croskey's house only after hearing a gun shot. The affidavit also stated that Starks and Croskey both ran next door to 2123 10th Street, where they found Spears lying on the floor, holding her neck with her bloody hands, and that neither Croskey nor Starks had seen the shooter. Croskey also averred that, to her knowledge, appellant was not in the neighborhood that day. The essence of appellant's theory of actual innocence was that the affidavit established that Starks, who was the only witness at the 1996 trial to identify appellant as the assailant, actually could not have seen the assailant because Croskey's affidavit proved Starks did not leave Croskey's house until after the shooting and also because the affidavit stated that neither Croskey nor Starks had seen the shooter. Pursuant to D.C.Code §§ 22-4135(e)(1) and (2), the trial court appointed counsel for appellant and granted a hearing so that Croskey could testify in person. At the hearing, Croskey's testimony varied from the affidavit in some respects, most notably in her testimony that when they heard the gunshot, Starks left Croskey's house alone, and Croskey went to 2123 10th Street some minutes later. Between execution of the affidavit in November 2005 and the hearing in October 2009, Croskey suffered two strokes. Croskey testified that, despite her strokes, her memory was all right, although she sometimes forgot things. Appellant argued that the trial court should credit Croskey's affidavit over her testimony because the strokes had impacted her health, and her memory allegedly was better at the time she signed the affidavit than when she gave the testimony at the IPA hearing. Appellant's theory was that if the affidavit were credited, it would prove that Starks could not have seen the shooter because the affidavit stated that Croskey had not seen the shooter and the two women had come outside together. The trial court found Croskey's testimony at the IPA hearing quite credible and specific notwithstanding her strokes. As to the discrepancies between her 2005 affidavit and her 2009 oral testimony, the trial court found Croskey's oral testimony that she had not left 2125 10th Street with Starks after hearing the gun shot more credible than her ambiguous statement in the affidavit that they both ran next door. The court reasoned as follows: I agree that ..., when you say []George and I ran out of the house,[]... the implication is that they were together. But that is not necessarily what that means, and on November 5th there's no indication that Ms. Croskey recognized and considered the importance of whether they left together or not. Here, she does. And here she testified they did not. So[,] for these reasons I find her testimony here today more credible.... [H]er demeanor was that of a lady who was really simply here to tell the truth.... The trial judge subsequently denied appellant's IPA motion, concluding: As the Government suggests, it is doubtful Ms. Croskey's testimony can be characterized as `new evidence' under the IPA and in any event it in no way infers [ sic ] Defendant's `actual innocence.' Although the judge did not expressly state his rationale for holding that the evidence was not new, he referenced the government's suggestion that appellant could have learned what testimony Croskey would have given through reasonable diligence and investigation.