Court Opinion

ID: 9655003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:57:31.978071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:15.404747
License: Public Domain

*53M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). I believe leave was improvidently granted for this December 8, 1976, conviction. I do not believe reversible error is indicated nor that defendant’s attorney was deprived of any opportunity to interview Ms. Tillie Brown.
The same defense attorney who represented Rickie Powell represented Dennis Brown, the brother of Tillie Brown the witness, and she and Dennis resided at the same address. Dennis had already pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and was awaiting sentence at the time of Rickie Powell’s trial.
Defendant and his two accomplices ran into the Brown house shortly after the shooting and were followed within five minutes by the police officers who apprehended them and confiscated the weapons. The witness, Ms. Brown, was present in the house when the three desperados rushed in and attempted to hide the weapons. It is inconceivable that defendant did not know of her presence and her status. It is incredible that defendant’s attorney would not have previously discussed the case with her in the course of his representation of her brother. The final straw of refutation comes from the police report which lists Tillie Brown as a witness. Neither side could claim they were unaware of her existence.
As to the two expert witnesses the defendant’s attorney had ample time to interview those witnesses between Friday and Monday; the reason an adjournment was denied was that 20 witnesses had already been lined up and the court’s time set aside for this trial. Furthermore if that expert testimony was rebuttable the defendant surely could have been resourceful enough to obtain an expert to rebut it. The trial court assured counsel *54he would be afforded ample time to interview the experts.
In sum, I am persuaded that defense counsel, attempting the strategy of the desperate, was desirous only of disrupting the proceedings by way of an adjournment and not of any bona fide attempt to interview the witnesses.
I would affirm.