Prosecutor Withholds Evidence, Murder Defendant Goes Free

By Jeralyn, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Wed May 20, 2009 at 07:34:00 AM EST
Tags: innocence cases (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via the AP: Proseuctors withhled evidence in a Delaware murder case and as a result, the defendant goes free. How did it happen?

The murder case against a man charged in a shooting two years ago at Delaware State University that left one student dead and another injured will be dismissed because prosecutors withheld key evidence, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Loyer Braden, 20, of East Orange, N.J., had been charged with second-degree murder, assault and other crimes after a September 2007 campus shooting that killed 17-year-old Shalita Middleton of Washington, D.C. Braden's mother says her son works for a water quality testing company and is taking real estate classes.

James Liguori, a pal of TalkLeft, is Braden's attorney. [More....]

Defense attorney James Liguori said a witness walking with Middleton when gunfire erupted told authorities the day after Braden was arrested that he was not the gunman. But he said prosecutors did not disclose that information until last month.

''We had all along been asking them for everything they had,'' said Liguori, adding the judge made the right decision.

''The judge was not happy ... but to ensure the integrity of the criminal justice system, we all have to do what is fair.''

< Tuesday Evening Open Thread: DWTS, AI and Vote for Jesse | Senate Dems Reject Funds to Close Guantanamo >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Prosecutor Withholds Evidence, Murder Defendant Goes Free | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If Loyer Braden was not the gunman ... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 20, 2009 at 03:36:18 AM EST

... as an eyewitness to the shooting claimed, and prosecutors failed to disclose said exculpatory eyewitness to the defense, then the judge was absolutely right to dismiss the prosecution's murder case.

Rather than whine to the media about the judge's ruling, prosecutors need to immediately re-open the investigation, considering the very real possibility that the perpetrator remains at large, while the wrong guy was hauled before the bar.

I'd assume (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Bemused on Wed May 20, 2009 at 10:37:53 AM EST

there is other evidence the police and prosecution believe ties the young man to the shooting. The article is woefully incomplete in many respects.

Even the defense lawyer says there were other witnesses. he says he spoke to people whose description matched the missing witnesse' description. It's quite possible the police spoke to people who either gave descriptions matching Braden or even siad they knew him personally and it was him.

It's hard to know what to make of this story based on the very poor reporting. I did a quick google and none of the other articles were any more enlightening.

You would assume wrongly (none / 0) (#10)
by NMvoiceofreason on Wed May 20, 2009 at 01:42:13 PM EST

Once law enforcement has selected someone as the "perp", all other leads and contrary statements vanish. Why? Because if they are ever discovered by the defense, the conviction will be overturned? Look at the people (often of the "wrong race") who are in prison for decades afterwards. If the officers and prosecutors who did it faced the same punishment, it would not happen. But it happens over and over again, and only the very lucky few get a Lawyer like Jeralyn, or Tchris, or BTD. The rest get someone who was able to pass the bar some years ago and was awake during the trial. Are you satisfied with that standard of competence?

[ Parent ]

You don't even have to be a suspect anymore... (none / 0) (#14)
by Shainzona on Wed May 20, 2009 at 05:46:58 PM EST

If you're a Person of Interest, you're screwed, royally.

[ Parent ]

So all cops and prosector want to the innocent (none / 0) (#17)
by nyjets on Wed May 20, 2009 at 07:17:29 PM EST

Let me see if I understand. You are of the opinion that all cops and prosectors are not interested in justice. They want to convict innocent people and let the guilty go free.
I am sorry, but that statement is wrong. I am more than willing to admit that there are bad prosectors and cops who do not follow the rules(unfortatly cops do a lousy job in policing themselves and often cut there own throats in terms of public relations.) Just like there are bad defense attornies who do not follow rules. BUt to say that all prosectors and cops are bad is just as bad as saying that all defense attornies are bad. As with all jobs, there are good apples and bad apples.

[ Parent ]

: It Seems Like We Hear (none / 0) (#18)
by downtownted on Wed May 20, 2009 at 08:17:54 PM EST

more and more about this (cops and prosecutors not following the rules to get a conviction). it may be that the conviction revolution has gone too far. What do you think?

[ Parent ]
: I can't agree (none / 0) (#19)
by NMvoiceofreason on Wed May 20, 2009 at 08:25:00 PM EST

with the opinion you subscribe to me.
My Dad has worked for many years with the Internal Affairs department of our local police force (we're a top 40 city). We both worked for the government and the head of the local FBI office was a close family friend, with many agents too. Let's be clear: there are honorable people of integrity in this field, and I'm proud to have known them.
Dad's work has also helped to weed out officers who just can't stay on the right side of the line, or to get help for those having trouble coping. It is a difficult thing to look into the worst that humanity has to offer day after day and not be affected by it.
The prosecutors here, like those who withheld evidence against Senator Stevens, or like those who helped set up a criminal conspiracy to commit torture - they aren't honorable, and they don't have any integrity. A crime is still a crime, even when it is committed by a lawyer.

[ Parent ]

I think a retrial would be fairer. (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Wed May 20, 2009 at 01:41:17 AM EST

: I think (none / 0) (#3)
by NMvoiceofreason on Wed May 20, 2009 at 07:30:29 AM EST

Disbarring the prosecutor would stop all this crap.

[ Parent ]

There has been no trial (none / 0) (#4)
by Bemused on Wed May 20, 2009 at 07:42:47 AM EST

which raises a crucial question unanswered in this post or the link. Generally, when an indictment is dismissed prior to a jury being sworn the dismissal is without prejudice, meaning a new indictment may be sought and charges based on the same incident may be pursued.

If, as it seems from the article, the judge's ruling was based on the ground that the prosecution's failure to disclose the existence of an exculpatory witness prejudiced the defendant by rendering him unable to secure the witness' attendance at trial, it would seem logical that the state would be permitted to proceed with a new indictment if it subsequently locates that witness and he becomes available to the defendant. Locating the witness would eliminate the prejudice flowing from the prosecutor's failure to disclose.

If the judge dismissed the case with prejudice (meaning he intended to bar any future prosecution)then there is a very high likelihood that decision will be reversed if the article reports the full story. If the judge dismissed the case without prejudice then nothing really needs to be appealed because if the witness is found, new charges can be filed and the defense would no longer be able to show prejudice if it sought to dismiss the new indictment.

: Well (none / 0) (#5)
by Steve M on Wed May 20, 2009 at 08:49:11 AM EST

from the fact that a spokesman for the prosecutor's office said that they might appeal, we can infer that the dismissal was with prejudice. I agree with you that it is not entirely clear.
I'm not sure, though, why you believe there is a high probability that the judge's ruling would be reversed. Surely the trial judge has at least some discretion to determine the extent to which delay has prejudiced the defendant. It's entirely plausible that a delay of this length may have prejudiced the defendant in more respects than simply making it harder for him to locate this particular witness.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, (none / 0) (#6)
by Bemused on Wed May 20, 2009 at 09:04:09 AM EST

that's why I included the qualifiers. Only if a dismissal with prejudice was granted based solely on the failure to disclose the evidence about that one witness having prejudiced the defendant would my analysis apply. But, if the only prejudice to the defendant is the inability to locate a witness, interview him and present him at trial if desired, that prejudice is entirely cured by locating the witness.

: There is no cure (none / 0) (#9)
by NMvoiceofreason on Wed May 20, 2009 at 01:34:55 PM EST

for prosecutorial misconduct. If the witness was witheld, then the prosecutor is guilty of the crime of obstructing justice. Most people go to prison for that. Lawyers only get disbared, and never prosecutors.
The only analysis that matters is fundamental fairness. When prosecutors seek to rig a trial, they seek to destroy the fairness of all trials, and the integrity of the judicial system.
What about those who spend time in jail or prison? What about their lives, careers, families destroyed? The system as it is throws fundamental fairness in the trash can in favor of more prosecutions being successful.

[ Parent ]

why did they continue for over a year (none / 0) (#7)
by Jen M on Wed May 20, 2009 at 10:07:45 AM EST

when the eyewitness said they had the wrong guy?

Isn't that kind of expensive?

do you have a single (none / 0) (#11)
by Bemused on Wed May 20, 2009 at 02:35:13 PM EST

fact to support the asserion the police did not have other evidence in this case leading them to believe Braden was the shooter?

I thought not. The prosecutionobviously should have turned over the statement from the witness in a timely fashion. The failure to do that has no bearing on whether other evidence exists.

The article is entirely silent on what other evidence exists bit it is obvious there must be some. What is is and how strong it is remain unknown to us, but your rant just makes you sound foolish.

Rant? (none / 0) (#12)
by cymro on Wed May 20, 2009 at 03:15:22 PM EST

How can a post that consists almost entirely of quotations be characterized as a rant?

[ Parent ]

Rant (none / 0) (#15)
by NMvoiceofreason on Wed May 20, 2009 at 06:10:44 PM EST

Defense attorney James Liguori said a witness walking with Middleton when gunfire erupted told authorities the day after Braden was arrested that he was not the gunman. But he said prosecutors did not disclose that information until last month.

Victim: Middleton Accused: Braden

Your assertion the State must have had some other evidence is nothing more than sheer prejudice, exactly the kind that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is designed to cure.

Yet you and I both know that eyewitness testimony is flawed. As much as 2/3rds of all eyewitness testimony is just plain wrong. Except when coupled with contemporaneous assertions - as here.

The forensic evidence - made popular by TV shows - often doesn't exist in the real world. Juries often fail to convict people on circumstantial evidence that ten years ago would have been considered "a lock". Forensics have their own problems, chain of custody, manufactured evidence, institutional bias, etc.

Your prejudice that other evidence exists puts a faith in the State that is unjustified.

My prejudice that other evidence, whether it exists or not is irrelevant, is the only way to cure the system today of these manifest injustices. I suggest that we go further, and punish these criminals hiding behind a bar card. But that is nothing more and nothing less than a rant.

[ Parent ]

: If there were no other evidence (none / 0) (#20)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 20, 2009 at 08:52:17 PM EST

there would be no reason to go to trial.

[ Parent ]
: Eyewitness testimonmy can be unreliable (none / 0) (#21)
by Bemused on Thu May 21, 2009 at 07:04:22 AM EST

and that is, of course, just as true for exculpatoty eyewitness accounts as inculpatory ones, but, that's not the issue here, is it?
If you bothered to read even the very sketchy reports available, you would have learned that one of the targets was merely wounded slightly and anonther was not struck at all. the police obviously spoke to those people. You'd also have leanrned that other students were interviewed about events leading up to the shooting.
That would be what people call evidence. Now, we don't know exactly what it is or how strong it is, but we do know there is more evidence than a single person saying Braden is not the shooter, don't we?
You do not even understand the basic issue here which is that regardless of what evidence exists tying Braden to the shooting, the prosecution had a duty to disclose the exculpatory statement in a timely manner.
The judge's decision, whatever exactly it may have been because that is not clear from the reports, is not based on a lack of evidence; it's based on misconduct (intentional or negligent we don't know) which prejudiced the defendant.
It would seem that even an extremely uninformed person would grasp the concept that even probable cause would be lacking if the ONLY evidence was a single statement claiming the accused didn't do it.

[ Parent ]

Like this: (none / 0) (#13)
by Bemused on Wed May 20, 2009 at 03:44:18 PM EST

Why in the world would you deny garbage that was a rant? Don't you know a rant when you see one? Are you totally incapable of recognizing rhetotical questions simply spouting cliches wriiten by someone who doesn't know waht he is talking about? What are you...?

: The problem here (none / 0) (#16)
by Steve M on Wed May 20, 2009 at 06:13:46 PM EST

is that you can't seem to manage to hit that reply button, so people get confused about who you are responding to.

[ Parent ]