home

4th Cir. Affirms Overturning Death Sentence for Prosecutorial Witholding of Evidence

Justin Wolfe has been on death row in Virginia since 2002 for killing a fellow drug dealer. He was convicted based upon testimony of the shooter, Owen Barber, that Wolfe had hired him to kill the dealer. Barber later recanted and said he made that up to avoid the death penalty. His affidavit is here.

In 2010, Barber testified at Wolfe's federal habeas hearing that he fabricated Wolfe's involvement to avoid the death penalty. (He was sentenced to 60 years.) In 2011, the federal court vacated Wolfe's conviction and sentence finding he was wrongfully convicted based on the prosecution's withholding of critical evidence. Virginia appealed.

Today the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order vacating Wolfe's conviction and sentence, finding no error in the district court's findings. Virginia says it is disappointed and most likely will retry Wolfe. [More...]

From the Fourth Circuit opinion (Appeal: 11-6 Doc: 80.)

Specifically, the court ruled in the Brady Order that the prosecution had withheld eight items or groups of favorable and material evidence, falling into three broader categories: (1) evidence tending to impeach triggerman Barber; (2) evidence tending to impeach other prosecution witnesses who corroborated Barber’s testimony; and (3) evidence suggesting an alternate theory of the Petrole murder. The court also deemed Wolfe to be entitled to relief on his claim that the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony by Barber, in contravention of Wolfe’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights as well as his claim that the state trial court deprived him of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to an impartial jury by striking a qualified venireman for cause. Notably, the court closed its Brady Order by specifying that Wolfe’s “conviction and sentence” — both in the singular — were vacated.

....[The district court ruled ]“[i]n light of [its] finding that [Wolfe] was denied the right to due process during his state criminal trial, [he] is entitled to a new trial on all charges previously considered by the state court.”