 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reid v. State3/29/2004
ing for the appeal:
I was sitting in . . . my home on Saturday evening, trying to prepare this to submit to the Court of Appeals, and reading extensively over the transcript of the trial, I consciously evaluated the issue of . . . the sufficiency of the evidence. I had . . . discussed with [the Petitioner] the fact that this was really going to be a swearing contest. There's no question that people got shot and a person was killed. [The Petitioner], in discussing the case with me, indicated he didn't know anything about what was going on . . . . in terms of trying to say what we were going to argue in terms of sufficiency of the evidence, it really broke down to whether or not the jury believed those individuals who testified or believed him. Now, the witnesses themselves, the victims themselves had some inconsistencies, as I recall . . . . One said, I think [the Petitioner] pulled the trigger and the other one said he didn't, or something along those lines. But when I'm sitting there trying to come up with a reason to argue to the Court of Appeals with any sense of propriety, in reading that transcript over and over and over again, I couldn't say that a reasonable jury listening to that evidence could not pull out some proposition that [the Petitioner] was involved in this robbery and did participate, either as an accomplice or as a principle in the shooting that occurred.
Counsel further explained that, although there were inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony, all of the witnesses clearly stated that the Petitioner was involved in the crime. He testified, "I just couldn't come up with something that I could write with any reason to say that, that a jury couldn't have gleaned something out of the evidence. And really, the credibility of [the Petitioner] was most important . . . ."
Counsel testified that he felt the strongest argument on appeal was that the Petitioner's right to remain silent was denied. Counsel explained that the State asked Detective Bennett during cross-examination whether the Petitioner had cooperated with the police, and that Detective Bennett said that the Petitioner had been unwilling to give a statement or cooperate with police. Counsel stated that he felt this was the strongest argument on appeal because it "implicated [the Petitioner's] credibility, and may have provided some basis for the jury to assign less credibility to him than the others, simply because he didn't give his story to them at that time."
Counsel explained that he "wanted to focus on the issue of credibility as opposed to try to analyze the nuances of what each witness said and how it may have contradicted the other . . .," because he was concerned that arguing the sufficiency of the convicting evidence claim would deflect from the credibility argument. He stated that:
I would much rather them focus like a laser beam on what I felt like was the critical thing that would provide [the Petitioner] a new trial, as opposed to writing 50 pages of this witness said this and this contradicts this witness who said that . . . when I know full well that the only thing [the Court of Criminal Appeals has] to say is the jury believed this person and disbelieved everybody else and that's sufficient to convict. . . . Now would that have adversely affected [the credibility argument]? It may, it may not have, but that was my strategy.
On cross-examination, Counsel reiterated that there were inconsistencies in the statements given by witnesses at the trial, but explained that he felt the crucial damage to the Petitioner's case was the testimony provided by Detective Bennett stating that the Petitioner w
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|