The court concludes:
The Court finds that the State failed to disclose prior to trial information received about Earl Reed's reported confession to the murder of Rhoda Nathan, the Hepatitis B test results, and almost 4,000 pages of investigative notes, witness statements, and questionnaire responses. The undisclosed evidence contained in those investigative materials, along with other newly discovered evidence, served to undermine the cred_ibility ofthe State's key witnesses and provide the fundament for the medical expert's opinion that Jones's hand infection was caused by a clenched-fist injury because of the presence of Eikenella corrodens. Therefore, the evidence presented at the hearing on Defendant's motion for a new trial demonstrated that the undisclosed evidence was material in the sense that it undermines the confidence in the jury's 1996 verdict that Elwood Jones caused the death ofRhoda Nathan as charged.
Additionally, the undisclosed evidence demonstrated that the State's violation of its duty to disclose material evidence had effectively precluded Jones from learning ofthe existence ofthat evidence and of the proposed grounds for a new trial until his defense team's post-conviction diligence and the communication from Tierra Suggs uncovered the evidence.
Whether the State acted in bad faith or out of negligence when failing to disclose material evidence to the defense, which could have arguably changed the outcome of the trial, it is clear that the failure to disclose the existence ofrelevant exculpatory and impeaching evidence prior to trial deprived Elwood Jones of a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment requires a new trial as the only appropriateremedy. Accordingly,ElwoodJones'sMotionforaNewTrial is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDGE WENDE C. CROSS
| 2022.12.20_ocred_decision_and_entry_granting_delayed_motion_for_new_trial.pdf |
RSS Feed
