154128 - People v Justly Ernest Johnson
Attorney Information
The
People of the State of Michigan,
|
|
David A. McCreedy
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Wayne – Edwards, P.)
|
|
Justly Ernest Johnson,
|
|
Imran Javed Syed
|
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
Defendants Johnson and Scott were convicted of
first-degree felony murder for shooting a woman as she sat in her van with her
children. At trial, two young men who were out in the neighborhood and admitted
drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana identified defendants as the
perpetrators. One of the young men testified that, before the shooting,
defendants told him that they planned to “hit a lick,” i.e., commit a robbery.
This young man also testified that, after the shooting, he saw both defendants
with long guns wrapped in sheets and that Johnson told him that Scott “shot the
lady.” The other young man testified that, after the shooting, he saw Scott
hand his girlfriend a long object that was wrapped in clothing, and that the
next day Johnson came to his home and told him that he had “hit a lick,”
“messed up,” and “had to shoot somebody.” There was no other evidence linking
defendants to the shooting. Their convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Over the years, defendant Johnson has unsuccessfully sought relief from
judgment on the basis of “new evidence,” including the recantation of the two
key trial witnesses. The Michigan Innocence Clinic became involved and
contacted Charmous Skinner, Jr., the victim’s son, who said that he was never
contacted by anyone after the murder, but believed he could identify the
shooter. When shown a photo lineup with defendants’ photos, he said that the
shooter was not in the lineup. This testimony and other evidence were presented
at an evidentiary hearing, after which the trial court denied Johnson’s
successive motion for relief from judgment and Scott’s first motion, finding
Skinner’s testimony unreliable. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished
opinion. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal in both cases and
ordered that they be submitted together. The Court will address: (1) whether
the trial court abused its discretion by declining to grant Johnson or Scott a
new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, in light of Skinner’s
testimony at the evidentiary hearing; (2) whether, even if Johnson’s previous
claims of new evidence are barred under MCR 6.508(D)(2), the evidence on which
those claims were based must still be considered in determining if the new
evidence from Skinner makes a different result probable on retrial, see People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 692
(2003); and (3) whether trial counsel for Johnson or Scott rendered
constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to interview Skinner or call
him as a witness at trial.