granting new trial where evidence of separate plea deal with sole eyewitness was discovered after conviction
How later courts described this case
- granting new trial where evidence of separate plea deal with sole eyewitness was discovered after conviction
- “the right to cross-examine a witness to impeach his credibility is fundamental to a fair trial”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JONES, Justice,
dissenting.
In my view, the opinion of the majority is based neither on the law nor the facts. It is bottomed on pure speculation and whimsey. There is not a shred of evidence to show that a “deal” was made. In fact the evidence is to the contrary. The majority of the members of this court quite candidly admit there is no evidence to support their view. The following statement in the opinion indicates as much:
“Had the jurors rejected his testimony, it is highly possible, perhaps even probable, that they, like their fellow jurors from the former trial, would have been unable to base a conviction on the remaining prosecution evidence. Because there is a reasonable likelihood that Pettyjohn’s testimony, and hence his reliability, may have been determinative of Charles’ guilt at trial, the failure by the prosecution to disclose evidence affecting his reliability requires that Charles be given a new trial.”
The majority view is a radical departure from the law that has existed in this jurisdiction since the genesis of this Commonwealth. Other jurisdictions, as well as the United States Supreme Court, have not chased a will-o’-the-wisp to “discover” an error where none exists. The facts in Gig-lio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1975), cited by the majority as a “hallmark of a perjury case,” is as different from the facts in this case as night is from day. In that case, the government admitted it had promised Giglio it would not prosecute him in exchange for testimony implicating the defendant. That is not the case here. Then, the majority like a “gallant knight ... in search of Eldorado,” 1 proceeds on the elusive theory of “discovery,” and in my view, discovered nothing. Then the majority turns full circle back to “perjury,” when there is no evidence of Pettyjohn’s perjury — merely an assumption that he lied when he said there were no deals.
Williams committed the heinous crimes of armed robbery of a restaurant, and murder *147 of one of its patrons. In my view, he had a fair trial. The judgment ought to be affirmed.
. Edgar Allen Poe, Eldorado.