- 3 -
no dispute that the case against him was weak in the first instance. Wallace’s petitionhas been extensively briefed by both parties and he will not here re-argue the merits ofhis claims. However, for purposes of this motion, Wallace highlights some of thestrengths of his petition:
. The grand jury which indicted Wallace
did not include a single woman.
Itis well-settled that this grand jury was convened under systemicallydiscriminatory procedures. The State’s only answer is procedural default, butthis Court has already rightly held that this claim is exhausted and notprocedurally defaulted. There is no challenge to the substantive merits of thisclaim. (
Doc. No. 45 at 11-12.)
The prosecution suppressed crucial impeachment evidence
as to each of their inmate witnesses
. Hezekiah Brown and Chester Jackson were the State’s twomain witnesses and both perjured themselves when they denied that they hadbeen given compelling incentives to testify. Incentives as significant as thepromise of a pardon, which was ultimately delivered. Viewed individually, eachof these violations of due process merits relief; when viewed cumulatively, andin light of the other weaknesses in the State’s case, there can be no doubtWallace was denied a fair trial.
Wallace’s trial counsel was forced to act under profoundly dividedloyalties when his co-defendant turned State’s witness mid-trial.
Trial counsel hadto cross-examine his own client, with
notice that his client had become a witness for the prosecution.
That Jackson took the stand and gave favorable testimonyconcerning Wallace’s third co-defendant, Gilbert Montegut, only further andimpossibly divided trial counsel’s loyalties. Trial counsel subsequently admittedhe had no strategic basis for not moving for a mistrial, but he failed to pursuethat preferable strategy out of “shock and confusion.”
The merits of Wallace’s
claim are beyond reproach. His jurors—who had already been provided perjurious testimony and denied theopportunity to consider a case that had been fairly tested by adversarialprocess—were given
a classic burden-shifting instruction.
The prosecution waswrongly relieved of having to prove each and every element of the offensebeyond a reasonable doubt.
Case 3:09-cv-01027-BAJ-SCR Document 75 06/21/13 Page 3 of 9