ILNews

Judges affirm denial of post-conviction relief

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals declined to find an attorney provided ineffective assistance of trial counsel to a man on trial for the second time because that attorney didn’t defend the case in the same manner as did the attorney on the first trial.

In Keith Woodson v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1108-PC-768, Keith Woodson appealed the denial of post-conviction relief relating to the representation of private attorney Paul Harper at Woodson’s second trial for murder and carrying a handgun without a license. Woodson was represented by private attorney Kimberly DeVane at his first trial, which resulted in a mistrial. DeVane withdrew her representation on the second trial due to payment concerns.

Unlike what DeVane did at the first trial, Harper didn’t question either of the two eyewitnesses on specific matters, such as their having told a detective that the person they identified as the shooter was known as “PG,” which is Woodson’s nickname. At the second trial, the state was able to present additional evidence it didn’t have at the first trial provided by an acquaintance of Woodson’s. Shelby Stone was being transported with Woodson from jail to court and claimed that Woodson told him something about the murder that would mean Woodson murdered the victim as revenge. Woodson was found guilty at his second trial.

“An argument could be made that Harper’s cross-examination of Owens and Johnson was not as thorough as DeVane’s in the first trial. However, our job here is not to grade Harper’s performance as compared to DeVane’s,” wrote Judge Michael Barnes. “Additionally, juries are not interchangeable machines but instead are made up of twelve unique individuals, and there was nothing precluding the second jury from weighing the evidence differently than the first jury.”

The appellate court found that Harper did question the eyewitnesses extensively on their identification of Woodson as the killer, and he did attempt to impeach their credibility, just not in the same manner as DeVane, wrote the judge.

The COA also declined to find that Harper was ineffective for failing to procure the services of an eyewitness identification expert to assist with and testify at the second trial.  

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT