State v. Willie Washington
Citations
- 189 A.3d 43
Syllabus
The defendant, Willie Washington, was found guilty by a jury of four offenses in connection with a shooting that occurred in Providence on November 15, 2014, and he appealed his conviction. On appeal, the defendant challenged the admissibility at trial of two separate show-up identification procedures that resulted in witnesses identifying him as the shooter. In addition, he challenged the admission of an anonymous 911 call as evidence at trial. While this appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, counsel for the defendant learned that the state had a pretrial phone call with the 911 caller. Based on this information, the defendant filed a motion before the Supreme Court to remand the matter to the Superior Court seeking a new trial based on allegations that the state withheld information gleaned from that pretrial phone call, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Supreme Court remanded the portion of the record necessary for the Superior Court to hear the Brady-related motion for a new trial. On remand, the trial justice held a hearing on the defendant's Brady allegations. Prior to the issuance of the trial justice's decision, the defendant filed a motion to recuse the justice based on the defendant's contention that there was an appearance of impropriety. The trial justice ultimately denied the defendant's Brady-related motion for a new trial and his recusal motion. The defendant returned to the Supreme Court and contended that the trial justice, in addition to committing errors in admitting the show-up identifications and the 911 call into evidence at trial, erred by denying the defendant's Brady-related motion for a new trial and recusal motion. The Supreme Court held that the trial justice was not clearly erroneous in finding that the show-up procedures were marred by some suggestiveness but were nonetheless were reliable and admissible based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the procedures. In regard to the 911 call, at t
Judges: Suttell, Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, Indeglia
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.