Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Marlon Latodd Howell - Mississippi Death Row

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,534

    Marlon Latodd Howell - Mississippi Death Row




    Facts of the Crime:

    Was convicted in 2001 of capital murder and sentenced to death for killing David Pernell, 61, during a robbery. Pernell, a retired postman who delivered the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, was killed after he was flagged down on a city street in New Albany.

  2. #2
    Senior Member CnCP Legend JLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,740
    Howell's case was remanded to the trial court back in 2008.

    http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions%5CCO51212.pdf

  3. #3
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Attorney vows to prove death row inmate’s innocence

    By Patsy R. Brumfield
    The NEMS Daily Journal

    NEW ALBANY – Death row inmate Marlon Latodd Howell’s appeals attorney insists his client did not pull the trigger that killed newspaper carrier David Pernell.

    Pernell was shot to death in New Albany in the early morning of May 15, 2000, and the man who swore he saw it happen picked Howell out of a lineup May 16.

    A Union County jury subsequently convicted Howell of capital murder and he was sentenced to die of lethal injection.

    Trouble is, says North Carolina defense attorney William “Billy” Richardson, Howell is innocent.

    “If it’s going to take the rest of my life to get him off, I’m going to do it,” Richardson vows.

    But Attorney General Jim Hood, who was the case’s district attorney, says Richardson’s got no evidence to back up his claims.

    “Sometimes things like this look good on paper but they don’t work out against the real evidence,” Hood told the Daily Journal on Wednesday, one week before a hearing about Howell’s appeal.

    Senior Circuit Judge Samac Richardson of Rankin County will preside over the multi-day proceeding set to start April 10 in New Albany, a dozen years after Howell’s conviction.

    Lawyer Richardson comes to convince Judge Richardson that Howell’s prosecution was based on false information that was perpetuated by then-District Attorney Hood and his team, even in the face of the truth.

    He seeks to get Howell’s conviction and death sentence overturned, or at least a new trial for his client who just turned 33.

    Hood dismissed lawyer Richardson’s suggestion that Hood could be called as a witness, saying he’s got nothing to be a witness about.

    In 2003, Hood was elected attorney general and has won re-election twice.

    Current District Attorney Ben Creekmore, who will be part of the state’s team at the hearing, was not involved in the 2001 trial.

    “I’m really not at liberty to say much about the case,” he said Tuesday about the hearing in the Union County Courthouse.

    HEARING ISSUES

    In a nutshell, Billy Richardson will make these claims to the judge:

    • Howell was arrested and charged with capital murder on May 15, not May 16 as the state contends.

    • A May 16 lineup from which Charles Rice picked out Howell was tainted because Howell had no lawyer and had not waived his right to one.

    • Then-New Albany Police Chief David Grisham lied when he said Howell had a lawyer at the lineup.

    • The state had a witness, Terkecia Pannell, who could say she told prosecutors she did not see Howell with a gun or hear him say anything about killing someone, but she wasn’t called and the defense never knew about her possible testimony.

    • Two men arrested with Howell said he shot Pernell but later said they were wrong.

    Hood says not to expect much from Pannell, whom he said gave his office a sworn statement recently and said she didn’t know to whom she spoke before the trial.

    Richardson says he will present evidence that Rice “couldn’t see what he said he saw” when Pernell was shot.

    As for the lineup, the state’s chief law enforcement officer said those issues have been argued before and that Howell was not under arrest for capital murder, rather a parole violation, when he was put in a lineup.

    Hood supports former Chief Grisham’s testimony that Howell’s lawyer was present at the lineup.

    Richardson says he believes the allegedly tainted lineup was crucial to Howell’s conviction, and the whole trial was tainted by it.

    He also insists that as soon as Howell was arrested with a charge, he was entitled to a lawyer.

    Grisham, who retired as chief, is on the subpoena list for the hearing.

    Among others subpoenaed to testify are Rice, his wife Melody Burns Rice and Howell’s trial defense attorney Duncan Lott of Booneville.

    CASE BACKGROUND

    In the early morning hours of May 15, 2000, Hugh David Pernell, a newspaper carrier for the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, was shot and killed in his car on Broad Street in New Albany while running his paper route. The shooting occurred in front of Charles Rice’s house.

    Rice later told law enforcement he heard two cars in the street, looked out the window and saw a man exit the rear car and approach the driver’s side window of the front vehicle.

    After some commotion, he said, the man pulled a pistol and shot the front-vehicle driver. The shooter got into the passenger seat of the rear vehicle, which left the scene.

    Pernell died there of a single gunshot wound to the chest.

    Rice called 911 and told officers the shooter was a young black male who left in a late model, dark-color Oldsmobile.

    Arrested after a police tip were Curtis Lipsey, Adam Ray and Howell, who’d been riding around together overnight.

    Lipsey and Ray implicated Howell, who claimed no involvement in the murder. He said he’d been in Corinth with a woman but couldn’t provide her name or address.

    Lipsey and Rice were key identification witnesses at Howell’s trial. Ray also claimed Howell was the shooter, but he never testified and later recanted.

    Lipsey and Ray pleaded guilty to manslaughter and armed robbery in Pernell’s death. Lipsey continues serving a 35-year sentence at the Mississippi State Penitentiary with a tentative release date of June 2034, and Ray, 30 years at Marshall County Correctional Facility, due for release in April 2027.

    Trial prosecutor Kelly Luther insists, in court documents, that while he never sought a background check on Rice, the state turned over all its evidence to the defense.

    Much time and scrutiny have passed through the judicial reviews of this case.

    In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to address Howell’s appeal, saying the issue he brought forth had not been argued in lower appeal courts.

    In 2008, the Mississippi Supreme Court with a 5-4 vote denied its additional review of the case, although it said he was entitled to a hearing about claims of Lipsey’s recanted testimony, issues about whether he had an attorney at the lineup and whether Howell could have been helped by a woman’s claims that she heard Ray and Lipsey say they shot a white man and talked about hiding the gun behind a house.

    In the court’s dissent, justices said Howell was entitled to a hearing about evidence affecting a material witness’ credibility.

    DAUGHTER CONVINCING

    Billy Richardson is well- known in criminal defense circles. He often gets calls from families of the convicted because a movie was made about one of his famous cases.

    In this case, Marlon Howell’s jeopardy was not even on his radar until Richardson’s daughter, working as an office intern, took a call from Howell’s family, which prompted her to read the trial transcript.

    “One morning, she woke me up and asked me to watch her out the window and tell me what I could see,” he recalls. Pernell’s shooter reportedly stood 71 feet from Rice’s view in the pre-dawn hours.

    Then, Richardson said, his daughter ordered him outside to do the same for her. Neither could see sufficient details of each other to swear to an identity, he said, even though they knew it was their own exercise.

    After he read the trial transcript, Richardson promised his daughter they’d investigate and wound up spending a week in Northeast Mississippi.

    Hood argues that Howell’s case “was done right” and his attorney is just trying to create “some cloud.”

    The outcome of Howell’s case wasn’t justice, Richardson says. If Howell gets a new trial, Richardson believes justice will be found.

    http://djournal.com/bookmark/22154208

  4. #4
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    2000 murder appeal begins

    A team led by renowned North Carolina death-penalty lawyer Billy Richards began its arguments Wednesday for the reversal of the 2001 capital murder conviction of Marlon Howell.

    “The Mississippi State Supreme Court is always making the statement, ‘Death is different,’ Innocence Project attorney Will McIntosh told Senior Circuit Judge Samac Richardson. “All we’re asking Your Honor to do … is to say the defendant should have a new trial.”

    Now 33, Howell was found guilty of the May 15, 2000, shooting death of Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal carrier David Pernell in a robbery, and was sentenced to death. Two co-defendants who pleaded guilty accused Howell of pulling the trigger.

    The Mississippi State Supreme Court granted the evidentiary hearing on the basis of three complaints – the recanted testimony of an eyewitness, whether Howell had representation at a lineup in which he was identified and alleged exculpatory statements offered by another potential witness.

    New Albany Police Chief David Grisham said he had seen attorney Regan Russell nearby and assumed he’d been appointed as Howell’s counsel.

    “I’m testifying that I thought he was there at the lineup,” Grisham said. “I know that he was there in the building that day.”

    Russell and longtime public defender Tom McDonough testified that they had not attended the lineup, although McDonough said he may have been involved in Howell’s case briefly.

    “Back then, it wasn’t that uncommon for the public defenders to be put on the case and then realize they had a conflict,” he said.

    Booneville attorney Duncan “Bubba” Lott, who had defended Howell pro bono both in trial and in appeal, said he had had no reason to doubt the prosecution’s disclosure process but would have called Terkecia Pannell if he had known she had implicated his client – a testimony that she has since recanted.

    “We went to trial with no witnesses other than Marlon,” Lott said. “Our defense was to attack the state witnesses.”

    Tupelo private investigator Leonard Sanders testified that eyewitness Charles Rice was not pressured to alter the testimony he’d given during Howell’s trial.

    Terkecia Pannell James said she was trying to protect then-boyfriend, Brandon Shaw, who was on probation, when she told investigators that she’d seen Howell with a gun. (The handgun believed to be the murder weapon was found outside Shaw’s house.)

    “At the time, I was young,” she said. “As a teenager … we did stupid things.”

    Pannell-James, now a minister-in-training, said she opposes the death penalty and believes “everybody deserves a second chance.”

    She testified Wednesday that she’d seen one of Howell’s co-defendants with the gun, but on cross-examination she admitted her revised testimony reflected secondhand information.

    “I know that, because that’s what Brandon told me,” she said.

    Howell’s hearing will continue at 9 a.m. today at the Union County Courthouse.

    http://djournal.com/view/full_story/...ome_news_right
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  5. #5
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    UPDATE: Defense says AG Hood threatens perjury charge on lead attorney

    11 A.M. POST

    NEW ALBANY – Marlon Howell's death-case hearing came to an abrupt pause at 11 a.m. after defense counsel claimed Attorney General Jim Hood threatened its lead counsel with committing a crime related to a witness.

    Tupelo attorney Jim Waide told Judge Samac Richardson that during the first break today Hood told lead counsel Billy Richardson to "lawyer up" because Hood had a witness who would say someone was paid for testimony.

    "I'm very shook up about this, your honor," Richardson told the judge.

    He insisted that Hood tried to intimidate him and said he wasn't sure how this was going to impact his role in seeking a new trial for Howell.

    Hood denied his comments to Richardson were so threatening, saying he had a witness who was going to say somebody got paid.

    As the judge gave them time to work out the issues, Hood revealed the witness to be Brandon Shaw, previous witness Terkeshia Pannell's former boyfriend.

    Waide agreed to the presence of an AG investigator while they question Shaw about what he intends to say on the stand.

    (See hearing report below.)

    • • •

    10:40 - WAIDE - Serious matter. Will ask for ruling. Motion will be to strike state defendant and grant new trial on grounds that AG is attempting to intimidate Ms. Pannell by informing Richardson that he should lawyer up because he was going to be charged with suborning perjury. Mr. Richardson said during break Mr. Hood told him that during break. Ask if he did that, he said something to that effect. I asked him basis. Here’s the basis of motion - need to tell court... nobody her has any extensive knowledge until last few days. Mr. Richardson is one who learned about it long ago, investigated. Spent thousands of his own dollars. He asked me to be co-counsel. Just got acquainted in past few days. They’ve done a lot of the legal work. Depending on Richardson, man’s life is at stake. To be intimidated by AG, charged with perjury in middle of the hearing. Maybe Hood has a witness that will say something - but why in middle of hearing on man’s life and tell him you need to law up to be charged with suborning perjury, unless he had some grounds. This is particularly concerning because we have this witnesses... last two ... circumstances are a concern. Then a lawyer who tried to defend is subject to intimidate. It’s a serious matter, ask you ... I don’t know what the remedy is., Counsel has got to be worried about this when he’s suppose to be here worried about Mr. Howell. Totally inappropriate, don’t know what remedy is except to allow Mr. Howell a new trial or to start over. That’s my motion, like your honor to take this under advisement.

    JUDGE - If I were to grant Mr. Howell as new trial based on this motion, who would be lead counsel a trial? WAIDE - I suspect that I would. He’s already asked me to help. But suspect I would, I would be willing to. JUDGE - Would Richardson participate in new trial? RICHARDSON - .... waide - THAT’S DECiSION of defendant. He asked me to help if there were a new trial. I said I would. But frankly, this is a local jury and ... a lot would depend on pursuing facts or say for this hearing. By that time, we’d know what he was talking about, If he indicted Richardson ... he could say it was a remark I should not have made.

    HOOD - This is classic. I’ve tried many against him. I told him a witness was paid for testimony. If they take stand, will tell the story. I told him ... stay on your side. He’s hanging out over there. I said, stay on your side of the courtroom, if witness testifies - you may be subject to suborning perjury. Nothing inappropriate ... defense counsel has been accused by witness about being paid. We’re going to get to the bottom of this.

    WAIDE - This puts me in an awkward position. First time I’ve heard there’s a witness who says he’s been paid. He wouldn’t tell me who.

    HOOD - Wait for this witness. Then if says suborning perjury.. then we’ll have to act.

    RICHARDSON - He went further ... he told me to get lawyered up and I was going to get charged. If witness says what he will.. you’re in big trouble. Only way I can take that. In 32 years, I’ve never even had a serious Bar complaint ... I ... this is serious. As for paying Ms. Pannell... statute allows you to pay travel if she must drive or hotel if she has to stay overnight. I can do that in N.C., assuming MS has same thing. Statute allows, I would only do what it allows me to do. Judge, to be accused of a crime in middle of a hearing is a serious matter. If put me out, put him out as well.

    JUDGE - I am not going to grant a new trial on this basis. I’ve got some options here. New trial is not one of them.

    WAIDE - Can we have her recalled and ask what’s going on with this witness?

    HOOD - Don’t know why disrupt proceedings. If he put lying witness, he’s going to be in trouble.

    WAIDE - Hood says he stated telling counsel to be careful about witnesses.

    HOOD - Told him to realize he may have trouble. If he knows about a witness done something inappropriate ...

    JUDGE - Statute about intimidation of court officers. But generally, suppose you could file a criminal affidavit against him as officer of the court. Flowing from either side.

    RICHARDSON - I’ve got a sacred obligation to this man. Accused of a crime. Not sure I can proceed if I’ve been accused of a crime... IF WE GET candor from AG ... what is he accusing me of. I’m shook up judge. I am personally shook up. I’m asking ...

    JUDGE - LET’S TAKE RECESS UNTIL 1 P.M. SEE WHAT HAPPENS. BRING RESEARCH.

    WAIDE - If your honor can direct Hood so I can talk to these witnesses, to talk to them about what situation is. What’s he talking about. Try to check into this. JUDGE - Any problems with that?

    HOOD - Would want one of our investigators present, if they do. I would prefer so no intimidation.

    WAIDE - No problem. HOOD - IT’S BRANDON SHAW.

    LUTHER - Can they handle this during lunch? JUDGE - I DON’T KNOW.

    10:55 ..

    • • •

    10:27 A.M. POST

    NEW ALBANY – Two women testified today about what they knew surrounding Marlon Howell’s trial and the night a newspaper carrier was shot and killed.

    Terkecia Pannell gave lengthy testimony about what she remembered from May 15, 2000, at the home she shared with boyfriend Brandon Shaw in New Albany. She corrected an earlier statement in which she told details about the night David Pannell died.

    But now, she admitted she was asleep for some of the details and said her story had come from what Shaw told her. Today, she backed up what she said was her real memory. In that, she said she never saw Howell with a gun and did not see him in the early morning when two other men returned to her home saying someone had been shot and robbed.

    A Howell relative told her overhearing a young black woman, during Howell’s trial, tell others she wasn’t going to lie.

    Howell’s chief defenders are North Carolina attorney Billy Richardson and Tupelo’s Jim Waide. Prosecutors include Attorney General Jim Hood, who was district attorney when the case came to trial, and current D.A. Ben Creekmore and assistant D.A. Kelly Luther.

    Senior Judge Samac Richardson of Rankin County presides over the hearing to determine appeal issues brought before the Mississippi Supreme Court.

    Howell was convicted in Union County of the May 15, 2000, shooting death of Daily Journal newspaper carrier David Parnell. He was sentenced to death.

    His defenders insist he was not there and not the one who pulled the trigger. They contend that, at a minimum, he should get a new trial because of errors which violated his constitutional rights.

    Wednesday’s hearing featured testimony from former New Albany police chief David Grisham, who acknowledge he could not be certain that Howell had an attorney when a police station lineup fingered him as Parnell’s attacker. Conflicting testimony came from a woman, formerly associated with the man near whose home Parnell was shot.

    Howell is in the courtroom in red jailhouse pants and a white T-shirt.

    • • •

    (Below is a running account of the courtroom activity. Please excuse the typos and other glitches likely as I type rapidly.)

    9:02 - Richardson asks for conference a judge’s bench. All attorneys listen in.

    9:05 - JUDGE - Says he doesn’t think he’s related to defense counsel. (A little laughter ripples.)

    TERKESIA PANNELL - (Questions from Luther.) (Says all you know is wht Brandon Shaw told you?) Correct. (You said Marlon and Brandon and others hanging out that day and night?) Yes. (Came back to the house. They left. Did you ever see Curtis Lipsey, Adams Ray or Marlon Howell again?) No. (Ever say them again?) No. I went to bed, it was late. (Were you awakened?) Somebodu knocked on door. Don’t know who. (Didn’t talk to them? Don’t know if anybody said anything about killing anybody?) No. (Ever heard anybody say anything aobut killing anybody that night?) No sir (About robbing?) No sir. (Ever, other than Shaw telling you, hear anyone about...?) No sir.

    (Also, yesterday you said, came to court. Don’t know anythiing about who called you?) No sir. (Wanted to say ... never saw Marlon ... statement to police earlier, read it and didn’t tell them he had a gun?) Right. (Started going over your affidavit ... Exhibit 22.. have you read that?) Yes. (We went over first paragraph ...other parts of statement ... all correct?) Yes sir. (... keeps reading parts to her. Also that you never saw him with a gun?) No sir. (Before his going out, people there nervous?) Adam and Curtis. Marlon was not with them. He came at one point. I only saw him one time. (Also, they were high?) Yes sir. (... back to statement ...first time ever saw Howell?) Yes. (... somebody said they needed money?) Yes. (Don’t know who?) Right (Curtis, Adam came back without Marlon?) Said that but I went to bed, don’t know for sure. (See anything more?) No sir. (So that part about Curt and Adam without Marlon, you don’t know it’s true?) No. (Adam had gun and said we shot a white guy? Don’t know?) I don’t.

    (Luther - statement, don’t know that? Or Adam had a gun?) Correct. (Acting scared, said we shot a white guy. Hear that?) No sir. (... didn’t see Marlon with gun?) Right’s true. (... don’t know what happened after they came back?) I don’t. (... do you know about who shot?...) I now by what Brandon told. (... [working their way through her earlier statement... basically she’s saying she didn’t know anything on her own after she went to bed, although earlier she said she did. She says her then-boyfriend Brandon Shaw told her and that’s why she made the statements.])

    (... says Curt was violent person?) Yes, that’s true. (... Curt was in front seat?) Yes, some time earlier in the day. Don’t remember, don’t think Marlon was in car. (Whose car?) Adam or his mom. (Adam driving?) Yes. (... saw two men in front seat?) Yes. (... ever saw the three men in a car together before?) No. (... never saw Adam driving, Curt in front, Marlon in back seat?) No ... saw earlier in the day, don’t know what time. IN and out of house the whole day. (... go to bed ...) I twas late... 1:30 ... (when left last time, were you up?) Yes on my way to bed. (... they left, you don’t know who was riding where?) No I don’t.

    (... when saw them, together?) most of the time. (... never saw the three in the car together?) I want to say I do, we were all drinking and partying. Somebody made a run to the beer store... but can’t say saw them. (...telling us can’t say saw them..?) Yes. (Adam and Curt returned ... you don’ tknow?) No sir.

    JIM WAIDE ... asks ... about that statement.

    (You say when Adam and Curt came back with gun without Marlon?) I saw Adam and Curt, I remember that. Had to be before I went to bed. (... Looked nervous?) Yes. (... could have been because they were high?) Yes. (... before the shooting?) I don’t know. JIM WAIDE - She can’t know when the shooting took place. (Judge - she knows it happened before or after she went to bed... wouldn’t she know that?) WAIDE -Not in my opinion. I may be mistaken. Don’t argue with court.

    (Luther ... JUDGE - when ask quesiton, give her some timeframe. Luther- I thought I had.) (Luther... testimony, before you went to bed ... that you never heard or saw Adam, Curt or say or heard anything about this?) Yes. (... was Marlon drinking that night?) We all was, even I was. (... statement... that Marlon Howell never had a gun?) Yes, that’s the main thing. (Never told anybody different?) No. (... didn’t hear him say anything about killing anyone?) Right. (... never changed that statement?) Right. (... part where told DA something... ever know anything else or was it what Brandon told you?) Yes.

    (... did DA call you to stand?) No, just remember talking to someone about the case and giving what I new about the story.. that Marlon didn’t have a gun... like theyw anted me to say he had a gun but I would not move. (... just what Brandon Shaw told you?) Yes. (After you met with whoever about statement... that only knew what Brandon told, except for no gun with Marlon ... never heard him say anything about shooting?) RICHARDSON - ASKED AND ANSWERED. JUDGE - SUSTAINED.

    (Luther - don’t know who was with them when they came back?) It was night, I don’t know wha time it was. (Wash it 5 a.m.?) Oh, no. (When somebody came and knocked?) No. Don’t know when that happened. (...Adam and Curt had a gun?) Don’t know that. (... don’t know if Marlon had a gun?) I didn’t see it. Don’t know who knocked on the door. (... somebody said shot someone? Ever heard that?) Not to my knowledge. ( ... never testified to that?) No, didn’t. (... you read the statement and gist of it is correct?) ... she’s looking at it ... I don’t think that’s correct ... (... your statement, same as one before?) Yes. (... did you say anything different to authorities than is in this statement?) Not to my knowledge I didn’t.

    (Luther - says ... you did read this statement?) I guess it is. (... this affidavit, Exhibit 22. All this green stuff is what’s been marked out?) Yes. (How did you tell is if you didn’t say it?) ... (What you told police is in Exhibit 7?) Had to be. (What’s in 7 is what told them?) Yes. ( ... reads ... I know that’s why they didn’t call me to testify?) Don’t know. (Luther confers with Hood at the side.) 9:40

    (Luther - Yesterday, you testified.. when you came to talk about statement in 7, you don’t know?) OBJECT - SUSTAINED. (JUDGE getting ticked off with Luther’s repetition of questions.) (Luther - do you know who prepared this document or who you gave it to?) No sir. (You didn’t prepare it?) Oh, no sir.

    LUTHER - MOVES TO INTRODUCE AFFIDAVIT WITH HIGHLIGHTED PORTIONS, WHICH SHE AGREES ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH HER TESTIMONY. RICHARDSON - OBJECTION. LUTHER - CONTINUES WITH MOTION, TO INTRODUCE MARKED UP AFFIDAVIT. (JUDGE - For identification, I did my own but I will let you introduce it for that.)

    RICHARDSON - 9:43 - (This is defense attorney) (When Luther read affidavit and got to Paragraph 3 ... one you signed for us. When he read it, you said I can’t be 100% on green marks?) Yes. (Why?) I can’t because I can’t remember times I saw Adam or Marlon. We were drinking. Can’t be sure who knocked on door. (On thing you stated. Adam with gun, his talking? Did you hear that from Brandon?) Yes. (Let’s take it back... remember when Sanders talked to you? Wanted to give statment, then I came and talked to you?) Yes. (We executed statment and you signed it and I read it to you like Mr. Kelly did?) Yes. (Read it out loud and you said it was correct?) Yes.

    LUTHER - object, Judge - sustained.

    (Richardson - Why are you saying you can’t be 100%?) When knocked in door, got up and went to bathroom. I heard commotion, which I believe it was Adam, Curt and Marlon talking. Didn’t see who was out there. I went to see who was talking .. it’s been a long time. But ... she shakes her head. (Who saw?) Brandon, Curt and Adam. (Back then, I asked you long time ago ... last time Curt and Adam in your hosue ... was Marlon with them?) No he was not. Were they acting nervous adn worried?) They were. (As late as April... when state talked to you, you signed affidavit?) Yes. (You said about statment to us, you wanted to tell the truth... ) HOOD - OBJECTS. (Your honor, I’m asking for leeway, I’m trying to get some clarity. She’s saying she had a hard time remembering)

    (When you signed this affidavit, you said standing by your 2006 statement?) Yes. (Memory when signed it, closer to incident than now?) They are. JIM WAIDE - IS THAT MARKED FOR I.D.? (Judge - prefer whoever’s at the podium run the show. Waide apologizes.) (Exhibit 57 - affidavit gave state a few days ago. They asked you to take a polygraph? Are you scared today?) A little nervous, not scared. (Is it your testimony, to stand by affidavit you gave me?) In 2006, yes sir. (So, things you say can’t remember are because of memory or what Brandon Shaw?) OBJECT. (What did Shaw tell you?) He said had been a robbery on north side and Adam and Curt was involved. Said Adam was involved, Curt on passenger side. He said they had shot, robbed somebody. (He ever mention Marlon?) No. (Is that what you want to come clean about?) Yes. (One of the things?) Yes. (Consistent with what you saw that night?) Yes. WAIDE AND RICHARDSON CONFER.

    9:52 - JUDGE says he has 2-3 questions.

    (Judge - TRYING TO understand sequence of events. When went to bed?) After 1 a.m. (At some point, Brandon ... came to bed?) Right. (Then knock?) Correct. (Heard you say didn’ tknow who because didn’t see them?) Yes. (But you told Richardson ... real simple question? Did you see somebody?) I did ... remember going to bathroom. I know. (But you said you didn’t.) But I went to the bathroom. Afte rknock, I got up. (Did Brandon leave after knock?) Yes. Gone an hour or hour-half. (When whoever came back and knocked ... did you say you didn’t know what was being discussed?) No, just remember seeing Adam ... (Do you know aht discussed?) No sir. (Know how much you had to drink that night?) No sir. Smoking marijuana. (I think that’s all I have.)

    (LUTHER - You said bathroom within bedroom?) Yes. (Didn’t have to leave?) But I remember looking out door. (Bedroom where?) Soon as open BR door, it’s living area, could see front door. (Judge is thinking... asks to excuse witness?) Richardson - may want her to remain. Reserve right to recall her. Hood - would like her to be available. Judge - you’re not finally excused. Instructs her not to talk to anybody about this. 9:59

    RACHEL WAIDE - Call Tonya Peterson. [At least 2 dozen in courtroom audience]

    PETERSON - Lives Tiplerville, works accounts payable at company. Related to Howell, on his mother’s side. Like me and his mother are 2nd or 3rd cousins. (Rachel - at his trial? Why?) Yes, moral support for family. (At trial, did you hear anything about witnesses?) Yes. We took recess and I was by wter fountain. Woman came out and approached older woman. She seemed upset. She kept saying, I’m ready to go ... they don’t need me because I said I’m not going to lie... they say he was there and I know he wasn’t. She kept saying I’m ready to go. Two men came out in black suits. She said, I’m not going to lie. Soon after, I saw ... (Rachel - describe her more?) Been so long. She was black girl. (Men?) Didn’t know. Been so long. (After heard exchange between women then men?) Remember girl saying, I’m not going to lie. To lady and two men right behind, speaking to all. (After that?) She walked off. Then I told ... (Go ahead) Marioan came out and I told her. She said we need to tell somebody. Me and Marion went to Rev. Howell, her father and he said to tell it. A few minutes later ... three men came out. One was Marlon’s attorney, we told what I heard and saw. He said OK. Never saw anything else or heard anything else.

    (Rachel - Who is Miriam?) Miriam Howell, Marlon’s sister. James Howell his father. (Other than that exchange with the attorneys and Miriam, tell anybody else?) No maam. (After, long after... did you talk about this?) Yes. Mr. Billy... a lawyer... (She’s pointing to Billy Richardson.) (Met with him? Did he ask you to sign statement?) Yes. (Showing her Exhibit 23 ... recognize it?) Yes maam. (Did you read over it?) Yes. (Read it when you signed it in 2012?) Yes. (Is it true and accurate?) Yes. (Intro 23) LUTHER - OBJECT.. HASN’T BEEN TESTIFIED TO DURING TRIAL.

    (Rachel - whenever we bring live witness with affidavit, court has allowed it. Witness just said it was correct and signed.) OBJECT. Judge - that’s why we have cross-examination... to Luther. (Rachel - Exhibit 23 admitted? Judge -yes.)

    (Show you the exhibit again. Word prosecutor still left in. Why?) The two guys had something to do with the reason for her... she said wasn’t going t lie. Assumed they had something to do with her. (Why thought prosecutors?() Can’t remember their faces. (At some time recently, did someone from DA’s office or AG’s office, and ask for another statment?) Yes. (Circumstances?) They came in and asked questions. He showed me same affidavit. I said that’s me and then lady ... can’t remember first names, gave me a card. he Kept asking questions over and voer. Told same thing. Asked if would put in writing. But I said I’d do briefly beause was on her job. He came back and said his boss said he needs you to say that”they” you weren’t sure who you were talking about. I said I don’t remember. I asked if I can meet you somewhere to notarized. Later, met at Ripley Sheriff’s department. I asked to see statement before signing.

    (Who is he? Initial investigator?) Yes. (Describe him?) White guy. (You saidhe said boss?) He said, my boss said .... to put in affidavit that she said she wasn’t going to lie. Boss says to say you don’t know who “they” were? I said sure, wasn’t going to lie. I don’t know. (Shows her affidavit ... what?) Affidavit I signed that day after work. (When I look at April 2 affidavit and Exhibit 23.... 23 is longer?) Yes. (More info in 23 or other?) IN 23. (Explain why?) Because I said on my job ... said could meet later, wrote up with I remember.

    10:16 - (Rachel - look at Exhibit 58 ... true copy you signed April 2, 2013?) Yes. LUTHER - OBJECT. JUDGE - OVERRULED. (Rachel - no more questions.)

    LUTHER TO CROSS-EXAMINE

    (LUTHER - here for the trial?) Yes. (Marlon’s family?) Yes. (Any religious beliefs about the death penalty?) I don’t understand. (Any beliefs about death penalty?) I mean ... to me it is wrong. I don’t make the rules. (You were here for trial ... not in witness room?) No. (Didn’t hear Ms. Pannell?) No sir. (She didn’t take stand and lie?) I don’t remember her... uh uh ... really don’t remember. (If she left probably didn’t) Yes. (Who did sh etell what to?) Remember the little lady and two men. Don’t know who she told. (But you know reported what she said to Rev. Howell?) Yes.

    (Luther - know what Pannell was talking aobut?) No sir.

    (Rachel - You were asked about death penalty... is ay or your testimony or affidavit, affected in way about you rpersonal views?) No maam. (You said earlier, you went to talk to Marlon’s lawyers.) Yes. (This female you identified talking to older lady and then to two men... did you seeher talk to Marlon’s lawyers?) No maam. 10:21 - EXCUSED

    RACHEL - MY CO-COUNSEL SAYD THEY’D LIKE TO RETAIN HER. (Judge - OK).

    JUDGE - 10 MINUTE RECESS.

    http://djournal.com/view/full_story/...ome_news_right
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  6. #6
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    DAY 3: State witness claims Howell's attorney offered him money for statements

    A state witness said this morning that Marlon Howell's lead attorney paid him for his time as the defense re-investigated the 2000 shooting death that put Howell on Death Row.

    Brandon Shaw, the then-boyfriend of a Howell witness, said North Carolina attorney Billy Richardson offered him $20 "for his time" when he first attempted to speak with him about the case a few years ago.

    (See below an account of Shaw's testimony today and Hood's questions for him.)

    Howell’s counsel seeks a new trial for him or to have the Union County capital murder conviction overturned because of alleged constitutional rights violations.

    The evidentiary hearing was ordered by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

    Senior Judge Samac Richardson of Rankin County, no relation to Howell’s lead counsel Billy Richardson of North Carolina, is presiding over the hearing, which began Wednesday, after all the circuit district’s judges declined to participate.

    Attorney General Jim Hood was the case’s district attorney when it came to trial. On the state’s team with him are current D.A. Ben Creekmore, Assistant D.A. Kelly Luther and Assistant A.G. Jason Davis.

    Attorney Richardson is assisted by Tupelo attorneys Jim Waide and Rachel Pierce Waide, with support from the Mississippi Innocence Project based at the University of Mississippi.

    Howell, who was seated at his counsel table, was sentenced to death after his conviction for the May 15, 2000 shooting death of David Pernell, a Daily Journal newspaper carrier. His co-defendants insisted he killed Pernell but later recanted. They were sentenced to prison on other charges.

    • • •

    8:50 - Hood has a motion. We ask ... that court to produce a witness today. RICHARDSON - We’re not putting her up but I think she is on her way ... probably be about 9:30. JUDGE - We;ll wait until 9:30 to see. RICHARDSON - May I inquire about what’s going on. JUDGE - Hood wanted access to Pannell. Asking where she was. Richardson - Why? HOOD - This whole hearing... operating like.. doesn’t follow courtroom procedure. Will not advise him about what I want to talk to the witness about. JUDGE - You’ve already held her to question again. Not improper to recall her.

    LUTHER - She was not going to be our first witness. JUDGE - Weren’t going to start until 9 a.m. but if y’all are ready to go. (Attorneys - no objection.) (Judge to take a couple of minutes before starting.)

    LUTHER - CALL BENNY KIRK

    KIRK - Retired New Albany police officer, retired 6 years ago. (Testifies about law enforcement experience.) In May 2000, was investigator with Tim Kent at NAPD. Called to Pernell shooting scene. (Luther - Was Howell picked up during investigation?) Yes. (Was Howell put in lineup?) Yes, around 10 a.m. May 15? (Prior to that, was he charged with murder?) No. (Affidavit charging with capital murder before lineup?) No. OBJECTION - LEADING. JUDGE - SUSTAINED.

    (When charged?) After lineup, about 10 a.m. (When charged?) Some time that afternoon. (How long lineup take?) 20-30 minutes, don’t recall. (Did Howell ahve attorney there?) Don’t recall. (Charged, what does that mean?) Paperwork, warrant, affidavits. (Before his lineup, any affidavits signed?) No. (Warrants?) No. (Why not?) Well, you get your ... we needed a lineup. (Prior to lineup, did you have evidence to charge him?) No.

    (Did you interview any witnesses?) I was present for some. Didn’t conduct any. (Did you threaten any?) No.

    9:00 - JIM WAIDE (Telling counsel that no charge until after the lineup?) Of capital murder, yes. (Held before?) Yes. (Remember when taken into custody?) Uh, we got warrant from MDOC, ppicked up that night after the incident. (Y’all had MDOC warrant for parole violaiton - behind in payments. Know how long you had that warrant?) No sir. (But behind on payments and warrant, not picked up until co-defendants made statement about the murder?) Yes. (How did probation officer picked him up? Who?) Police and Sheriff’s Dept.

    (So, once picked him up, was he free to leave?) No, MDOC had hold on him. (Why?) Because MDOC had one. Had to do whatever with parole officer before he could get out. (You had information that he committed the murder?) Yes. (Did you take a statement?) Yes. (You’re not saying you’d take him out before going to the judge?) No. HOOD - He’s a police officer, No foundation he had authority to release somebody from jail. WAIDE - (Without going to the judge, in your experience as police officer ... have you ever seen two witnesses say murder and you released somebody?) No. (Didn’t happen in this case?) No. 30 years in law enforcement.

    (Your opinion? Based on the codefendant statements, did you have probable cause to hold him for capital murder?) I think we did. (Needed something more solid?) Yes, lineup. (In your eyes, lineup was crucial factor to prosecute?) It helped, yes. (It was crucial, wasn’t it? You didn’t want to go with just two codefendant statements?) Yes. (You wouldn’t want to go to trial with just their statements, wanted something more solid?) Well, common knowledge to get all you could. LIne up is one of them.

    9:06 - LUTHER (ASKED ON CROSS IF HOWELL WAS PICKED UP on probation violation for failure to pay his fees. Show you document, see if familiar. WAIDE - No objection.)

    (Luther - Document, recognize?) Warrant for violation of probtion on Marlon Howell. (What is alleged in it?) Non-payment for fees. (Was part of this screening for drug use?) WAIDE - OBJECTION. (Failure to pay fees, no matter what?) Yes. (Did you or NAPD have any authority to release him from that probation warrant?) No. (Did Howell ... you were asked about having two statements again, then release from jail. What would you have done if Rice said he wasn’t the one?) We would have investigated more. WAIDE - OBJECTION TO SAY HE’S ASKING... LEADING. JUDGE - SUSTAINED.

    (What had Rice done.. did he came forward?) Yes. He gave description of what person looked like. (Why lineup?) WAIDE - OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS KNOWLEDGE. Luther - placed importance of lineup in cross examination, whether Kirk had authority about arrest JUDGE - OVERULED.

    (WHY DO LINEUP?) To make sure.... (Would you have signed warrant, affidavit charging Howell if all you had was statement from co-defendants?) Yes sir. (Prepared to sign affidavits before?) Myself? No.

    9:11 - STATE CALLS BRANDON SHAW. Hood to question.

    SHAW - 32. Self-employed, tears down houses. TEstified during trial. (Hood - Tell judge briefly your role night of murder.) They had came to my house, I was asleep. Ray knocked and woke us up. Said wanted to talk to him, important. May 15, 2000. In bed with Kesia Pannell. I got up. Heard disturbance. Startled. Adam told me Marlon had shot somebody. Playing? NO, for real. During time, all us present in the room, not one time did Marlon say he did or didn’t. (Appearance?) He was hysterical. His face real red.

    JUDGE - Who was present?

    SHAW - Adam said he committed murder. Curt confirmed it. Marlon was hysterical like something happened. Pacing back and forth. Hand under his arm. WAIDE - This is all in the record. I don’ thave problem with a summary. But going through every detail... like at trial. HOOD - Ms. Pannell attacked his credibility yesterday. Not going through every detail. JUDGE - OVERRULED.

    (HOOD - So, explain what talking about defendant. What was he doing?) He had like his hand under his arm and he was packing back and forward. He had shirt wrapped around his hand. (Then what?) Then, Marlon said take me home, Blue Mountain. (Who was there?) Me, Marlon, Curt, Adam and ..... I was scared I thought he had a gun. Had his hand under his arm, Marlon did. (What do?) As I was going back Adam was behind, Curt too. I told Kecia I have to go. She asked why. I didn’ tell me, just chill out. I know how she is, would have said you’re not going anywhere.

    (Why didn’t you want to tell Kecia at that time?) Marlon ...he had just shot somebody. I put my clothes on. To living room, I thought I didn’t have tag on my car. Got my brother’s car keys. I didn’t tell him what was going on. Marlon came from around house. I got in other car and took Marlon. Marcus got in car first. To take Marlon home. He said, don’t say nothing.

    (Then?) Came back to New Albany. Told them he said not to tell nobody. Curt, and them left. I dropped them off. My brother and Kecia didn’t know what was going on. She was awake when I got back. (In living room, talked to them?) Don’t know. Told her that I took hi home and they said he just shot somebody. (Did you say other shot him?) No. (If she were to say that’s what you told her?) She’d be telling a lie. (If she told court that you said Curt and Adam killed Pernell, that would be a lie?) Yes. sir. WAIDE - That’s question for court. JUDGE - I WON’T JUDGE HER credibility unless he contradcts her. overruled.

    (HOOD - If she said she peeped out BR door?) I didn’t see that. WAIDE - LEADING. HE’S NOT SUPPOSE TO NOW WHAT SHE TESTIFIED. JUDGE - to witness, wait. OVERRULED. He said “if she said that.”

    (HOOD - IN BR, could you see into livingroom?) No. (How was it set up? If somebody was in living room.) Front about 100 feet across. BR on other side of dining room. BR, door opens. Can’t see directly into living room. Mother had a cabinet... dining room right off BR. She had a big cabinet in dining room and couldn’t see around it into the living room. She’d have to come all the way out of the room to see living room. (So, if opened door, couldn’t see who was there?) No. She’d have to come all the way to the door ... to see. (See then?) Not directloy.

    (See her come out?) No. (Ask her what was going on?) Didn’t tell her anything. (Now, when you got back and told her. What time was it?) Can’t remember those details. Daylight. (What time?) Don’t know. (Said Kesia was up?) Told .. my brother, Kecia and my brother’s girlfriend. Talked about what happened. I left and went to look for Curt and Adam. Told them I was going to let office now what happened. It was on the new... about the murder.

    JUDGE - Mr. Shaw, slow down.

    (Hood - When talked with people in house, Kecia... watch TV?) Yes sir. Don’t remember who all was sitting there... about the murder. (Any questions with Kecia about who committed the murder?) I don’t know. (How long were you living with Kecia?) About 6-7 years. Off and on. (Have any children?) A daughter, she’s 11. (What about your parting, your breakup?)( We never got along. (Is she mad at you?) Yeh. (Did she ever lie?) WAIDE- LEADING. SUSTAINED.

    (Hood - If she told us that you tole her that Curtis and Adam committed the murder, that’s a lie?) Yes sir. (Why would she lie about that?) I don’t know. Marlon’s lawyer might have paid her. WAIDE - OBJECTION. MOTION TO STRIKE. HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS,. IF HE’S GOT FACTS, HE NEEDS TO TESTIFY TO IT. HOOD - Ask him to make sttements, not talk to witness. JUDGE - He said they might have paid her. SUSTAIN OBJECTION. Supposition, guess work... sustained.

    (DID THEY ever offer you money to change your testimony?) Yeh, they tried to bribe me. (Who?) I don’t know name. (How many times did someone came about giving another statement?) About 5 times. (First time, when and where?) At car wash, he came to talk to me. Didn’t want to talk. WAIDE - Ask court to instruct who did what. Who is he talking about, accusations of misconduct. JUDGE - Say who it was, what they looked like, some type of identificaiton?

    Shaw - two of them. Only one I remember was guy sitting there in glasses against the wall. Third man down (POINTING TO RICHARDSON) Hood - Indicates Richardson as one who came to talk to him.

    (Hood - FIRST TIME, what occurred?) Washing cars, real busy. He kept on wanting to talk to me. About Marlon Howell. (Who was it?) First time didn’t say. Thought it was state investigator. Didn’t want to talk to him. I asked what is this about? Want to get on with my life, I have people who have threatened me. I have never said Marlon shot anybody. I don’t know what he did, only he came to my house. He kept badgering. Then ... (How long?) A few minutes. Then said well, need to talk to you, man’s life on line. He’s on death row. I kind of felt guilty. I said he shouldn’t be on death row... but serve life, my opinon. (He? Who talking about?) The lawyer.

    (Hood - So, after that?) I stopped washing and we talked. Went on a while, more than hour or two. He said, pulled out wallet. I’ll give you $20 for your time. Lawyer said. (Then what?) We talked. (So, didn’t sign statement hten?) Don’t know. When they talked to me, always writing or recording. He never came by himself. At my house ... (Next time?) Can’t say which. Just remember several times. (How many times?) About 5 times.

    (Hood - Anybody else present when talked to you?) At shop, brother was there but didn’t hear anything. My wife was there but she didn’t hear anything. Later came to house, Mom and wife there. Can’t remember who else. At Sherman, wife and Mom there too. At Sherman, asked him how found out where I lived. Trying to get away. He said it’s hard to keep up with you. I said, not trying to be found. Spread money around, and people will tell me where you at. (How long ago was this?) In Sherman was 2008. (How long period were these 5 times with Richardson?) I don’t now. A few years.

    (Hood - When mother and wife there, any conversation about money?) Yes, sir. He said wanted to talk about it, man’s life at stake. I’m willing to pay for your time. Like I want to get a statement. (How many times said paying?) A few time. Probably every time. (How did you take that?) I felt like he was trying to pay me for a statement that he wanted. Didn’t. (Signed it?) I told you and everybody else, I didnot read that paper. EVery time they came, they were writing down. Not at one time did I ever read what they wrote. He said, just sign this that I talked to you. Never did I read it.

    (Hood is showing documents to Waide. Several dozen people in the audience. Includes Howell’s mother.) HOOD - They have this in discovery. WAIDE - Your honor, I can’t recall this. JUDGE - IF NEED to take a recess, I’ll do that. (Waide continues to read documents.)

    HOOD - Your honor, it’s 9:40 and no Kecia Pannell. Ask for bench warrant. RICHARDSON - I’m not in charge of that. Will MacIntosh, colleague, she said 9:30. From Tupelo. Takes 20-30 minutes. She should be here any time. We thought they had two more witnesses to put on. JUDGE - A\MAYBE YOU CAN contact her. Richardson - We’ll do that now. (MacIntosh leaves courtroom. Waide still reading. Says doesn’t object to any of these.)

    (Hood - Document, what is this, when?) 5/16/2000. I signed it. (That your statement to law?) Yes. Move to enter into evidence. WAIDE - NO OBJECTION. Would like about 5 minute recess after direct to look at statements again. (Judge - brings them to bench to talk about it.) JUDGE - SHORT RECESS. 9:46.

    • • •

    http://djournal.com/view/full_story/...ome_news_right
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  7. #7
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Howell awaits death row decision

    High drama and legal fireworks came fast and furious this week as death row inmate Marlon Howell seeks a new trial in the 2000 death of newspaper carrier David Pernell.

    As the three-day hearing closed about 4 p.m. Friday, specially appointed Judge Samac Richardson of Rankin County took all the issues and testimony under advisement, saying he’ll try to make a decision in a few weeks.

    Howell’s defenders claim numerous constitutional rights were violated at his arrest and through his Union County trial, especially that an identification lineup was tainted and that his ineffective counsel failed to recognize or know about several key problems. They also claimed prosecutors knew about key mistakes but failed to rectify them across the past 13 years. His co-defendants, Curtis Lipsey and Adam Ray, are serving lengthy prison sentences on lesser charges after they said Howell was the shooter. Years later, they both recanted.

    The chief defender, North Carolina attorney Billy Richardson, worked hard to contain his emotions as he made closing remarks.

    “There is no physical evidence linking my client to this crime,” said Richardson, who took the appeal at his own expense years ago. “If there were ever time for close scrutiny, it’s now – no DNA, no gunpowder residue.”

    The evidentiary hearing was ordered by the Mississippi Supreme Court to address issues including the line-up, witness credibility and trial counsel.

    During the past two days, Attorney General Jim Hood – the case’s district attorney in 2001 – fueled the drama with personal confrontations.

    Thursday, he reportedly threatened Richardson with criminal charges and urged him to “lawyer up” for allegedly bribing a witness to lie and then late Friday crossed verbal swords with Richardson’s co-counsel, Jim Waide of Tupelo, who told the court that Hood threatened a witness with perjury.

    Throughout, 33-year-old Howell sat quietly at the defense table. By mid-day Friday, more than three dozen spectators, including Howell family members, were in the courthouse courtroom.

    Assistant Attorney General Jason Davis, in closing, told the court that Howell’s right to counsel at the lineup was not in effect because he had not yet been arrested and charged with capital murder.

    Hood agreed and said line-up witness Charles Rice’s testimony was consistent through the years – that he saw Howell shoot Pernell. He also discounted the recanted testimony, saying there’s good reason the Mississippi Supreme Court looks “unfavorably” on recantations.

    Much of Friday’s testimony came from Brandon Shaw, who claimed Ray told him Howell shot Pernell.

    He also said Richardson offered him $20 “for his time” to give a statement about what happened May 15, 2000 when Pernell died. Then later, he said he didn’t consider it a bribe.

    Defense investigator Leonard Sanders told the court he never heard any talk of money during their many conversations with former trial witnesses.

    Richardson’s son, attorney Matt Richardson, closed remarks before the court and insisted Howell was due legal counsel at the jail lineup because although he was under arrest for a parole violation, he was being held for suspicion of capital murder.

    “In effect, he was under arrest for murder,” Matt Richardson said.

    The lineup “tainted the trial and the appeal,” he added.

    Hood asked the court to deny Howell’s appeal.

    http://djournal.com/view/full_story/...ome_news_right
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  8. #8
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Judge rules against Howell on all points of new trial

    By Patsy R. Brumfield
    The NEMS Daily Journal

    NEW ALBANY – A special judge denied all issues offered by attorneys for a death-row inmate convicted in the 2001 shooting death in New Albany.

    Monday, Senior Judge Samac Richardson of Rankin County issued a ruling from a three-day evidentiary hearing in New Albany. The hearing aimed at fleshing out questions raised by his appeals to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

    Howell was convicted of capital murder in the death of David Pernell as he delivered newspapers in the early morning hours.

    His defense team insisted Howell’s identification was erroneous, his jail lineup tainted by a lack of an attorney and other issues.

    Richardson discounted them, saying all were without merit.

    District Attorney Ben Creekmore, part of the state hearing team last month, expressed his appreciation for the decision, saying it was the right one.

    He said the case is back in the lap of the state Supreme Court.

    “They could agree or they could order a new trial,” he said Monday in Houston, where he prosecuted a trial in justice court.

    Howell’s team, led by North Carolina attorney Billy Richardson and the Innocence Project of Mississippi, expressed disappointment but said they will continue to push for his vindication or a new trial.

    They also claimed prosecutors knew about key mistakes but failed to rectify them across the past 13 years. His co-defendants, Curtis Lipsey and Adam Ray, are serving lengthy prison sentences on lesser charges after they said Howell was the shooter. Years later, they both recanted.

    http://djournal.com/bookmark/22652249

  9. #9
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Death row inmate loses post-conviction arguments

    NEW ALBANY, Miss. (AP) - The Mississippi Supreme Court will hear the post-conviction arguments of death row inmate Marlon Howell convicted in the 2001 slaying of a newspaper carrier.

    The case is among dozens the court will consider during its July-August term. It will not hear oral arguments.

    A judge denied Howell's appeal last year, finding no fault with his legal representation. The judge also denied Howell's challenge the testimony of a prosecutor's witness. Howell also argued a jail lineup was tainted by a lack of an attorney.

    Howell was convicted in 2001 of capital murder and sentenced to death for killing David Pernell during a robbery. Pernell was a retired postman who delivered the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. He was killed after being was flagged down on a city street in New Albany.

    http://www.knoe.com/story/25952152/d...tion-arguments
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  10. #10
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Death row inmate loses new trial bid

    The Mississippi Supreme Court has upheld a lower court's decision to deny a new trial to death row inmate Marlon Howell, who was convicted in the 2001 slaying of a newspaper carrier.

    In 2008, the state Supreme Court granted Howell a hearing in Union County Circuit Court on his challenge to the testimony of a prosecutor's witness and arguments that his attorney didn't do a good job.

    A state judge threw out Howell's arguments last May, denying Howell the new trial he sought.

    Howell, now 34, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for killing David Pernell during a robbery. Pernel was a retired postman who delivered the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. He was killed after being was flagged down on a city street in New Albany.

    http://www.knoe.com/story/26748209/d...-new-trial-bid
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •