If You Don't Mind A Little Perjury, You Can Convict Two People For The Same Crime
from the justice-lol dept
Want to convict two people for the same burglary? It can be done. If you're a state prosecutor willing to knowingly offer up perjured testimony, the impossible becomes the routine. (h/t to Eric Goldman)Here's the backstory [pdf link]:
Early in the morning of December 19, 2012, a person wearing a mask, two hooded sweatshirts, and gloves broke into a Dollar General store in Mishawaka and stole approximately $3,500 in cash. Video surveillance revealed that the burglar was a white female. On December 28, police investigating the burglary questioned [Nicole] Greenlee, a white female employee of the Dollar General store, who ultimately confessed to the burglary.So, the police had a suspect convicted for this burglary. And the corroborating video showed that Greenlee performed the criminal act on her own. But that wasn't enough. They brought charges against Smith "for committing the same December 19 burglary of the Dollar General store."
At one point during the investigation, Greenlee named [Antonio] Smith, her boyfriend at the time, and another woman as accomplices in the burglary, but police concluded that Greenlee had acted on her own. The State charged Greenlee with burglary, as a Class C felony. Greenlee pleaded guilty and, during her plea hearing on May 6, 2013, she testified under oath that she had broken and entered the Dollar General store with the intent to commit theft, she had opened the door to get inside, and she had disarmed the alarm system using the code. During that hearing, Greenlee did not testify that Smith or anyone else helped her commit the burglary.
This double-charging obviously presented an issue. The state prosecutor's case hinged on Greenlee's testimony, something that (a) contradicted her previous testimony during her guilty plea and (b) the surveillance recording of the incident. None of that deterred the state from attempting to achieve the impossible. The state prosecutor warned the jury that it was going to have to come to terms with the fact that the State was willing to use perjury to achieve its goal of putting two people in jail for the same criminal act. Of course, it worded it a bit differently.
During its opening statement at Smith’s trial, the State told the jury:TL; DR: We're going to lie to you. Good luck!
[y]ou’re also going to hear [Greenlee] give two different versions of what happened. When she first talked to the police, you’re going to hear that she took the blame for being the one inside the store saying she was the one that [sic] went in, that’s her on the tape, that [Smith] was outside in the bushes.
You’re probably also going to hear her sit right up here today and sit on the stand and tell you something different. What she’s probably going to tell you is that she was outside in the bushes and that [Smith] was inside, and you’re going to hear about the factors that may contribute to that change in story and that’s something you’re going to have to deal with at the end of this process.
Nicole Greenlee herself may have wondered how she was going to get away with testifying in direct contradiction of her previous admission. Fortunately, the prosecution promised her that she wouldn't get into any more trouble than she was already in. She was given immunity against perjury charges. So, she testified in direct contradiction of her previous statements. She claimed she confessed just to get the "whole process done and over with" and that she was waiting outside in the bushes while Smith performed the burglary. She also claimed that, while she was in jail, Smith offered to tell the cops that he did it. (The recording was played for the jury, and the State's counsel did not contest the defense's closing arguments that the "offer" was made in the context of "reassuring" the "crying" Greenlee, rather than as an admission that he had performed the burglary.)
The defense moved for a mistrial, pointing out that perjured testimony generally results in overturned convictions upon appeal. The trial court decided that Greenlee's contradictory statements were merely "inconsistent." It maintained this view even after hearing from a police detective whose statements indicated that Greenlee was alone when she burglarized the store.
Following Greenlee’s testimony, the State called South Bend Detective Timothy Wiley and offered into evidence the video surveillance recordings from the burglary. As noted above, Detective Wiley testified that the video evidence shows a white female acting as the only person inside the store during the burglary. Detective Wiley also testified that the cell phone records of Smith and Greenlee show that they were located near each other and were communicating with each other during the course of the burglary. But, on cross-examination, Detective Wiley admitted that he had no way to know the actual locations of each cell phone during the burglary.Even the detective lied, albeit briefly. And yet, the court (and the jury) still found this to be damning enough to sentence Smith for the burglary he obviously didn't commit.
The appeals court found that Greenlee had committed perjury, in particular, violating this definition from the state statutes:
Has knowingly made two (2) or more material statements, in a proceeding before a court or grand jury, which are inconsistent to the degree that one (1) of them is necessarily false;The State continued to maintain that Greenlee's contradictory statements were merely "inconsistent." Somehow, the prosecution found that Greenlee's claims of being the sole actor and not being the sole actor did not rise to the state's definition of perjury. The appeals court takes that assertion apart.
This is not a case where a witness changes her story during the course of an investigation or during her trial testimony and is merely impeached with her prior inconsistent statements and those inconsistencies are to be resolved by a fact-finder… Greenlee’s statements were not merely inconsistent but mutually exclusive.The State also argued that it did not "knowingly" proffer perjured testimony. The appeals court points out several facts that contradict this assertion, not the least of which is its offering of immunity to Greenlee against prosecution for perjury.
The State also claimed that no violation of Smith's due process rights occurred as a result of its perjury. In particular, it argued that Smith was probably guilty of something, and even if the perjured testimony removed the possibility that he was the principal actor, there was enough evidence that pointed to him being an accomplice. This assertion is dismissed as well.
Of course, if the jury convicted Smith as the principal, the perjury contributed directly to the jury’s verdict. If, however, the jury convicted Smith as an accomplice, the perjured testimony may have been irrelevant. But whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Smith as an accomplice does not resolve the question of whether Greenlee’s perjury constituted harmless error.This is the State being greedy. It had one person charged and convicted, but it wanted even more. It wanted an additional conviction for the same crime badly enough that it allowed the person who had admitted to the crime (and been convicted) to take the stand and claim the opposite. Worse, the trial court allowed this mockery of justice to result in a conviction that ultimately had to be overturned by a higher court -- temporarily creating the impossible situation where both Greenlee and Smith simultaneously robbed the same store while inhabiting the same (white, female) body. As we've noted before, the criminal justice system has a way of making the miraculous seem mundane. This is just one more example of its transformative powers.
The knowing use of perjured testimony violates due process, impeaches the verdict, and undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Greenlee’s testimony poisoned the well and denied Smith a fair trial.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: burglary, perjury, state prosecutor
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Subornation of perjury, perhaps?
...
Would it be up to the prosecutor to determine whether to charge himself with a crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is SUPPOSED to be oversight, but in practice prosecutorial immunity means unless the guy waives his own immunity because he feels guilty, he goes unpunished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We also have another law that may be applicable: Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice. Of course if you are successful you can/will be charged with Perverting the Course of Justice
They do work! We convicted a retired State Supreme Court Justice on multiple counts of Perjury, Suborning Perjury and Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice. He got nailed speeding and then fought it in court, basically lying to the court and getting other witnesses to lie on his behalf, all over a $70 (I think) fine! From memory he got 12 months prison time. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Immunity
but what about the prosecutors? Seems like they should be disbarred? And whatever judge thought this was acceptable? Pretty much the same. Great power and great responsibility and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Immunity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really not that different from each other.
Now... regarding the MASSIVELY ignorant and STUPID jurors... the system is working as intended. This is a DIRECT result of the stupidity of today's school system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, this is corruption of the jury selection process. Anyone with half a brain isn't going to end up on the jury. Why the prosecution and defense are allowed in that process at all, I can't imagine. It's like letting politicians decide who votes. Which explains a lot of why elections are so fouled up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because they caught not just a woman, but a white woman, and Antonio Smith—was Michael Jackson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whether or not that confession is coerced is pointless, especially because she still resides in jail convicted. Her continue residence in jail means the state believes she's guilty. It can't hold she's guilty AND charge him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kind of like a bad cop being investigated by his peers? Oh, yeah, that'll do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's in a name...
Well, obviously. How could ANTONIO SMITH, FORENSIC LINGUIST be an accomplice in any illegal act? Inconceivable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The prosecutor used grossly unreliable testimony.
Why did you think he was implicated at all? Because the perjured testimony implicated him? Because the grossly unreliable testimony implicated him? Why do you think he was involved at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Jumping to conclusions much? you might ALMOST think you were prejudiced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good. You read the case. However, you must also have read the next sentence, highlighted here:
So, after reading that, why did you state, “two cell phones in use: one within, one without”? Detective Wiley admitted he couldn't say that. Why did you make it up?
Further, there's no evidence that either Greenlee or Smith were carrying those particular cellphones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what if he was communicating with the burglar? They were boyfriend and girlfriend so obviously they communicated regularly. The prosecutor didn't reveal the contents of the messages and you can be sure that if the messages said "the coast is clear" or "hurry up, I hear sirens" - then they would have mentioned it... The only evidence wouldn't be that the phones happened to be within a few miles of each other...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Judge Najam's characterization of the evidence in footnote 7, of course, is not itself primary evidence.
In footnote 1, though, Judge Najam indicates that the appellate panel reviewed the video surveillance tape that Detective Wiley testified about. While the panel concludes that Detective Wiley's expert opinion about what he saw is supported by the tape, nowhere in the opinion is it mentioned that anyone at all saw the subject on the video talking on a cellphone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Destroy justice in just two easy steps
Plea deals encourage people to 'admit' to crimes they might not be guilty of, in order to avoid having even more charges brought against them, and mandatory sentencing serves as the giant club the prosecution threatens the accused with to get them to agree to the 'deal' offered them.
Plea deal to a 'lesser' crime, one with prosecution discretion, that could end up being fairly mild, or insist on your innocence and go to court, and face charges with years or decades-long sentences attached to them, with no way for the judge or defense to lower the final sentence if found guilty, mitigating circumstances be damned.
When the concept of 'justice' has been perverted to incorporate blatant threats to get people to give up their right to a fair trial, yeah, the system is completely broken, and 'justice' has been eliminated from the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Destroy justice in just two easy steps
I mean, if the prosecutor has “arguable probable cause” or “colorable probable cause” that's all that's really needed, legally. That's enough to bring charges, and get a defendant to plead out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or some americans view themselves as more equal than others and have corrupted and twisted the laws to only serve themselves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What do you mean, "gets away"? As far as I remember, he was handed over for investigation to the head of the DoJ himself. It doesn't get more serious than that. He's lucky he got away with a stern admonishment from himself and probably had to promise himself solemnly not to get caught too often in future in return for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
According to the South Bend Tribune, in a November 26, 2014 story, “Prosecutor used perjured testimony, appeals court says”, by Madeline Buckley, “Court of Appeals records indicate the prosecutor in question is Micah P. Cox.”
Micah P. Cox.
(H/T The Indiana Law Blog.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perjury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When faced with such overwhelming bullshit, maybe "burn it all down" is the only choice left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new
Prosecutors like to say that they are only interested in a search for the truth, but they are more interested in conviction rates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pointless Perjury
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how to punish
do the judges pay a price for their idiotic verdict?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking the State's argument one step further...
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you want to bet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]