Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
An Ohio murder case in which the prosecutor secured two separate convictions by using irreconcilable theories that each defendant fired the fatal shot has prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether that violates due process protections. The use of inconsistent theories to gain convictions of two defendants for an action only one could have committed occurs more frequently than might be expected. The pending appeal in the Washington-area sniper shootings challenges the use of inconsistent theories against John Allen Muhammad by prosecutors in two separate counties. “As long as courts allow the people involved to take inconsistent positions and say it is not a problem, then there is no solution,” said Muhammad’s co-counsel, Peter Greenspun of Fairfax, Va.’s Greenspun & Mann. Moreover, the California Supreme Court overturned a death sentence two weeks ago because the prosecutor told separate juries that each defendant supplied the murderous hatchet blows. In re Sakarias, No. S082299. And a South Carolina appeals court heard arguments on March 9 on a similar question in a noncapital case. State v. Edwards, No. 13322. In a half-dozen death penalty cases in California alone, the question has been raised in defense appeals in recent years. In one of those cases, the defendant was executed without a resolution to the constitutional question raised by conflicting prosecution theories. In 2003, a Tennessee state court wrote, “no uniform body of law exists for addressing the issue.” State v. Gregory Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469. The U.S. Supreme Court has never held the practice unconstitutional or given much guidance to courts dealing with the dilemma. But that could change. The high court agreed to re-examine the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision last year that prosecutors violated John Stumpf’s due process rights in the Ohio murder case because of the inconsistent claims used to convict Stumpf and his co-defendant. Bradford v. Stumpf, No. 04-637. “The danger with these inconsistent positions is that the wrong person will end up executed or convicted,” said Alan Freedman, an attorney with the Midwest Center for Justice in Chicago who is Stumpf’s lawyer. “We want a search for the truth,” he said. In 1984, Stumpf and Clyde Wesley shot an Ohio couple that let the pair inside their home to use a telephone. Norman Stout survived. His wife, Mary Jane, did not. The prosecutors told a three-judge Ohio panel considering the reliability of Stumpf’s guilty plea that he fired the shots that killed Mary Jane. Stumpf received a death sentence. But during Wesley’s trial a year later, the state used a jailhouse informant who testified that Wesley, not Stumpf, fired the deadly shots. Wesley’s cellmate testified that Wesley said Stumpf shot Norman in the face then dropped the gun and ran. Wesley then picked up the weapon and killed Mary Jane, according to the informant. Wesley was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. When Stumpf tried to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis of Wesley’s conviction, the state opposed the motion, arguing that the informant’s testimony was unreliable. Ohio Deputy Solicitor Diane Brey, who is handling the Stumpf appeal, said she finds nothing improper in the case and doesn’t see the government assertions as inconsistent. The evidence against the co-defendant was not available at the time Stumpf pleaded guilty, she said. Some lawyers expressed concerns that prosecutors’ regard for truth-seeking has given way to an attitude of win at all costs. “When I was a young lawyer, prosecutors were taught, and were duty bound, to do the right thing,” said Gerald Lefcourt, a New York City criminal defense attorney and former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “Now all the prosecution cares about is winning. They have become adversaries in the true sense of the word. This is an example of that change,” he said. Richard Wintory, a deputy county attorney in Tucson, Ariz., and a vice president of the National District Attorneys Association, agreed that prosecutors have an obligation not to cross an ethical line, but he did not see a due process violation. “There is an ethical issue. It is not the way [prosecutors] should approach their job,” he said. But he added, “Defense lawyers grab due process like a pool cue in a bar fight.” Just what limits the Supreme Court may impose, if any, on prosecutors remains an open question. “The current Supreme Court is not very receptive to fairness-based arguments,” said Anne Bowen Poulin, a professor at Villanova University School of Law. She suggested that judges could force prosecutors to stick to the first theory they present, barring a contradictory one in a subsequent trial by expanding use of collateral estoppel in criminal proceedings. She also proposed the use of judicial estoppel to expand judicial authority to prevent the presentation of irreconcilable prosecution theories. Pamela A. MacLean is a reporter with The National Law Journal, a Recorder affiliate based in New York City.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.