307 So.3d 1231
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- In July 2005 an eight‑week‑old infant (Tristan) collapsed while in Amy Wilkerson’s care; treating physicians diagnosed injuries consistent with shaken‑baby syndrome (SBS/AHT).
- Wilkerson was interrogated; an audiotaped portion was disclosed, but a 32‑minute portion of a hidden video (capturing off‑the‑record questioning and a confession after she asked for a lawyer) was not clearly provided to defense counsel.
- Defense expert review shortly before trial confirmed an SBS diagnosis; counsel advised Wilkerson to plead guilty to a reduced charge of depraved‑heart murder on May 24, 2007; she received a life sentence.
- Wilkerson’s 2010 PCR was denied and affirmed. In 2015 she filed a second amended PCR alleging (a) Brady suppression of the full interrogation video, (b) newly discovered scientific evidence challenging SBS (experts opining cortical venous thrombosis and chronic brain injury), (c) ineffective assistance for failing to obtain experts and to suppress the confession, and (d) actual innocence.
- The circuit court denied the 2015 PCR as procedurally barred; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered‑evidence and ineffective‑assistance (suppression) claims, but held Wilkerson waived a Brady claim by pleading guilty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilkerson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered scientific evidence (SBS/AHT) | Post‑conviction expert opinions and medical literature changes show alternative cause (CVT) and would probably change outcome | Underlying records are the same; expert reinterpretation is not "newly discovered" | Remanded for evidentiary hearing — changes in scientific understanding may qualify as newly discovered evidence excusing procedural bars |
| Suppression of interrogation video (Brady) | The State withheld exculpatory video of off‑record interrogation that would have supported suppression of confession | State says video was produced in discovery; argues guilty plea waives Brady claim | Court of Appeals: guilty plea waived Brady claim here; no hearing on Brady, but video’s existence is relevant to ineffective‑assistance inquiry |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to obtain experts to rebut SBS | Counsel failed to investigate medical controversy and secure experts, which affected plea advice | Claim raised in prior PCR; barred by res judicata | Claim barred by res judicata (raised previously); no hearing on this ground |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to move to suppress confession | Counsel would have moved to suppress had they seen/interpreted the withheld video and likely would have advised against pleading | State contends counsel had discovery (VHS receipt) and plea waived related issues; denies suppression basis | Remanded for factual findings and evidentiary hearing as to whether counsel received/reviewed the video, whether failure to suppress was deficient, and prejudice to the plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (suppression of evidence favorable to accused violates due process)
- Ruiz v. United States, 536 U.S. 622 (Constitution does not always require pre‑plea disclosure of impeachment evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Strickland applied to guilty‑plea context; prejudice requires showing would have gone to trial)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (counseled guilty plea posture differs from trial challenges to coerced confession)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (attorney performance in litigating Fourth Amendment claims; failure to litigate can be ineffective assistance)
- Walton v. State, 165 So. 3d 516 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (guilty plea precludes asserting a Brady violation under this Court’s precedent)
- Howard v. State, 300 So. 3d 1011 (Miss. 2020) (scientific developments can be newly discovered evidence excusing procedural bars; remand for evidentiary hearing)
- Wilkerson v. State, 89 So. 3d 610 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (appellant’s prior PCR appeal affirming denial)
- Matthew v. Johnson, 201 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2000) (pre‑plea suppression of exculpatory evidence not a constitutional violation where defendant waives trial — relied on in Walton)