Isom v. State.ecn
2015 Ark. 225
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Kenneth Isom was convicted of capital murder, aggravated robbery, residential burglary, attempted capital murder, and two counts of rape, with sentences imposed consecutively.
- Arkansas Supreme Court previously affirmed convictions and denied postconviction relief; Isom sought coram nobis relief and reinvestment of jurisdiction.
- Major issue is whether the State suppressed Brady material and whether the writ of error coram nobis is meritorious to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court.
- The court focuses on a claim that material evidence pointed to alternate suspects (Kevin Green and Jerry Avery) and that testimony about a search for a weapon/scissors was misrepresented.
- The majority grants reinvestment to consider Brady claims; the dissent would deny reinvestment, deeming the claims not meritorious and noting coram nobis is rare.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reinvestment is merited for a Brady claim | Isom asserts withheld Brady material; potential alternate suspects. | State contends no meritorious claim; information known to defense; no prejudice. | Yes; petition granted to reinvest jurisdiction to pursue coram nobis/Brady claims. |
| Whether the alleged withheld evidence could have changed the outcome | Evidence about Green/Avery and weapons could undermine verdict. | Record shows ample evidence of guilt; suppressed evidence not material to outcome. | Claim lacks merit; no reasonable probability of different outcome shown. |
| Whether Isom's other Brady-related claims were properly considered | There were multiple potential Brady violations needing review. | Claims not substantiated or already known to counsel; not meritorious. | Jurisdiction reinvested to consider these claims as well. |
| Whether due diligence/time limits affect the coram nobis relief | Not explicitly stated here; relief appropriate given extraordinary remedy. | Due diligence required; no valid excuse shown for delay. | Court leaves diligence questions to circuit court; petition granted for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177 (Ark. 2012) (standard for reinvestment; merit-based inquiry)
- Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539 (Ark. 2009) (reinvesting jurisdiction for multiple Brady claims)
- Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 414 (Ark. 2003) (when to entertain coram nobis post-affirmation)
- Burks v. State, 2013 Ark. 188 (Ark. 2013) (proof required for withholdings; due diligence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (Brady material standard and materiality)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (cumulative prejudice standard for suppressed evidence)
- Isom v. State, 2010 Ark. 496 (Ark. 2010) (coram nobis related to DNA/scissors evidence discussion)