People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Edward Titus, 329770

Background

In 2002 a jury convicted Jeffrey Titus of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and two felon-in-possession firearm counts for killings in November 1990; he received life sentences and two-year firearm terms. Appeal and convictions were previously affirmed; in 2014 Titus moved for relief from judgment, which the trial court denied and this appeal followed.
Prosecution relied on evidence of Titus’s territorial behavior on hunting land, his later possession/claim of finding a victim’s shotgun, and inculpatory statements to coworkers/witnesses.
Defense at trial presented an alibi: Eloise and Gerald Shepard’s written statement that Titus hunted at their farm all afternoon, and testimony of co-hunter Stan Driskell describing times that permitted only a limited window for Titus to have left and returned. The Shepards were unavailable at trial due to memory issues.
Titus alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to interview/call two original detectives (Wiersema and Ballett) and to impeach certain witnesses (Bonnie Huffman, Deputy Richards) using earlier reports; he also alleged a Brady violation for nondisclosure of a detective’s two-shooter theory.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing; it found counsel’s investigative choices reasonable, excluded the Shepards’ out-of-court statement under MRE 804(b)(7) as not the most probative evidence available, found no Brady violation, and denied relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Titus)	Held
1) Trial counsel ineffective for not interviewing/calling Detectives Wiersema and Ballett about the Shepards’ alibi statement	Counsel’s investigation was reasonable; Shepards’ written statement and reports were known to defense and were not more probative than live Driskell testimony	Detectives had cleared him and would corroborate Shepards’ alibi; counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial	Denied — counsel’s choice was reasonable; Driskell’s live testimony was more probative and counsel not ineffective
2) Counsel ineffective for failing to impeach Huffman with an earlier statement placing Titus at Burnworth’s house at 8–9 p.m.	Police reports available to defense did not contain that 8–9 p.m. timing; counsel could not be faulted for not impeaching with evidence unknown to them	Huffman’s earlier statement (to detectives) would have impeached her trial testimony and aided alibi	Denied — only evidence of that later came from detective testimony years after trial; counsel could not have used it
3) Counsel ineffective for not investigating/grid-search documents or using Deputy Sharp’s report to impeach Deputy Richards about the shotgun search	Strategic cross-examination choices are entitled to deference; Sharp’s report ambiguous and impeachment could backfire; Sergeant Johnson could rebut	Sharp’s supplemental report contradicted Richards and would have undermined the prosecution’s claim that the shotgun wasn’t at the site on Nov 18	Denied — counsel’s tactical decision reasonable given ambiguities and risk of rebuttal; no deficient performance shown
4) Brady violation for nondisclosure of Detective Mattison’s two-shooter theory	The two-shooter theory was favorable and should have been disclosed; its suppression was material	The two-shooter theory was preliminary/speculative, was shared with and rejected by the cold-case team, and was not required Brady material	Denied — theory was speculative/preliminary and not required to be disclosed under Brady

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deferential two-prong test for counsel performance and prejudice)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose favorable, material evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (prosecutor’s duty to learn of and disclose favorable evidence known to others acting on its behalf)
People v. Uphaus (On Remand), 278 Mich. App. 174 (standard for ineffective-assistance claims on remand)
People v. Katt, 468 Mich. 272 (explaining high "best evidence"/probative standard for residual hearsay exceptions)
People v. Chenault, 495 Mich. 142 (materiality and prejudice standards for Brady claims under Michigan law)
People v. Grant, 470 Mich. 477 (defense counsel duty to investigate leads; strategic choices reviewed with deference)
People v. Seals, 285 Mich. App. 1 (presumption of effective assistance; courts may not substitute their judgment for counsel’s strategy)