People of Michigan v. Wesley Neal Jr, 328117

Background

Defendant Wesley Neal was convicted after a jury trial of carjacking, armed robbery, assault with intent to commit murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony-firearm (second offense) for the November 7, 2005 robbery and nonfatal shooting of Bruce Clark.
At trial, prosecution witness Shanna McElroy testified she and Neal planned a robbery where she posed as a prostitute and Neal arrived to rob the victim; Clark struggled for a gun and was shot multiple times but survived and identified Neal.
Neal had previously been tried and convicted in a bench trial; that conviction was affirmed on appeal but later vacated by federal habeas proceedings, leading to the jury retrial and reconviction in 2015.
Neal moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to impeach McElroy with a prior false accusation, failure to investigate/call alibi witnesses Regains and Taylor, and failure to move to suppress Clark’s identification) and asserted newly discovered impeachment evidence (Myrick Buckner’s testimony about a prior statement by McElroy).
The trial court held evidentiary hearings, found defense counsel’s decisions were reasonable strategic choices or nonprejudicial, and denied the new-trial motion; this appeal challenges that denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Failure to impeach McElroy with her prior false accusation implicating Regains	People: Counsel adequately cross-examined McElroy and further impeachment was unnecessary; evidence might have aided prosecution’s narrative.	Neal: Counsel was ineffective for not introducing evidence showing Regains had an alibi and the charges were dismissed, and for not showing the prior plan matched this offense.	Denied — counsel’s strategic choice not to seek admission was reasonable and not prejudicial.
2) Failure to investigate/call alibi witnesses (Regains, Taylor)	People: Counsel investigated; Taylor refused to confirm alibi; Regains’ testimony, even if presented, would not have accounted for the time of the offense.	Neal: Counsel failed to develop a substantial alibi defense by not calling witnesses corroborating he was home during the crime.	Denied — no prejudice; Taylor uncooperative and Regains’ account did not cover the offense time.
3) Failure to move to suppress Clark’s identification / challenge based on blackout	People: Identification was reliable (lineup, preliminary exam, first trial identifications); blackout evidence was irrelevant to the offense time.	Neal: Counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress allegedly suggestive prior identifications and for not using blackout to undermine visibility.	Denied — identifications were not shown to be impermissibly suggestive; blackout occurred after the offense, so challenge would be futile.
4) New trial based on newly discovered impeachment (Buckner’s hearsay of McElroy statement)	People: Buckner’s evidence is only impeachment hearsay, cumulative of other impeachment, and unlikely to change the outcome.	Neal: Buckner’s testimony shows McElroy previously identified someone else, warranting a new trial.	Denied — evidence is impeachment only, cumulative, and not likely to produce a different result.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Miller, 482 Mich. 540 (2008) (standard of review for new-trial rulings and factual findings)
People v. LeBlanc, 465 Mich. 575 (2002) (mixed question of law and fact for ineffective-assistance claims)
People v. Frazier, 478 Mich. 231 (2007) (two-part Strickland standard applied in Michigan)
People v. Rockey, 237 Mich. App. 74 (1999) (deference to trial strategy; courts will not substitute hindsight)
People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (2012) (limits on insulating strategy from review; strategy must be sound)
People v. Cress, 468 Mich. 678 (2003) (elements for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
People v. Grissom, 492 Mich. 296 (2012) (newly discovered impeachment evidence is usually not a basis for retrial; narrow exceptions)