People of Michigan v. Willie Eddie Anderson II
331466
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- On Oct. 12, 2013, Shavonie Baltimore was confronted in her home by an armed intruder; she identified Willie Eddie Anderson II at trial. Defendant was convicted after a jury of assault with intent to rob while armed, first-degree home invasion, felon-in-possession, carrying a weapon with unlawful intent, resisting/obstructing an officer, and two felony-firearm counts. Sentences totaled long prison terms under a second-offender habitual-offender finding.
- A tan Buick seen at the scene led to a police chase; defendant’s brother, Josephus Anderson, was the driver and was arrested near a rifle recovered close to where Josephus was apprehended. Josephus testified at trial that he drove defendant to the house and saw him enter.
- ATF Agent Stan Brue testified as a cell-phone-forensics expert about a change in the phone’s calling pattern after the crime and opined that such a change could indicate involvement in the crime. Defense counsel did not object to that testimony.
- Laura Linden offered an in-court identification of defendant; there was no record of any pretrial identification procedure. Defense counsel did not object to the in-court ID.
- Post-trial, Josephus recanted at an evidentiary hearing, claiming he had lied at trial. An alleged alibi witness (Eric Wilson) testified at the hearing but had not testified at trial. The trial court denied a new trial; this denial was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to Agent Brue’s expert opinion about calling-pattern changes | Brue’s testimony was admissible expert opinion useful to jurors | Counsel should have objected/ requested a Daubert hearing because Brue’s methodology was unreliable and his causation-style opinion ("certainly/possibly involved") invaded the jury role | Counsel should have objected, but omission not prejudicial; no new trial because eyewitness and other evidence supported verdict |
| Failure to object to Linden’s in-court identification | In-court ID was proper and jurors could observe witness reliability | Counsel should have objected under Gray factors due to suggestiveness | No error; Gray inapplicable (no pretrial ID); objection would have been futile |
| Failure to investigate/ present Eric Wilson as witness | Prosecutor emphasized existing evidence; Wilson would exonerate defendant | Counsel failed to investigate/present Wilson despite request | Trial court credited counsel’s testimony that defendant did not ask for Wilson; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Sentencing: OV14 and OV19 scoring | Trial court’s findings supported higher OV points | Defendant argued leader role and interference scores were improper | OV14 (leader) and OV19 (interference with administration of justice) properly scored by preponderance of evidence |
| New trial based on Josephus’s recantation | Recantation and new witness make different outcome probable | Trial court found recantation unreliable and contradicted by trial evidence | Denial of new trial affirmed: recantation deemed untrustworthy and not likely to change result |
| Misc. Standard 4 claims (counsel strategy, impeachment, prosecutorial misconduct) | Various trial and plea-process errors denied defendant fair trial | Many claims either meritless, not supported by record, or strategic choices | Claims fail on the record; only notable error was failing to object to Brue (non-prejudicial); cumulative-error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Seals, 285 Mich. App. 1 (2009) (standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (expert-admissibility gatekeeping factors)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert principles apply to non-scientific expert testimony with flexibility)
- People v. LeBlanc, 465 Mich. 575 (2002) (trial court factfinding and mixed questions of law/fact in Strickland-type claims)
- People v. Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (2007) (trial court's gatekeeper role under MRE 702)
- People v. Cress, 468 Mich. 678 (2003) (standards for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- People v. Gray, 457 Mich. 107 (1998) (factors for evaluating reliability of identifications following suggestive pretrial procedures)
- People v. Bahoda, 448 Mich. 261 (1995) (prosecutorial vouching and cumulative-error principles)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 238 (2012) (most eyewitness identifications involve suggestion; court may consider juror observation of in-court ID reliability)