People v. Ward
2011 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 38
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2011Background
- People charged Ward in 2008 for Cockayne death on St. John; consolidated trial led to Ward's first-degree murder conviction and related offenses for Ward, while Thomas and Boston were acquitted of murder but convicted of lesser offenses.
- Ward moved for new trial and relief multiple times; in 2009, Superior Court granted a new trial based on Martens interview Brady violation.
- After discovery issues, the People disclosed witness payments to Frazer, Clendinen, Ferguson and Cockayne parents; court addressed Brady/Giglio implications and trial conduct.
- Ward’s second trial (Dec. 2009) resulted in acquittal on first-degree murder but conviction on other charges; Superior Court later questioned weight of the evidence and witness credibility.
- In July 2010, the Superior Court found Brady violations related to Frazer/Clendinen and their potential leniency/immunity and other witness issues, and granted Ward a new trial in part.
- May 26, 2011, the Superior Court precluded Frazer and Clendinen from testifying at Ward’s third trial based on Brady/Giglio findings and ordered remedial measures; People appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exclusion of Frazer and Clendinen was proper | People contends no Brady or Giglio violation occurred; exclusion unnecessary | Ward argues violations were proven and exclusion was proper to deter misconduct | Revoked; exclusion improper; Brady/Giglio violations not established |
| Whether Giglio applies or Brady governs | Giglio violations alleged due to alleged leniency discussions and immunity-like deals | Giglio does not apply; remedies under Brady suffice; no perjury proven | Giglio not applicable; Brady standards govern |
| Whether the Jones matter and Frazer’s involvement triggered Brady duties | Jones case similarity required disclosure to Ward; failure to disclose violated Brady | No duty to disclose Jones materials given defense knowledge and public record nature | No Brady violation from Jones disclosure; no suppression of evidence |
| Whether the Superior Court’s May 26, 2011 ruling was an abuse of discretion | Court properly remedying Brady/Giglio violations by precluding testimony; no abuse | Court erred in applying Brady/Giglio; preclusion unwarranted | No abuse; reversal of preclusion; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowry v. People, 52 V.I. 264 (V.I. 2009) (Brady material may include impeachment evidence; duty to disclose is limited)
- Jones case reference, 160 F.3d 473 (8th Cir. 1998) (public records and available transcripts affect duty to disclose Brady material)
- Diaz v. Diaz, 696 N.E.2d 826 (Ill. App. 1998) ( Brady/Giglio considerations in witness leniency and related issues)
- Owen v. State, 265 Ga. 67 (Ga. 1995) (Giglio-related implications discussed in Brady/Giglio analyses)
- Burkhalter v. State, 493 S.W.2d 214 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (illustrative discussion of prosecutorial misconduct and Brady-like concerns)
- Hill, 432 Mass. 704 (Mass. 2000) (leniency/immunity issues in witness handling and Brady considerations)