Richardson v. United States, 8 A.3d 1245

Richardson was convicted on Oct. 2, 1996, of five felonies arising from Lanita Spears's gun injury.
He pursued direct appeal and a collateral attack under D.C. Code § 23-110, both rejected in 2002.
In Oct. 2006, Richardson filed an IPA motion based on a November 2005 affidavit from Croskey, a witness not called at trial.
IPA hearing in Oct. 2009 included Croskey's in-person testimony, with material discrepancies from her affidavit.
Trial court denied IPA relief, concluding the evidence was not
new evidence
and did not establish actual innocence; it also deemed the second § 23-110 motion successive and barred by procedural default.
The appellate court affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion in denying IPA relief and upholding the bar on the second § 23-110 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Croskey's affidavit qualifies as new evidence under IPA	Richardson argues the affidavit is new evidence not previously knowable.	U.S. contends the affidavit could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.	No; due diligence failed and affidavit not sufficiently new evidence.
Whether Croskey's evidence demonstrates actual innocence under IPA	Affidavit shows Starks could not have seen the shooter, proving innocence.	Affidavit cannot establish actual innocence; it only impeaches identification.	No; evidence insufficient to prove actual innocence.
Whether the IPA ruling was an abuse of discretion	Trial court misapplied IPA standards or abused discretion in weighing credibility.	Court properly applied IPA standards and discretionary review.	No; determinations supported by the record.
Whether the second § 23-110 motion was properly deemed successive	New ineffectiveness grounds should be considered despite the IPA ruling.	Second motion barred by § 23-110(e) as successive.	Yes; the motion was properly barred as successive.

Bouknight v. United States, 867 A.2d 245 (DC 2005) (diligence standard for newly discovered evidence under IPA and Rule 33)
Wall v. United States, 389 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2004) (unexcused failure to secure witnesses undermines due diligence)
DeLuca v. United States, 137 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1998) (failure to pursue witnesses indicates lack of due diligence)
Haley v. United States, 799 A.2d 1201 (DC 2002) (timely pursuit of witnesses can be critical to diligence assessment)
Veney v. United States, 936 A.2d 811 (DC 2007) (IPA review framework and abuse-of-discretion standard)
Young v. United States, 639 A.2d 92 (DC 1994) (clear standard for evaluating newly discovered evidence)
Shepard v. United States, 533 A.2d 1278 (DC 1987) (procedural default considerations for successive claims)
Bradley v. United States, 881 A.2d 640 (DC 2005) (bar on successive § 23-110 motions)