State v. Whiteside
2015 Ohio 3490
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1982 Laura Carter was unintentionally killed by a bullet during a planned ambush arising from conflicts between Columbus ("home team") and Cleveland ("visiting team") criminal groups; Whiteside was implicated as a conspirator who helped obtain/distribute guns.
- Whiteside gave an interview to Detective Robert Young on May 28, 1982; federal prosecutors later found Young's testimony not credible and that officers promised Whiteside immunity and failed to give Miranda warnings; Whiteside was acquitted in federal court on related firearms charges in December 1982.
- Ohio indicted Whiteside in 1985 for two counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder; the trial court denied his motion to suppress the May 28 statements, and Whiteside was convicted in March 1986 (later merged to one count on remand and resentenced).
- Decades of postconviction litigation followed. In 2014 Whiteside sought leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, supported by new affidavits (including one from Michael Kelly) alleging that Brown, not Whiteside, handed the gun that caused Carter’s death and other evidentiary contradictions.
- A visiting judge was appointed after local judges recused; the judge denied Whiteside leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial on January 13, 2015. Whiteside appealed, asserting four errors including failure to treat Kelly’s affidavit as newly discovered evidence, judicial procedural error, unaddressed racial bias, and misquotation/hearsay reliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavits (Kelly, sister) are newly discovered evidence and Whiteside was unavoidably prevented from discovering them under Crim.R. 33(B) | State: Whiteside failed to show he was unavoidably prevented or exercised reasonable diligence; delay (30+ years) is unreasonable | Whiteside: Kelly and sister were at the 1982 meeting; Kelly’s affidavit shows Brown, not Whiteside, gave the fatal gun; Kelly was hard to locate | Court: Denied leave — Whiteside failed to show unavoidable prevention or reasonable diligence; delay was unreasonable |
| Whether inconsistencies in a witness’s later testimony (Raymond in Newlin trial) qualify as newly discovered evidence warranting delayed motion | State: Whiteside waited unreasonably long and offered no explanation for 30-year delay after discovering the inconsistency circa 1987 | Whiteside: Raymond later gave different testimony at Newlin’s trial that undermines the State’s case in Whiteside’s trial | Court: Denied — although the inconsistency arose after Whiteside’s trial, Whiteside did not seek leave within a reasonable time after discovering it |
| Whether the visiting judge improperly acted as an appellate court or improperly used others to draft the opinion | State: Visiting judge acted within judicial norms; use of "we" and staff attorneys is acceptable | Whiteside: Opinion language and references suggest the judge treated the matter as appellate or used others improperly | Court: Denied — no evidence judge misunderstood role; use of "we" and staff is permissible |
| Whether racism or judicial/prosecutorial bias was presented and ignored by the court | State: No adequate prima facie showing of racial discrimination in jury selection or prosecution; Whiteside admitted key facts supporting conviction | Whiteside: Prosecutor-turned-judge Sheeran’s conduct and racially disparate treatment warrant relief | Court: Denied — no evidence meeting standards for racial-bias claim; Whiteside’s admissions undermine assertion |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) (explains fair-cross-section standard for jury venires)
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (sets elements to establish prima facie fair-cross-section violation)