Washington v. State
537, 2016
| Del. | Apr 28, 2017Background
- In 2009 Washington was indicted for two murders, two attempted robberies, two counts of possession of a firearm during a felony (PFDCF), and possession of a firearm by a person prohibited (PFBPP) arising from a September 1, 2008 double fatal shooting in Wilmington.
- A jury convicted Washington of two counts of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter and two counts of PFDCF; he was acquitted of attempted robbery. A bench trial convicted him of PFBPP. He received 64 years Level V time. This Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Washington filed a Rule 61 postconviction motion (first motion) raising ineffective-assistance and prosecutorial-misconduct claims; proceedings included appointed counsel, multiple withdrawals, an amended motion, and supplemental claims. A Superior Court Commissioner recommended denial; the Superior Court adopted the recommendation and granted counsel’s withdrawal.
- Key contested trial evidence included: (1) informant testimony (Fields, Coleman, Waterman) recounting Washington’s admissions and observations about a MAC-10; (2) letters from Coleman; (3) eyewitness April Gardner’s testimony about the scene; and (4) ballistics and physical evidence (bullets/fragments, car viewing, fingerprint/DNA testimony).
- The Superior Court denied relief largely on procedural-bar and Strickland grounds: many claims were procedurally barred under Rule 61(i), and the ineffective-assistance claims failed because counsel’s conduct was objectively reasonable and Washington did not show prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failure to move to suppress Fields' and Coleman's out-of-court statements (404(b), 403, 11 Del. C. § 3507) | Washington: counsel should have suppressed these statements as improper prior-bad-act evidence and inadmissible hearsay | State: testimony and Coleman's letters were admissible for non-character purposes; counsel reasonably used letters to impeach and expose motive; no prejudice shown | Denied — counsel's choices were reasonable under Strickland; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Nondisclosure/venality of Waterman (promise of federal leniency 5K1.1 / 18 U.S.C. § 3553) | Washington: prosecutor misled jury by not disclosing that Waterman was guaranteed leniency under his federal plea | State: Waterman’s plea/discussion of possible §5K1.1/§3553(e) relief was in evidence; those provisions do not guarantee leniency; motivation was explored at trial | Denied as procedurally barred and not a colorable miscarriage of justice; no disclosure violation shown |
| Prosecutorial misconduct arguing a robbery motive and linking Fields' observed MAC-10 to the shooting (absence of physical robbery evidence) | Washington: prosecutor improperly argued robbery theory and overstated that the MAC-10 Fields saw was the murder weapon | State: robbery theory was supported by witness testimony and ballistics; linking MAC-10 was a reasonable inference | Denied — procedurally barred as raised late; no misconduct shown; arguments were inferentially supported by evidence |
| Expert/forensic issues and trial procedures (detective testimony on ballistics/trajectory, Rone's testimony about bullets, loss of opportunity to question after car viewing) | Washington: detective gave improper expert testimony; prosecutor misstated Rone's testimony about bullets; he was deprived of meaningful post-viewing questioning | State: many claims were not raised at trial or are waived; Rone’s report did not change sufficiency of evidence; defense counsel cross-examined extensively; no prejudice shown | Denied — most claims procedurally barred; substantive claims fail for lack of prejudice or were not preserved for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Younger v. State, 580 A.2d 552 (Del. 1990) (procedural requirements for postconviction claims and need for concrete allegations of prejudice)
- Dausson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186 (Del. 1996) (standard of appellate review for postconviction denials)
- Ploof v. State, 75 A.3d 840 (Del. 2013) (claims not raised in opening brief or only incorporated by reference are waived)
- Bradley v. State, 135 A.3d 748 (Del. 2016) (application of Rule 61 version in effect when pro se motion filed)