Greene v. United States

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated orders denying Marquell Greene's motion for a new trial under D.C. Superior Court Criminal Rule 33 and his motion to vacate convictions under D.C. Code § 23-110. The court held that the trial court applied an overly exacting analysis to Greene's interest-of-justice new-trial motion based on alleged confessions by alternative perpetrators and failed to address a related ineffective-assistance claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings and reconsideration.

Holdings

1. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Greene's timely Rule 33 motion while assuming that Johnson and Wallace were credible and nevertheless treating Greene's lack of diligence as a substantial reason to deny relief. If, on remand, the court finds a reasonable probability that jurors would hear and credit the witnesses' account, a new trial should follow because the interest of justice requires that important new-witness testimony be made available to the jury.
2. The trial court's § 23-110 order must be vacated because it failed to address Greene's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not investigating Johnson's confession and, through reasonable diligence, discovering Wallace as the alleged actual perpetrator. The issue must be considered by the trial court in the first instance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Greene's timely Rule 33(b)(2) motion for a new trial after assuming that two newly identified witnesses credibly confessed to committing the offenses.
2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to address Greene's claim under D.C. Code § 23-110 that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Johnson's confession and discover Wallace as the alleged actual perpetrator.

Disposition

vacated