Due process; Motion for a new trial based on failure to correct testimony; Brady v Maryland violations; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to consult with defendant during jury selection; Failure to challenge certain jurors for bias; Failure to impeach witnesses; Failure to have defendant’s mother testify

The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial based on its conclusion that witness-L’s testimony was not substantially false. It also agreed with defendant that “the prosecution suppressed the benefit [L] received in exchange for testifying, and also suppressed [L’s] prior conviction for a crime of dishonesty, in violation of Brady.” But it found that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. Thus, the court vacated his convictions (which included one for first-degree home invasion) and remanded for a new trial. L “testified that he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and implied that he had already served a six-month jail sentence as a result of that conviction. This was false because [L] had not pleaded guilty to any crime. Instead, all of his charges stemming from the home invasion were completely dismissed, albeit without prejudice. The prosecutor knew this testimony was false because she filed the motion to dismiss [L’s] case, which was granted nine months before defendant’s trial.” Thus, defendant met his burden to prove L’s “testimony was false, the prosecutor knew the testimony was false, and the trial court clearly erred in finding otherwise.” Any ambiguity regarding whether L “had actually pleaded guilty was clarified, albeit untruthfully, on cross-examination.” The court noted that the prosecutor “had four opportunities to correct the false testimony that [L] had pleaded guilty[.]” Because the false testimony related to his “agreement to testify, the prosecutor had an affirmative duty to specifically correct his testimony regarding that agreement.” The court found that regardless “of the prosecutor’s intent to refile the charges against [L], at the time of trial, it was incorrect to state that he had already pleaded guilty.” Further, there was “a reasonable likelihood the prosecution’s failure to correct the false testimony affected the judgment of the jury, and therefore violated defendant’s right to due process.” The court also found that his “right to due process was violated by the prosecution’s suppression of . . . evidence under Brady. The trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the Brady violations.”