2006-M-06 Hanifi
Marlow Jihad, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State
of Minnesota, Respondent.
DESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME: Hanifi Marlow Jihad, formerly known as Marlow Devette
Jones) lived in a crack house at 2817 Bryant Avenue North in Minneapolis.
On January 8, 1993, Jihad and co-defendant Jamie “Heavy” Pearson entered the
house and robbed drug dealers Tavarian McDonald and Darren McKnight. Two of three
women in the house left and watched from the bushes as Jihad and Pearson shot
McDonald and Mcknight and drove away with $1,800 stolen from the two victims.
PRIOR
DECISIONS: In 1994, the trial court sentenced appellant
to life imprisonment for the murder conviction for the shooting death of
McKnight and a concurrent sentence of 180 months for the attempted murder
conviction for the shooting of McDonald.
On October 31,
1996, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Jihad’s direct appeal. The
Supreme Court upheld: 1) the trial court’s admission of the co-defendant’s
statement; 2) the trial court’s jury instructions; 3) the trial court’s
admission of the police department’s identification process; and 4) the trial
court’s decision that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
In 1999, the
Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals rejection of Jihad’s
first post-conviction appeal on grounds that his claims were barred from
further consideration because either they had already been considered and
rejected on Jihad’s first direct appeal or should have been known and filed at
that time.
In 2001, the
U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the U.S. District Court’s rejection
of Jihad’s petition for federal habeas corpus relief on grounds that
his claims were barred from further consideration because either they had
already been considered and rejected on Jihad’s first direct appeal or should
have been known and filed at that time.
In 2006, Jihad
filed this, his second state petition for post-conviction relief.
THIS DECISION: Justice Gildea joined Justice Barry Anderson’s unanimous
opinion rejecting Jihad’s three claims.
First, the Supreme Court held that Jihad’s claim
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in 1996 because his lawyer
failed to move for a new trial on the basis that there were many trial errors
in 1994 was barred in 2006 was barred because he either knew or should have
known of this claim at the time of his direct appeal in 1996.
Second, the Supreme Court held that Jihad’s claim in 2006 that he
was entitled to a new trial in 1994 based on the cumulative effect of
cumulative errors at his 1994 trial was barred because he either knew or should
have known of this claim at the time of his direct appeal in 1996.
Third, the Supreme Court held that Jihad’s claim that that he is
entitled to a new trial because admission of a stipulation summarizing the
statements of a codefendant violated his right to confrontation under a 2004
U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford. This claim was not
time-barred. But it was barred under an earlier Minnesota precedent that
held that the admission of a stipulation summarizing the statements of a
codefendant was permissible if any constitutional error in the admission of the
statement at issue was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. If the guilty
verdict actually rendered was ‘surely unattributable’ to the error, then a new trial is
not required.
DATE OF DECISION: May 25, 2006
RECORD NUMBER: 2006-093
DESCRIPTION: [MURDER] [DRUGS]
No comments:
Post a Comment