Manning v. State
| Decision Date | 25 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2013-DR-00491-SCT,2013-DR-00491-SCT |
| Parties | WILLIE JEROME MANNING A/K/A FLY v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Serial: 183549
This matter is before the Court en banc on the Motion for Leave to File Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief Including DNA Testing and Other Forensic Analysis filed by Willie Jerome Manning.1 Also before the Court is the Response filed by the State of Mississippi and the Rebuttal filed by Manning.
Manning was convicted of two counts of murder and was sentenced to death. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in Manning v. State, 726 So. 2d 1152 (Miss. 1998). Manning's petition for post-conviction relief was denied. Manning v. State, 929 So. 2d 885 (Miss. 2006). Manning's federal habeas concluded when the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 25, 2013. Manning v. Epps, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2013 WL 1187604.
In this successive petition, Manning asserts that he is entitled to DNA and other forensic testing. Manning also asserts that one of the State's witnesses, Earl Jordan, has recanted his trial testimony. He further asserts that this Court should re-examine the allegation that the prosecutor violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), cumulative-error, and, finally, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.
Manning's conviction and sentence were based on substantially more evidence than he now challenges or is referenced in the objections to this order. Our examination anew of the record reveals that conclusive, overwhelming evidence of guilt was presented to the jury.
Inter alia, three items were stolen from burglary victim John Wise's car (parked in the same lot as Tiffany Miller's (murder victim) car that night) - a CD player, a leather jacket and a unique bathroom token. In addition, Steckler's watch and class ring were missing. A witness who had known Manning for years testified that, within a week of the murders, Manning showed up at her house and wanted to sell her a watch and ring which matched the exemplars introduced at trial. She also testified that Manning was wearing a leather jacket which matched the one introduced at trial, and, that she attempted to purchase the jacket from Manning, but he refused. Multiple other witnesses testified to seeing Manning with the CD player and to seeing Manning wearing the leather jacket, a ring and watch matching the exemplars. An electronic store owner identified Manning as the man who attempted to pawn the CD player, and a separate witness testified that he actually purchased the CD player from Manning. The witness later pawned it in Jackson. It was recovered and matched by serial number as Wise's. The token taken from Wise's car was recovered at the murder scene.
Manning's live-in girlfriend testified that she last saw Manning before the murders leaving the house with a handgun and gloves. He returned to the house a few days after the murders, sans handgun and gloves, but with a CD player, a watch and a leather jacket, inter alia. She testified that Manning wore the leather jacket until a deputy sheriff came to the house, after which, he gave the leather jacket to her. She later turned over Wise's jacket to authorities. She further testified that, just days before the murders, she observed Manning firing a handgun into a tree behind the house in which they lived. In what this Court described as even "[m]ore damning testimony[,]" FBI experts testified that the bullets retrieved from that tree were fired from the same gun as the bullets recovered at the scene of the murders and from the victims' bodies, to the exclusion of all other guns. Manning, 726 So. 2d at 1168.
Moreover, Manning's cousin, Earl Jordan, testified that Manning told him that he and another had killed "the two students out [there] at Mississippi State." Jordan testified that Manning told him that they were on campus breaking into a car when the two victims walked up on them. Manning pulled a gun and forced them into the victim's car. Manning told Jordan that he was the one who shot the victims. Regarding this testimony, this Court stated, "Manning's confession to Jordan removed this case from the circumstantial realm . . . ." Id. at 1194. Coupled with Jordan's testimony, the jury heard from a cell mate of Manning's, Frank Parker, that Manning had stated that he did not believe that he could be convicted and that he "sold the gun on the street."
Finally, in reference to Justice King's concern regarding hair fragments, the State argued in closing that it is only "corroborative . . . not dispositive evidence." The defenseelicited testimony that other African Americans had been seen in Miller's car before her murder. In closing, defense counsel made it clear "there was no physical evidence that put Manning at the scene." The State offered no evidence claiming the hair fragments found at the crime scene were a match for Manning. The absence of Manning's DNA does not preclude his participation in the crimes charged. Similar findings were made by the United States District Court in Manning's habeas proceedings, including "[e]ven if DNA testing could conclusively prove that it was not [Manning's] hair that was found in the vehicle, those results would not impeach the testimony given at trial, much less exonerate [Manning]." Manning v. Epps, 2008 WL 4516386 (N.D. Miss.).2
After due consideration and a fastidious examination of the entire record, the Court finds that Manning fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have been convicted or would have received a lesser sentence if favorable results had been obtained through such forensic DNA testing at the time of the original prosecution. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2)(a)(ii) (Supp. 2012).
Furthermore, Manning fails to present any competent evidence Earl Jordan has recanted his trial testimony. Finally, the Batson claim, cumulative-error claim and the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim previously have been litigated before this Court in post-conviction proceedings. Therefore, the Court finds that the Batson, cumulative-errorand ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims have been substantially reviewed in prior proceedings and are now barred by the doctrine of res judicata. These claims also were subject to review in his federal habeas proceedings and were denied at every level - United States District Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief Including DNA Testing and Other Forensic Analysis filed by Willie Jerome Manning is hereby denied.
KITCHENS, JUSTICE, OBJECTS TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY DICKINSON, P.J., CHANDLER AND KING, JJ.
KING, JUSTICE, OBJECTS TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY DICKINSON, P.J., KITCHENS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
v.
¶1. I fully join Justice King's objection to this Court's denial of Manning's request to seek relief on the first two issues. There is nothing that I could add to Justice King's astute and thorough analysis of Manning's Batson3 claims. I write separately simply to expound on his objection to the denial of Manning's petition for leave to proceed in the trial court with those claims related to DNA and fingerprints.
¶2. Manning has requested an opportunity to seek DNA testing of hair, fingernail scrapings, and evidence from the rape kit. He has also asked that the fingerprints found in the victim's car be compared to those in databases maintained by law enforcement authorities. As Justice King notes, the order does not address his arguments related to fingerprints.
¶3. The Court's order denies Manning relief for his claims related to DNA, finding "conclusive, overwhelming evidence" of guilt. Yet, with the sole exception of Earl Jordan's testimony, the case against Manning was based on circumstantial evidence. Moreover,Manning presented evidence at trial that undermined the State's case against him, including evidence that Jordan had previously implicated two other men, and that the token found at the scene of the murder may not have come from Jon Wise's vehicle. Jordan also testified that, while the two were incarcerated, Manning had confessed that he and another man had murdered the two victims. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the development of further evidence could exonerate Manning, or possibly implicate an additional person or persons who, in the interest of justice, ought to be prosecuted.
¶4. The order also denies relief, reasoning that the State did not match the hair from the car to Manning and that "the absence of Manning's DNA does not preclude his participation in the crimes charged." The order points to similar findings by a federal district court judge, including that judge's finding that such evidence would not even serve as impeachment evidence. As Justice King so aptly explains in his separate objection, the testimony that the hairs belonged to an African American was used by the prosecution to implicate Manning. Manning v Epps, 2008 WL 4516386 *2 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 3, 2008). If the hairs do not match Manning, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial