Turner Clinton - Perjury / False Accusation

Turner, Clinton; robbery; NRE: perjury/false accusation, no crime, prosecutor misconduct, withheld exculpatory evidence, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, knowingly permitting perjury

C10 [479] "In Turner v. Schriver, the trial court rejected a newly discovered evidence claim brought in 1993, five years after Turner was convicted for the...robbery of William Clarke. Turner produced two affidavits, one from William Clarke -- the alleged victim and only eyewitness to the crime -- in which Clarke admitted to lying about the alleged robbery. The other was from an inmate who stated that Clarke had falsely accused him of a separate robbery. Clarke's affidavit stated that at the time of the robbery he had 'a serious cocaine and crack addiction [480] as well as serious alcohol dependency,' which caused him to 'behave irrationally.' He also stated that he and Turner had an altercation over drugs, but that Turner did not have a knife and had never robbed him, and that he had lied to the police when he said he did not have a criminal record. Finally, he explained that he was only now revealing this information because he had since sobered up, married, fathered a child, and was 'very sorry' for his acts.

"In a three-sentence opinion, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the appeal, without a hearing, on the grounds that 'there is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony,' and it merely impeached Clarke's prior testimony and 'probably would not change the result if a new trial were granted.' The court made no mention of the fact that Clarke, the alleged victim, was the prosecution's only eyewitness, and that the alleged victim was not only recanting his testimony, but admitting to committing perjury on the stand by lying about his criminal past. After an initial unsuccessful appeal in state court, Turner took his claim to a federal court, which vacated the conviction in 2004 on constitutional grounds."

[482] "[T]he Turner case involved prosecutorial misconduct based on the prosecution's failure to turn over exculpatory evidence. In Turner...the New York State courts refused to grant Turner post-conviction relief, even after he demonstrated that William Clarke, the alleged victim of the crime and the proseuction's only eyewitness, admitted to lying about his criminal record and the events surrounding the crime. While the [federal] district court could not consider the newly discovered evidence claim, it was able to consider the prosecutorial misconduct claim raised in Turner's second appeal, based on the failure of the prosecuton to turn over evidence that Clarke had a prior criminal record, which would have raised the question of his credibility as a witness at trial."

[483] "Moreover, the court explained that since Clarke committed perjury while testifying against Turner -- by claiming that he did not have a criminal record -- the jury never had the chance to consider the potential unreliability of the only eyewitness who could identify Turner. Thus, the finding of prosecutorial misconduct was 'not only for failure to turn over material impeachment evidence, but also for eliciting testimony that the prosecutor should have known was false.'"

NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"Shortly after 5 a.m. on October 17, 1987, police were summoned to an assault in progress in front of a Dunkin' Donuts on College Point Avenue in Queens..."

"William Clarke, who was white, told officers that as he was walking to his car, he was robbed by four black men, one of whom was wearing dark jeans and a Ninja mask. The man drew a knife, robbed him of his wallet containing $1,500, and fled. Clarke said that before the man fled, he took off the mask, allowing him to see his face. He said that when he came back to his car, he saw three men apaprently breaking in and he chased them into the Dunkin' Donuts and locked the door untill police arrived.

"Clarke identified the robber as a man he knew only as 'Screwgie.' The three men in the Dunkin' Donuts were arrested.

"Later that day, a officer in the robbery investigation unit saw the complaint and knew that 'Screwgie' referred to Clinton Turner.

"Clarke was re-interviewed and gave a different account of the robbery, saying that he was robbed after he saw some men breaking into his car. He said he chased one of them, who was wearing a mask, into a public housing project and confronted him.

"Clarke said the man pulled out a knife and demanded his wallet.

"Clarke said he kicked the man and his mask came off. Clarke said he then left because too many people were gathering.

"Police brought Turner in and put him in a lineup, where Clarke identified him as the robber. Turner was charged with armed robbery and grancd larceny.

"Prior to trial, Turner's lawyer requested from the prosecution the name of any person who was to be called as a witness who was known to have, or with due dilifence could be found to have a criminal record. The prosecution failed to respond to the request.

"At trial, Clarke gave yet another version.* He said that he had parked his car at about 4:45 a.m. to stop in a bar to look for some friends. When they were not there, he returned to his car, but saw someone rooting in the glove compartment. Clarke said the man saw him coming and fled and that he gave chase."

[* So, we now have Clarke giving three different versions of the supposed crime. And yet, the credulous jury convicted Turner anyway.]

"Clarke identified Turner as the man who fled, and said Turner dashed into a building and when Clarke entered, began slashing at Clarke with a butcher knife wthout a handle. Clarke said Turner, who had thrown a hood over his head, grabbed a chain hooked to Clarke's pants and his wallet and demanded his money.

"He said Turner ripped the wallet from his back pocket and ordered him to take off his pants. Clarke said he then kicked Turner in the chest, causing the hood to come off, and that he then left. He said his wallet contained less than $100 -- not the $1,500 he had originally reported.

"When he returned to his car, Clarke said he saw three other men in his car...who fled when he arrived. He said he picked up a pipe and chased them into the Dunkin' Donuts where he locked the door and called police.

Clarke denied that he had ever been convicted of a crime and denied that he knew Turner.

"Turner testified in his own behalf, denying that he had robbed Clarke. He said he had met Clarke in March of 1987 in that neighborhood and sold him drugs. Turner admitted that he was using crack and heroin at the time

"He testified that he knew Clarke's car because he had been in it on several occasions and had even been to Clarke's home on one occasion. He said he sold Clarke drugs about three times a week, though he admitted he sometimes substituted bread crumbs or grits and kept the real drugs for himself.

"The day before the alleged robbery, Turner said he sold Clarke four vials with crack and four vials filled with fake drugs.

"Turner said Clarke confronted him over the fake drugs and he told Clarke that was the way the drugs were sold to him in the first place. He admitted that he had been convicted in the past for stealing wallets and jeans and that he bought the drugs to sell to Clarke through a hole in the door of an apartment in the projects.

"During closing argument, Turner's attorney argued that Clarke was not credible because he had changed his account of the robbery several times. He suggested that Clarke had concocted the incident because he was angry over buying fake drugs.

"The prosecution contended that Clarke was credible and Turner -- a convicted felon, drug seller and drug user -- was not believable. The jury convicted Turner on August 15, 1987 and he was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years in prison.

"Turner's conviction was upheld on appeal in 1992.

"Not long after, Turner's wife ran into Clarke and told him that Turner had been sentenced to 10 to 20 years. Clarke told her that the robbery story was not true and that he had tried to avoid testifying, but the prosecution had him under subpoena.

"In 1993, Turner filed a post-conviction motion seeking a new trial, based upon newly discovered evidence. He subitted an affidavit from Clarke stating that at the time of the robbery he was addicted to crack cocaine and abused alcohol. He said he had lied when he said that he had never been arrested or convicted -- in fact, he had been convicted of burglary, possession of a weapon, criminal mischief and car stripping.

"Clarke admitted that he bought drugs from Turner and that he invented the robbery because of an altercation about drugs. He said he had cleaned up his life and wanted to make amends for his lies.

"The state submitted an affidavit from the prosecutor saying that Clarke had said he had no convictions. The prosecutor said he had not run a rap sheet on Clarke. On November 15, 1993, Turner's petition was denied without a hearing.

"In 1995, the dismissal was upheld on appeal and Turner filed another petition, this time alleging that the prosecution had failed to turn over evidence of Clarke's prior convictions.

"That petition was dismissed in 1996 without a hearing.

"In 1997, Turner filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He also was paroled that year.

"On July 21, 2004, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon [of] the Eastern District of New York granted the petition and vacated Turner's conviction. The judge ruled that the prosecution had violated the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland, which requires that exculpatory evidence be provided to the defense. Further, the judge said the prosecutor had presented testimony that he should have known to be false.

"On January 5, 2005, the charges were dismissed in Queens County..."

"In 2007, Turner settled a wrongful conviction lawsuit against the City of New York for $187,000. He also received $900,000 in compensation from the New York Court of Claims."

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]