Submitted: June 25, 2019
Jeffrey J Clark Judge.
11th day of July, 2019, having considered Defendant James A.
Wilson's ("Mr. Wilson's") motion for new
trial, and the State's response in opposition, it appears
jury convicted Mr. Wilson in March 2016 of Assault in the
Second Degree and related driving offenses. At the time of
the motor vehicle collisions forming the basis for the felony
assault conviction, he was fleeing from Dover police
Wilson filed a direct appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.
On April 27, 2017, the Supreme Court granted the State's
motion to affirm his conviction.
Next, Mr. Wilson filed a motion pursuant to Superior Court
Criminal Rule 61. In that motion, he argued that his counsel
was ineffective for not properly challenging the search
warrant that the police executed at his business. When Mr.
Wilson observed the police executing the warrant, he fled in
his car and crashed into the victim's vehicle. This Court
denied the motion and on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed
the denial. When doing so, it noted that "[a]ny
illegality in the search warrant was immaterial in
Wilson's prosecution for Assault in the Second Degree and
the other offenses arising from the motor vehicle collision
he caused when he fled from the police."
present motion seeks a new trial based on two grounds. First,
he argues that a witness interview and a video of the
incident that the State provided to his counsel prior to
trial, is "newly discovered evidence." Second, he
argues that although the State charged him with no drug
offenses, misconduct at the Office of the Chief Medical
Examiner ("OCME") constituted Brady
material in his case. He now alleges his attorney was
deficient in not seeking that material.
Pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 33, the Court may
grant a new trial on the defendant's motion if it is
required in the interest of justice. If the motion is made on
the basis of newly discovered evidence, it must be filed
within two years of final judgment. Mr. Wilson timely filed
the present motion. As provided in Rule 33, this Court stayed
the matter while Mr. Wilson appealed the denial of his Rule
First, Mr. Wilson's motion for a new trial based upon his
claim that the statement and video constituted newly
discovered evidence is without merit. The State provided this
evidence to his defense counsel prior to the trial.
Accordingly, the interest of justice does not require a new
trial on that basis.
Second, Mr. Wilson also filed an amended motion for new trial
arguing that past OCME transgressions warrant a new trial.
This argument also has no merit. Namely, the State did not
charge him with drug offenses. Pursuant to Brady v.
Maryland, the State must disclose to the defense
evidence that is favorable to the defendant, either because
it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching. Mr. Wilson fails
to demonstrate how such unrelated evidence would have
benefitted him at trial in any way. In addition, no witnesses
testified at his trial that would have been subject to
impeachment on the basis of any such evidence.
balance, this second portion of Mr. Wilson's motion for
new trial seeks to supplement his prior Rule 61 motion which
the Court previously denied. In addition to this information
not constituting newly discovered evidence, Mr. Wilson's
motion is more appropriately considered as a subsequent
motion pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2)(i).
The relevant portion of Rule 61 requires that a subsequent
motion be denied unless Mr. Wilson demonstrates that
"new evidence exists that creates a strong inference
that [he] is actually innocent."He sets forth no such basis
in his motion, amended motion, or subsequent correspondence
that would warrant such an inference.
for these reasons, Defendant James Wilson's motion for
new trial is hereby DENIED.