Background
Deperryon Deanthonydesean King was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder and several firearm offenses arising from the fatal shooting of Monte Wilson at a Father’s Day block party. Witnesses described an argument involving an intoxicated Wilson, followed by multiple rounds of gunfire. The testimony conflicted over who possessed or fired guns, while photographs recovered from King’s phone showed him at the party aiming a handgun.
The defense called no witnesses at trial and argued both that the prosecution had not proved King committed the crimes and that, if King shot Wilson, he acted in self-defense. On appeal, the Court of Appeals remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call Deshawn Reed-Davenport and Emilio Zamora. After hearing testimony, the trial court found those witnesses not credible and denied King’s motion for a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that King failed to establish prejudice from counsel’s failure to investigate or call Reed-Davenport and Zamora. Much of their proposed testimony—that Wilson was intoxicated, aggressive, armed, and involved in an argument—was cumulative of evidence the jury had already heard. Although both said Wilson fired first, the trial court’s finding that they were not credible was not clearly erroneous, given inconsistencies, their communications with King while jailed, evidence suggesting coordination, and contradictions between their accounts and the photographic evidence.
The court also rejected King’s argument that counsel conceded guilt during closing argument. Read in context, counsel pursued alternative theories of insufficient evidence and self-defense without admitting that King shot Wilson. Counsel questioned the investigation, emphasized that multiple people fired weapons, challenged proof of intent and aiding and abetting, and suggested Wilson was the aggressor.
Finally, the court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object when forensic pathologist Dr. David Moons characterized Wilson’s manner of death as a homicide. As a qualified forensic pathologist, Moons could explain “homicide” as a medical classification meaning death caused by another person, rather than as a legal determination of criminal guilt. Because the testimony was admissible, an objection would have been futile.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to call defense witnesses did not warrant a new trial where their proposed testimony was largely cumulative and the trial court reasonably found them not credible.
- Defense counsel may argue insufficient evidence and self-defense as alternative theories without conceding the defendant’s guilt.
- A forensic pathologist may classify a death as a homicide in the medical sense without improperly deciding the defendant’s criminal responsibility.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difficulty of proving prejudice from uncalled witnesses when the jury already heard substantially similar evidence and the proposed witnesses have significant credibility problems. A defendant must show a reasonable probability that the additional testimony would have changed the verdict, not merely that it could have supported the defense.
The opinion also distinguishes a medical examiner’s use of “homicide” as a forensic classification from a legal conclusion about guilt, while confirming that defense attorneys may preserve inconsistent alternative theories when the evidence permits them.