Merrill

Merrill v. Superior Court

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 889·27 Cal. App. 4th 1586·33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 515·94 Daily Journal DAR 12407·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6781
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 1994G015114California3,912 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

Two men—one White, one Black—robbed a coin store in Newport Beach and murdered two people in the process. The police arrested Eric Wick, who is White, and Thomas Read Merrill, who is Black. In a lineup conducted before their joint preliminary hearing, eyewitnesses positively identified Eric Wick, who had already admitted to the police that he committed the crime. But another witness emphatically denied that Merrill was the Black man he saw, a fact which was not disclosed to Merrill’s defense team until long after he was convicted.

Prosecutors are required to inform defense lawyers of any and all evidence which points to innocence. This prosecutor did not. His attempt to suppress the witness’s refusal to identify Merrill eventually came to light, but much too late to do Merrill any good. The result was a great waste of time because a new trial had to be ordered. The issue remains, however, whether a new trial alone is sufficient to remedy the error. Must Merrill receive a new preliminary hearing as well?

Facts

I

An armed robbery took place at the Newport Coin Exchange in March 1989. At the time Marlyn Oates was approaching the coin shop to meet her husband, when she…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.