L.A. Law1986

Michael Kuzak:
[Here at the Supreme Court hearing] May I pleased the court, I'm Michael Kuzak appearing for the appellant Earl Williams. To entertain in my papers is an overview of the case. As well as specific grounds which mandate reversal in my client's conviction. Today, I would like to focus on the most compelling of those grounds the prosecutorial misconduct of Margaret Flanagan.

Supreme Court Judge Donald Tytell:
I don't mean to cut you off with the jump, Counsel. But this court is generally suspect in that particular claim. Are you sure that's where you're want to steer us?

Michael Kuzak:
I'm exactly sure. Margaret Flanagan's conduct in this trial was reprehensible. It was unethical. It was a breach of her duty to act as an officer of the court and it is the reason why an innocent man sitting on death row.

Supreme Court Judge Washington:
I assume you're referring to the DNA evidence which place your client semen on the victim's bed.

Michael Kuzak:
That's correct, Your Honor. The District Attorney had an obligation to disclose that information to me and to the court prior to the trial. She did not.

Supreme Court Judge Connolly:
But according to the record Ms. Flanagan herself got this evidence at the last second. There's no evidence that she willfully concealed anything. And the judge offered you a continuance to give you time and you declined.

Michael Kuzak:
First of all, the record will show that she got the evidence from the lab on the eve of the trial. She sprung it in court 3 days into the trial, that give her 2 days to inform me which she didn't. That makes her conduct willful. As for my refusing the continuance, the damage has already been done.

Supreme Court Judge Richardskull:
How so?

Michael Kuzak:
Had I known which she had. As I was entitled, too, under Walker vs. Superior Court. I would never have deny that my client was having a sexual relationship with Nina Corry. I also would never have denied that he was in her apartment on the night she was murdered.

Supreme Court Judge Richardskull:
In other words, you never would have lied to the court, if you knew you'll be caught.

Michael Kuzak:
I didn't know my client was having an affair with the victim, it was a surprise to me as well. Earl Williams did lie. I'm not making excuses for that. But had I known he was lying, and I would have, had she followed the law, I would have stopped him from using it.

Supreme Court Judge Parker:
I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand the harm. Everything she introduce that the trial, your client admitted himself once he took that stand.

Michael Kuzak:
The harm is that he was portrayed as a liar.

Supreme Court Judge Parker:
Because he was a liar.

Michael Kuzak:
He told one lie. Yes. And what I'm saying, Your Honor, is that had I known about her DNA evidence, I would have known he was lying. As the good attorney, I would have counseled him not to lying. The jury would never have perceived him is dishonest, and without that perception, Earl Williams would have been acquitted.

Supreme Court Judge Washington:
Sounds a little meandering to me, Mr. Kuzak.

Michael Kuzak:
Then let me make it more clear. She had two lynch pins in her case. The circumstantial evidence that placed Earl Williams at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder. And the evidence if his dishonesty. Have a District Attorney complied with the law, I would have kept the second part of her case out. That means that she would have been left trying to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but nothing more than circumstantial evidence. And that's why she withheld it. To give herself something that she otherwise would not have had. She fights hard. She fights to win. I understand that. But if you are going to put someone at death row. If you are going to send a human being to the gas chamber, you should at least follow the rules and obey the law. Margaret Flanagan didn't. [That wasn't good enough for ADA Margaret Flanagan]