Last Friday, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen D. McDonald announced new developments related to the 2006 conviction and life sentence of Juwan Knumar Deering on one count of arson and five counts of first degree murder in connection with a lethal house fire in Royal Oak Township on April 6, 2000, which resulted in the death of five children.
McDonald reviewed the case at the request of the Michigan Innocence Clinic. The review initially related to arson science. In the course of this review, she determined that evidence bearing on the credibility of three jailhouse informants had not been presented to the jury or disclosed to Deering’s attorney – as required by law. Those materials showed that the three informants had cases dismissed, charges dismissed or sentences reduced based on their cooperation with the prosecution. McDonald also uncovered evidence of potential breaches of prosecutorial ethics by a
former assistant prosecutor on the case, which potentially impacted Deering’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
As a result of these findings, McDonald provided the Michigan Innocence Clinic with all newly-discovered materials related to the case, including internal memos and notes recorded by assistant prosecutors spanning several years. McDonald also ordered mandatory ethics training for every assistant prosecutor in the office, published a departmental ethics policy, and met with each assistant prosecutor to brief them on the case.
In addition, McDonald requested funding to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct an independent investigation and audit all files in the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office related to the three jailhouse informants. Oakland County Executive David Coulter immediately authorized McDonald’s request for funding to appoint a special prosecutor.
McDonald also requested the appropriate agencies investigate the actions of the former assistant prosecutor, and informed the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office of the matter.
McDonald stated, “As prosecutors, we have an ethical duty to disclose information that bears on the guilt or innocence of the accused. We also have a duty to disclose to juries what, if anything, an informant was given in consideration for their testimony. Based on the evidence I reviewed, I am gravely concerned that this was not done in the case against Juwan Deering. Fairness and transparency are paramount. We must always do the right thing even if it exposes our own office, even when it’s not easy. If evidence exists that calls into question the credibility of a witness, we are ethically obligated to disclose it. I am committed to doing that in this case and in every case.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
