Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Thomas v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 392, 2021
Court: Supreme Court of Delaware; September 29, 2022; Delaware; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Damian Thomas was convicted in 2017 of first-degree murder and related firearm charges, receiving a life sentence plus twenty years. After his conviction, he sought postconviction relief in 2018 under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, claiming the prosecution relied on perjured testimony from witness Monique Pruden, who falsely testified to witnessing the shooting. Thomas argued that this violated his due process rights and that the prosecution failed to disclose Pruden’s incarceration status on the day of the crime, thereby breaching the Brady v. Maryland precedent. The Superior Court denied Thomas's motion, ruling that his claims were procedurally barred because he did not raise them during his trial or direct appeal. Thomas was unable to show "cause" for his default since he had knowledge of Pruden's questionable testimony during the trial. His counsel had pointed out her incarceration during closing arguments but did not seek specific relief or raise the due process arguments in the direct appeal. Additionally, the court found no prejudice from the prosecution's use of Pruden's testimony, noting that there was substantial evidence of Thomas's guilt from other witnesses. The jury likely disregarded Pruden's testimony due to the defense's effective cross-examination. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, concluding that Thomas's claims were appropriately barred under Rule 61(i)(3) and that the court did not err in denying his Brady claim or his request for an evidentiary hearing.