Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Blakely Request For Rehearing
Blakely Request For Rehearing
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Appellee.
Nick Lough
The Lough Firm, LLC
223 East Side Square
Huntsville, AL 35801 Attorneys for the Appellant
Office: (256) 333-1191
[email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Court must revisit its previous opinion and grant Mr. Blakely the
relief he now seeks ................................................................................ 2
A. The circuit court abused its discretion in denying Mr. Blakely’s mo-
tion for mistrial based on the State’s failure to disclose that a State’s
witness was under investigation ..................................................... 2
B. The circuit court abused its discretion in denying Mr. Blakely’s mo-
tion for judgment of acquittal based on the State’s failure to present
sufficient evidence ............................................................................ 5
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 7
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
Reynolds v. State, 236 So. 3d 189 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) ........................ 3
Rules of Court
ii
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
Comes now, the Appellant, Michael Anthony Blakely, and files this his
Mr. Blakely is satisfied with the facts contained in the Court of Crim-
1
IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
This Court must revisit its previous opinion and grant Mr.
Blakely the relief he now seeks.
In its opinion, this Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion during Mr. Blakely’s trial proceedings in two ways. First, this
Court determined the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Mr. Blakely’s motion for a mistrial after the State failed to provide Mr.
Blakely with critical evidence regarding one of the State’s witnesses. Sec-
ondly, this Court also determined that the circuit court did not abuse its
Blakely’s conviction for use of public office for personal gain. These con-
his right to discovery under both Alabama law and the United States
2
accomplices and any information regarding potential criminal activity by
Both Alabama law and the United States Constitution place an ongo-
inal defendant upon request. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Gi-
glio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); and Rule 16, Ala. R. Crim. P.
473 U.S. 667, 675 (1985) (‘The Brady rule is based on the requirement of
due process. Its purpose is not to displace the adversary system as the
riage of justice does not occur.”). Moreover, this duty applies regardless
poses. Reynolds v. State, 236 So. 3d 189, 201 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).
In Mr. Blakely’s case, the State waited until it had almost finished
that the State was investigating Mr. Willis for other crimes. The State
such information.
3
While a mistrial is a drastic remedy, it is warranted when the error at
1156, 1157 (Ala. 1993). The State’s withholding of this information fatally
While Mr. Blakely may have known of the investigation into Willis
prior to trial, this bare knowledge did not provide Mr. Blakely with the
knows that a jet flies. The man knows what a jet is and what it does, but
Mr. Blakely of the charge of first-degree theft and the State’s withholding
4
fundamentally undermined Mr. Blakely’s trial. As a result, the circuit
court erred in denying the motion for mistrial. To correct this error, this
Court should withdraw its previous opinion and reverse Mr. Blakely’s
convictions.
At trial, the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Mr. Blakely
had any intent—a material element—to use his public office for personal
gain. Despite this failure, the circuit court denied Mr. Blakely’s motion
Mr. Blakely borrowed money from the inmate fund at times. Just like
other employees, however, Mr. Blakely paid back that borrowed money
with a signed check. While Mr. Blakely, at times, had the administrator
hold the check for a period of time before cashing, all money was returned
Nothing but supposition and fantasy allow the inference that Mr.
Blakely borrowed money from the inmate fund with any intent to benefit
5
was no evidence presented—circumstantial or direct—that showed Mr.
for personal gain. As a result, the circuit court’s denial of Mr. Blakely’s
should reverse its previous opinion and render Mr. Blakely’s conviction.
6
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, this Court should revisit its previous opinion and
/s Robert Tuten
Robert Tuten
/s J.D. Lloyd
J.D. Lloyd
/s Nick Lough
Nick Lough
7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief contains 966 words and is written in 14-point
/s J.D. Lloyd
J.D. Lloyd
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify the foregoing was electronically filed with the Alabama
Attorney General of Alabama via email at the address below on this the
/s Robert Tuten
Robert Tuten
/s J.D. Lloyd
J.D. Lloyd
/s Nick Lough
Nick Lough