IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0308 Filed March 7, 2018
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MICHAEL ALLEN CASON JR., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano,
Judge.
The defendant appeals from his conviction for first-degree murder.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Nerissa Nan Jennisch,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel L. Mullins, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ. 2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
Michael Cason Jr. appeals from his conviction for first-degree murder,
claiming (1) his motion for new trial should have been granted because the weight
of the evidence does not support his conviction and (2) trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance.
I. Weight of the Evidence.
Cason maintains the weight of the evidence does not support his conviction
for first-degree murder. Specifically, he argues there is a lack of forensic evidence
linking him to the shooting death of Trenton Washington and maintains the
testimony from eyewitnesses—who are inherently unreliable—was even less
credible in this case because of the inconsistencies in the statements of the
individuals throughout the proceedings and in comparison to each other.
When the defendant files a motion for new trial alleging the verdict is
contrary to the weight of the evidence, the district court’s analysis “involves
questions of credibility and refers to a determination that more credible evidence
supports one side than the other.” State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 559 (Iowa
2006). “‘The district court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for new trial,’
and thus our review in such cases is for an abuse of discretion.” Id. (quoting State
v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Iowa 2003)).
The undisputed evidence established that Washington suffered a gunshot
wound to his right thigh, which perforated his femoral artery, ultimately causing his
death. At trial, Cason disputed that he was the person who fired the gun.1
1 Cason also disputed, in the alternative, whether the State had established the requisite intent and premeditation necessary for a first-degree-murder conviction. Cason has not 3
Cason questions the jury’s apparent reliance on the testimony of
eyewitnesses, noting recent academic literature questioning the reliability of such
testimony, but here, we believe there is less concern that the testimony is
erroneous. First, four separate eyewitnesses identified Cason as the person who
shot at Washington and his friend, Kazmond Meade, as they ran away. Each of
the eyewitnesses was familiar with Cason before that night. See James E.
Coleman Jr., et al., Don’t I Know You? The Effect of Prior Acquaintance/Familiarity
on Witness Identification, 36-Apr. Champion 52, 53–54 (April 2012). (“As a general
matter, the accuracy of facial recognition and identification increases as a function
of familiarity: ceteris paribus, people can recognize their own faces better than
those of celebrities, the faces of celebrities better than those of acquaintances,
and those of acquaintances better than those of strangers.”); cf. State v. Shorter,
893 N.W.2d 65, 82 (Iowa 2017) (noting that while “[m]any of the most troublesome
[eyewitness] cases involve identification of strangers,” “[c]areful consideration by
counsel of eyewitness identifications extends to identifications of persons known
to the witness and not simply to identification of strangers”). Additionally, all four
had been spending time with Cason in the park immediately before the shooting
occurred.
The four eyewitnesses’ testimony differed from each other in some
respects—where Cason had obtained the gun, how many shots they heard fired,
whether Cason chased after Washington and Meade before opening fire, and how
long the group remained at the park after the shooting—but each linked Cason to
renewed those arguments on appeal, so we consider only whether the weight of the evidence supports the jury’s determination Cason was the shooter. 4
the shooting. Meade testified he and Washington were in a physical scuffle with
Cason, who then walked away and got a gun from one of his friends. Meade
testified that as soon as he saw the gun, he and Washington ran away but Cason
chased them and began firing. He believed he heard “about seventeen” shots.2
Jacorey James testified he saw Cason arguing with Meade and Washington in the
park before Meade and Washington ran off with Cason chasing them. He admitted
he “didn’t” or “couldn’t” see anything in Cason’s hand when Cason gave chase but
testified he then heard gunshots—“maybe three.” Makayla Walls testified she was
at the park when a fight broke out; she denied knowing everyone at the park or
remembering who was there but agreed Cason was involved in the fight. During
direct examination, Walls testified as follows:
Q. Was [Cason] fighting? A. Yeah. But I don’t know who the other people is. I don’t know who they are. Q. At some point did you see Trenton Washington with somebody who appeared to be a friend of his? A. Yeah. I think—I don't know. Yeah. Q. At some point did you see them run away? A. Yeah. Q. Did you see someone chase them? A. No. Not like chased them, like all the way down. Q. Did you see someone follow them at all? A. Yeah. Q. Who was that? A. It wasn’t just one person. Q. Pardon me? A. It just wasn’t one person that followed them. They didn’t get followed. They didn’t get chased down. Q. Did you see someone with a gun? A. Yes. Q. Who had the gun? A. [Cason] Q. Did you see Mr. Cason, . . . shoot the gun? A. Yes. Q. Did you see who he was shooting at? A. No. But he was shooting—I didn’t—no. I didn’t see. He was just shooting in a straight direction. Q. In the direction of Mr. Washington and his friend? A. Yeah. But I didn’t see him shoot them.
2 Police later recovered sixteen shell casings. 5
Javon Washington3 testified that on the night in question, he saw Cason having a
verbal argument with Trenton Washington and tried to intercede in order to diffuse
the situation. Javon saw Cason pull out a gun and flash it around, causing Meade
and Washington to take off. Cason then fired a pistol down Sampson Street, where
Washington and Meade were running. Additionally, both Javon and Walls testified
that the only person they saw fire a gun on the night in question was Cason.
Meade’s testimony was inconsistent with what he originally told police
officers when he was questioned directly after Washington was taken away in an
ambulance. Meade admitted he originally denied knowing who the shooter was
when asked by police, testifying he “didn’t want no problems” with Cason and was
scared. He claimed he identified Cason as the shooter to police the next day
because once he learned Washington had died from his injury, he “had to be
honest because, you know, it was right thing to do because he ain’t there to speak
for himself.” Cason was able to—and did—ask Meade about the inconsistencies
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0308 Filed March 7, 2018
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MICHAEL ALLEN CASON JR., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano,
Judge.
The defendant appeals from his conviction for first-degree murder.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Nerissa Nan Jennisch,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel L. Mullins, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ. 2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
Michael Cason Jr. appeals from his conviction for first-degree murder,
claiming (1) his motion for new trial should have been granted because the weight
of the evidence does not support his conviction and (2) trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance.
I. Weight of the Evidence.
Cason maintains the weight of the evidence does not support his conviction
for first-degree murder. Specifically, he argues there is a lack of forensic evidence
linking him to the shooting death of Trenton Washington and maintains the
testimony from eyewitnesses—who are inherently unreliable—was even less
credible in this case because of the inconsistencies in the statements of the
individuals throughout the proceedings and in comparison to each other.
When the defendant files a motion for new trial alleging the verdict is
contrary to the weight of the evidence, the district court’s analysis “involves
questions of credibility and refers to a determination that more credible evidence
supports one side than the other.” State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 559 (Iowa
2006). “‘The district court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for new trial,’
and thus our review in such cases is for an abuse of discretion.” Id. (quoting State
v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Iowa 2003)).
The undisputed evidence established that Washington suffered a gunshot
wound to his right thigh, which perforated his femoral artery, ultimately causing his
death. At trial, Cason disputed that he was the person who fired the gun.1
1 Cason also disputed, in the alternative, whether the State had established the requisite intent and premeditation necessary for a first-degree-murder conviction. Cason has not 3
Cason questions the jury’s apparent reliance on the testimony of
eyewitnesses, noting recent academic literature questioning the reliability of such
testimony, but here, we believe there is less concern that the testimony is
erroneous. First, four separate eyewitnesses identified Cason as the person who
shot at Washington and his friend, Kazmond Meade, as they ran away. Each of
the eyewitnesses was familiar with Cason before that night. See James E.
Coleman Jr., et al., Don’t I Know You? The Effect of Prior Acquaintance/Familiarity
on Witness Identification, 36-Apr. Champion 52, 53–54 (April 2012). (“As a general
matter, the accuracy of facial recognition and identification increases as a function
of familiarity: ceteris paribus, people can recognize their own faces better than
those of celebrities, the faces of celebrities better than those of acquaintances,
and those of acquaintances better than those of strangers.”); cf. State v. Shorter,
893 N.W.2d 65, 82 (Iowa 2017) (noting that while “[m]any of the most troublesome
[eyewitness] cases involve identification of strangers,” “[c]areful consideration by
counsel of eyewitness identifications extends to identifications of persons known
to the witness and not simply to identification of strangers”). Additionally, all four
had been spending time with Cason in the park immediately before the shooting
occurred.
The four eyewitnesses’ testimony differed from each other in some
respects—where Cason had obtained the gun, how many shots they heard fired,
whether Cason chased after Washington and Meade before opening fire, and how
long the group remained at the park after the shooting—but each linked Cason to
renewed those arguments on appeal, so we consider only whether the weight of the evidence supports the jury’s determination Cason was the shooter. 4
the shooting. Meade testified he and Washington were in a physical scuffle with
Cason, who then walked away and got a gun from one of his friends. Meade
testified that as soon as he saw the gun, he and Washington ran away but Cason
chased them and began firing. He believed he heard “about seventeen” shots.2
Jacorey James testified he saw Cason arguing with Meade and Washington in the
park before Meade and Washington ran off with Cason chasing them. He admitted
he “didn’t” or “couldn’t” see anything in Cason’s hand when Cason gave chase but
testified he then heard gunshots—“maybe three.” Makayla Walls testified she was
at the park when a fight broke out; she denied knowing everyone at the park or
remembering who was there but agreed Cason was involved in the fight. During
direct examination, Walls testified as follows:
Q. Was [Cason] fighting? A. Yeah. But I don’t know who the other people is. I don’t know who they are. Q. At some point did you see Trenton Washington with somebody who appeared to be a friend of his? A. Yeah. I think—I don't know. Yeah. Q. At some point did you see them run away? A. Yeah. Q. Did you see someone chase them? A. No. Not like chased them, like all the way down. Q. Did you see someone follow them at all? A. Yeah. Q. Who was that? A. It wasn’t just one person. Q. Pardon me? A. It just wasn’t one person that followed them. They didn’t get followed. They didn’t get chased down. Q. Did you see someone with a gun? A. Yes. Q. Who had the gun? A. [Cason] Q. Did you see Mr. Cason, . . . shoot the gun? A. Yes. Q. Did you see who he was shooting at? A. No. But he was shooting—I didn’t—no. I didn’t see. He was just shooting in a straight direction. Q. In the direction of Mr. Washington and his friend? A. Yeah. But I didn’t see him shoot them.
2 Police later recovered sixteen shell casings. 5
Javon Washington3 testified that on the night in question, he saw Cason having a
verbal argument with Trenton Washington and tried to intercede in order to diffuse
the situation. Javon saw Cason pull out a gun and flash it around, causing Meade
and Washington to take off. Cason then fired a pistol down Sampson Street, where
Washington and Meade were running. Additionally, both Javon and Walls testified
that the only person they saw fire a gun on the night in question was Cason.
Meade’s testimony was inconsistent with what he originally told police
officers when he was questioned directly after Washington was taken away in an
ambulance. Meade admitted he originally denied knowing who the shooter was
when asked by police, testifying he “didn’t want no problems” with Cason and was
scared. He claimed he identified Cason as the shooter to police the next day
because once he learned Washington had died from his injury, he “had to be
honest because, you know, it was right thing to do because he ain’t there to speak
for himself.” Cason was able to—and did—ask Meade about the inconsistencies
in front of the jury. This is not a case where Meade’s testimony was “so impossible,
absurd, and self-contradictory” that it should have been deemed a nullity. See
State v. Mitchell, 568 N.W.2d 493, 503 (Iowa 1997).
Here, four eyewitnesses who were familiar with Cason connected him to the
shooting. Although the firearm used was never recovered and the testimony of the
eyewitnesses included some minor inconsistencies, we cannot conclude the
district court abused its discretion in denying Cason’s motion for new trial.
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
3 Though he shares a last name with the decedent, the two are not related. We refer to Javon Washington as Javon in order to prevent confusion. 6
Cason maintains trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. He argues
counsel was ineffective when failing to object to two pieces of inadmissible
evidence—evidence related to an inoperable gun recovered by police officers that
the crime lab determined was not the gun used in the shooting and evidence of an
assault, which involved a functional firearm, committed by Cason within minutes
of the shooting of Washington. Cason also maintains counsel was ineffective for
failing to inform the jury—either through expert testimony or the use of the
appropriate uniform jury instruction—about the limitations of eyewitness testimony.
The record before us is inadequate to decide Cason’s claims on direct
appeal. See State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (recognizing it
is the role of the appellate court to determine if the record is adequate to decide
the claim). It does not allow us to determine why defense counsel did not object
to the admission of the evidence related to the inoperable gun. The State suggests
the evidence may have supported the theory of the defense. Similarly, we have
no record why counsel did not choose some means to inform the jury about the
limitations of eyewitness testimony. See Shorter, 893 N.W.2d at 81–82 (stating
that the preparation “for eyewitness identification is an essential responsibility of
defense counsel” and noting academic research suggesting erroneous eyewitness
testimony is the “most frequent cause of erroneous convictions” (citation omitted)).
When the record leaves a question as to whether an action—or inaction—by
counsel was a matter of strategy, we preserve the claim for possible postconviction
relief. See State v. Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316, 320 (Iowa 2015) (“We prefer to
reserve such questions for postconviction proceedings so the defendant’s trial
counsel can defend against the charge.”); see also State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 7
778, 786 (Iowa 2006) (“[W]e cannot automatically assume every alleged misstep
was a reasonable strategy simply because some lawyer, somewhere, somehow,
under some circumstances at some time would have done such a thing.”).
As we have determined the record is inadequate to decide Cason’s
ineffective-assistance claims, we must preserve them. See Johnson, 784 N.W.2d
at 198 (noting “the appellate court [has] only two choices when an ineffective-
assistance claim is raised on direct appeal: (1) ‘decide the record is adequate to
decide the claim’ or (2) ‘choose to preserve the claim for determination under
chapter 822’” (citation omitted)).
III. Conclusion.
Because we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in
determining the weight of the evidence supports Cason’s conviction for first-degree
murder, we affirm. We preserve Cason’s claims of ineffective assistance for
possible postconviction-relief proceedings.