Young man seeks a second trial

Defense cites fault of his first lawyer

DURHAM -- Karen Daniel pushed up against the low courtroom wall separating her from her 21-year-old son Erick Daniels -- the young man who screamed "Mommy" nearly seven years ago as deputies led him away, convicted of a burglary and robbery he insists he did not commit.

The two, who spell their last names differently, spent the day in a Durham County courtroom Thursday as lawyer Carlos Mahoney put witness after witness on the stand, trying to show that Daniels had ineffective counsel at his trial in December 2001 and was wrongfully convicted.

Judge Orlando Hudson could decide today whether Daniels will win a new chance at freedom.

Mahoney filed a motion this year for a new trial, citing the emergence of new evidence.

The case hinged on identification of Daniels by a key witness in a photo-lineup that was flawed by not including enough photos.

Ruth Brown, the witness, told police that two armed men with bandannas burst into her home on Sept. 21, 2000, and stole her pocketbook with $6,232 in cash.

Brown later identified Daniels from a middle school yearbook photo after 30 minutes of study, according to court documents.

The state offered no physical evidence or corroborating testimony linking Daniels to the robbery, Mahoney said Thursday.

Mahoney contends that Robert Harris, the Durham lawyer who represented Daniels at his trial, should have challenged the identification procedure.

On Thursday, Harris took the stand and testified that, in hindsight, he had made many mistakes at the trial that could have jeopardized Daniels' case. Harris had not objected when prosecutors talked about Daniels' juvenile record or the fact that he had been shot.

Scott Holmes, a defense lawyer who has reviewed the case, testified Thursday that Harris could have objected to a line of questioning that might have changed the outcome. "Because there was no physical evidence in this case, because this case came down to 'Who do you believe?', the issue of character is very central in this case," Holmes testified. "The fact that he was shot after curfew, that he was hanging around people who were shooting, that makes him more of a bad person" in the mind of a juror.

None of that information, Holmes said, should have been allowed into testimony.

Harris said Thursday he always has believed Daniels was innocent. And it was Harris who hit upon the evidence that has opened the door to a new trial.

A client told Harris that he committed the burglary and robbery, information that was not available during Daniels' trial.

Knowing that information put Harris in a difficult spot. The evidence could exonerate Daniels, who was serving a sentence of 10 to 14 years. But under rules that govern attorney-client relationships, the new information was privileged and potentially damaging to his client.

Eventually, Harris told Freda Black, the prosecutor in the case, that another man had confessed. Black, called to the stand on Thursday, testified that she did not pursue the information that Harris provided her.

"I didn't know a name, a location," Black testified Thursday. "Nobody ever presented me documented evidence, so there was nothing to explore."