New Filings Allege Georgia Prosecutor Withheld Critical Evidence of Plea Deal with Co-Defendant from Warren King

Attorneys for Warren King (pic­tured), who was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death in Georgia in 1998 for the mur­der of a con­ve­nience store clerk, have uncov­ered evi­dence that shows the pros­e­cu­tor, John B. Johnson, with­held crit­i­cal evi­dence from Mr. King’s defense team at the time of tri­al. A new court fil­ing indi­cates that ADA Johnson failed to dis­close a plea deal reached with Mr. King’s co-defen­dant, Walter Smith, the only eye­wit­ness to the crime. Both Mr. King and Mr. Smith were charged with the mur­der of Karen Crosby, but Mr. Smith avoid­ed the death penal­ty and pled guilty to life in prison with the pos­si­bil­i­ty for parole three years after Mr. King’s tri­al and con­vic­tion. During clos­ing state­ments at Mr. King’s tri­al, ADA Johnson told jurors there were ​“no deals” in place for Mr. Smith, who also tes­ti­fied on cross-exam­i­na­tion that there was no deal in place. In a new sworn state­ment from John Brewer III, one of Mr. Smith’s tri­al lawyers, he said that ADA Johnson agreed to rec­om­mend a life sen­tence with the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole, in exchange for Mr. Smith’s tes­ti­mo­ny against Mr. King. According to Mr. Brewer, ADA Johnson approached his client with a pos­si­ble deal ​“sev­er­al months before Mr. King’s tri­al.” Mr. Brewer added that he ​“would have nev­er rec­om­mend­ed Mr. Smith tes­ti­fy against Mr. King unless [he] knew for cer­tain that he had a deal and would avoid the death penalty.”

Counsel for Mr. King should have been pro­vid­ed this infor­ma­tion under long­stand­ing legal prece­dent estab­lished by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963), which requires pros­e­cu­tors to turn over all favor­able evi­dence to the defense team. There is also an eth­i­cal oblig­a­tion for pros­e­cu­tors to do so. With proof of a deal in place for Mr. Smith, attor­neys for Mr. King could have used this infor­ma­tion to impeach Mr. Smith’s cred­i­bil­i­ty as a wit­ness. The fil­ings say that the prosecution’s fail­ure to dis­close this deal ​“deprived Mr. King of a fair tri­al and pro­duced the ulti­mate mis­car­riage of jus­tice: an unre­li­able con­vic­tion and death sentence.”

At Mr. King’s tri­al, Mr. Smith tes­ti­fied that Mr. King was respon­si­ble for shoot­ing Ms. Crosby and that Mr. King, after the shoot­ing, said, ​“I hope I killed the b*tch.” Mr. King did not take the stand dur­ing the guilt-phase of his tri­al but tes­ti­fied dur­ing the sen­tenc­ing phase. Mr. King told the jury that Mr. Smith had giv­en him the gun and told him to shoot Ms. Crosby, but instead, he gave the gun back to Mr. Smith who then fired the fatal shots. Mr. King’s fil­ings explain that Mr. Smith’s tes­ti­mo­ny is the only evi­dence point­ing to Mr. King being the trig­ger­man. Had Mr. Johnson dis­closed the deal with Mr. King’s tri­al attor­neys, they ​“would have been able to pow­er­ful­ly chal­lenge Mr. Smith’s tes­ti­mo­ny by high­light­ing his motive to paint Mr. King, rather than him­self, as the shoot­er, in order to save his life,” said the motion.

On July 2, 2024, the Supreme Court refused to hear claims that ADA Johnson improp­er­ly exclud­ed Black jurors from Mr. King’s tri­al. Lower courts have upheld Mr. King’s con­vic­tion despite evi­dence show­ing that ADA Johnson struck 87.5% of eli­gi­ble Black jurors, while strik­ing just 8.8% of white jurors, who were all women. Consequently, a Black juror was ten times more like­ly to be excused than a white juror, and women were four times more like­ly to be exclud­ed than men, accord­ing to the motion. The Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) pro­hibits attor­neys from exclud­ing poten­tial jurors from ser­vice based on their race. At Mr. King’s tri­al, ADA Johnson pro­vid­ed race-neu­tral rea­son­ings for his exclu­sion of Black jurors. Attorneys for Mr. King have uncov­ered hand­writ­ten notes from ADA Johnson which indi­cate he close­ly tracked which poten­tial jurors were Black and which were women. Mr. King’s lawyers claim that these hand­writ­ten notes are ​“con­crete proof that [ADA] Johnson was indeed con­sid­er­ing race and gen­der” of potential jurors.