PEOPLE OF MI V DUJUAN O'NEAL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 19, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 257333
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 04-002337-01
DUJUAN O’NEAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and White and O’Connell, JJ.
WHITE, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the circuit court’s conclusion on remand that
defendant’s due process rights were violated by the prosecution’s failure to produce before trial
the federal report (which is under seal) and the correspondence of Jamale Stewart and Felicia
Stewart. I do not agree with the majority that defense counsel waived any Brap
dy1 violation with respect to the federal report. The pertinent discussion regarding this report
occurred at a sidebar during trial. The majority relies upon an ambiguous statement of the
prosecutor at trial, verified by defense counsel, in concluding that trial counsel waived the issue.
Trial counsel testified at the Ginther2 hearing, and also explained in an affidavit, that her
statement on the record was an acknowledgment of the trial court’s ruling barring use of the
report, not a waiver. She testified
I was told that I absolutely cannot ask one question on the document, I can’t hint
towards the document, I can’t breath [sic] a word of it, if I did there would be
consequences. . . .
Q. Alright. So, you’re saying you really didn’t make a strategic decision with
respect to that document, the judge made a ruling and you respected that ruling?
A. Correct.
1
Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83, 87; 83 S Ct 1194; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963).
2
People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).
-1-
The circuit court concluded following the Ginther hearing that to the extent counsel did not stand
up to the trial court and pursue certain areas, she was ineffective. On this record, one or the other
conclusion is appropriate, either counsel did not waive the issue, or she was ineffective in doing
so.
The federal report contained evidence of an alternative theory for the shootings—that
Jamale Stewart, the prosecution’s chief witness against defendant, was under contract to kill one
of the three victims, and that Stewart had threatened to kill the three days before the actual
murders took place. The federal report also contained evidence that other witnesses for the
prosecution were part of Stewart’s drug-dealing operation. The correspondence of Jamale and
Felicia Stewart to Ramone is easily interpreted as stating a plan to frame defendant and telling
Ramone how to do so, and as informing Ramone that witnesses were changing their accounts to
agree with each other.
I conclude that had trial counsel been privy to the federal report and this correspondence
prior to trial, and been able to prepare for trial accordingly, there is a reasonable probability that
the result of the proceedings would have been different.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
/s/ Helene N. White
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.