Testimony V. Nealy: Lack Of Physical Evidence

Lack of physical evidence:

Overall in this case there was a lack of physical presented. There were no conclusive DNA results in the case. There was no weapon recovered. The majority of the evidence presented in this case was circumstantial evidence produce by witness testimony.

Lack of a witness of the actual stabbing:

None of the witnesses that testified about seeing parts of Mr. Butler’s altercation testified that they saw the stabbing occur. All their testimony stated was that they allegedly witnessed Mr. Nealy come out of an apartment building, exchanged words with Mr. Butler, squared up with Mr. Butler, exchanged blows with Mr. Butler, be yelled at by woman who was is supposedly his girlfriend, then leave the scene while saying something

Nealy go in and out and he said that he did not know what Mr. Nealy and his supposed girlfriend were saying. Mr. Nealy believes that Mr. Nanney’s testimony would have helped refute parts of Susan Decicco’s testimony he believed were not good for him.

Sufficiency of Evidence:

On appeal Mr. Nealy’s attorney argued that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain Mr. Nealy’s conviction. The appellate court stated that it did not need to decide the issue on the merits because it was not properly preserved for appeal because it was not raised during Mr. Nealy’s motion for a judgement of acquittal. The court continued though to say that it would affirmed the conviction on the merits of the issue as well.

Possible Discovery Violation and Other Trial Issues:

As already alluded to, during the trial, Mr. Cox testified about a possible pre-trial identification of Mr. Nealy which was not previously disclosed by the State. Mr. Nealy’s attorney objected to the testimony and motioned for a mistrial because of it. The trial judge overruled the objection and denied the motion for a mistrial because she ruled there was not a discovery violation. This issue was also argued on appeal and the appellate court affirmed the trial judge’s

Michael Nealy received a serious sentence of the 30 years for the murder of Mr. Jakari Butler. There was hardly any physical evidence presented at his trial. Instead, there was two eye-witnesses that testified to seeing Mr. Nealy being in an altercation with Mr. Butler and him leaving the scene of the altercation. What they did not see was Mr. Nealy or anyone for that matter stab Mr. Butler. They only heard him exclaim that he was stabbed. Then they watched him collapse and called for help.

The investigation in this case was not very extensive. Some evidence collected was not tested for DNA and it is possible that both eye-witnesses had alternative motives for giving their testimonies and for identifying Mr. Nealy. At the very least it seems that they both had serious credibility problems. However, the jury in Mr. Nealy trial heard the entire case, including both eye-witnesses’ and found their testimony to be credible.

Mr. Nealy is very ardent in his believe that he is innocent and consistently throughout his trial argued with his attorney about how to proceed in the case because he did not feel that his attorney was going about his defense properly. Those arguments are on the record. In fact, in a pre-trial hearing Mr. Nealy moved to have his trial counsel dismissed. However, the court denied that motion and Mr. Nealy trial counsel was very active during the trial, objecting often and making several extensive arguments at bench conferences on behave of Mr.