Brown v. Ludwick

Filing 42

ORDER denying 40 and 41 Motions for rehearing. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RONALD BROWN,
Petitioner,

Case Number 5:09-cv-11655
Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.
LLOYD RAPELJE,
Respondent.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING [Dkts. 40 and 41]
Petitioner, Ronald Brown, a state prisoner, filed this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August
8, 2013, the Court denied the amended petition. Petitioner has filed a motion for rehearing. He
argues that he is actually innocent, and challenges the credibility of the prosecutor’s witnesses and
asserts that the police planted evidence against him. Petitioner also asserts that his counsel conceded
his guilt during jury selection.
Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. However, a motion for
reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or
by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F.
Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by
which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of the
case must result from a correction thereof. A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
In the present case, the arguments raised by Petitioner in his motion for rehearing were
already raised and decided, either explicitly or by reasonable implication, in Petitioner's amended
petition. The motion for reconsideration will therefore be denied. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp.

2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999). Petitioner again asserts that his children were coerced to testify
against him, that he had an alibi, and that the police planted the bullet fragments fired from his gun
by the victim’s house. As explained in detail in the opinion denying the amended petition, contrary
to his arguments, the evidence of Petitioner’s guilt was overwhelming. After shooting up the
victim’s house, Petitioner gave his handgun to a friend to hide. Instead of hiding it, the friend
revealed its location to the police. Testing of the weapon then revealed that it was the handgun used
to eject the bullet casings found in Petitioner’s car, and another matching casing was found in
Petitioner’s bedroom. Gunshot residue was found on his hand. Petitioner had a motive to commit
the crime because someone from the victim’s house had severely injured his daughter with a brick
the day before. Petitioner has not demonstrated his actual innocence.
With respect to his counsel’s statement during jury selection. Counsel started by telling the
jury, rhetorically, that they might assume that Petitioner did something wrong if he was on trial.
Counsel then went on, however, to explain that as jurors they could not made such an assumption,
and that they must presume that Petitioner was not guilty. Petitioner’s claim simply reads the
passage out of context.
Petitioner’s motion for rehearing is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge

Date: October 1, 2013

-2-

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record
on this date, October 1, 2013, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-3-