Court says Petersburg murder conviction stands after retrial fixed error

The Court of Appeals of Virginia rejected a Petersburg man’s request to toss his 2023 murder conviction over a claim of prosecutorial misconduct in the first of two trials on the charge.

In a unanimous decision announced June 2, a three-judge panel of the court said the second trial of Rayshawn Scott and its subsequent conviction corrected the error in the first trial where the prosecutor failed to disclose a witness deal. Scott’s lawyer argued that the case should have been thrown out when the error was discovered, not retried.

The panel disagreed, saying that serious prosecutorial errors do not automatically cancel a case. If a new trial fixes the unfairness, then that should be enough.

The panel ordered that the opinion be “published,” which means it can set legal precedents for future cases.

Scott was convicted on seven charges. Including second-degree murder, in a 2021 shooting that killed William Parham Jr. and wounded a second man. Now 29, he is serving his sentence at Red Onion State Prison in Wise County, according to Virginia Department of Corrections online records.

Prosecution witness deal kept from jury

At the first trial, Scott’s lawyer claimed neither she nor the jury had knowledge of a deal that Joseph Lee III, the prosecuting attorney at the time, made with one of the witnesses in exchange for reduced prison time – called a “Brady violation” after the landmark decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to court documents, Lee said he discussed the issue with Petersburg Commonwealth’s Attorney Tiffany Buckner, who testified at an evidentiary hearing that she saw no problem because Lee “didn’t expect to use” the witness at all, even though the witness was eventually called to testify.

Scott’s lawyer argued that the jury needed to know about the deal because that could have swayed their decision. Instead of throwing out the case, a Petersburg Circuit Court judge ordered a retrial, with Buckner acting as the prosecutor and the witness’ deal disclosed to the new jury.

The second jury also found Scott guilty, prompting his defense counsel to appeal on grounds that the retrial should not have happened.

Court: Retrial ‘cured concern’

In the ruling, the appellate panel rejected the argument for dismissal, saying that the new trial corrected the Brady violation in the first trial.

“While we find Lee’s failure to disclose impeachment evidence deeply troubling, we disagree,” read the opinion, written by Justice Daniel Ortiz. “Dismissal is appropriate only when the Brady violation causes irreparable prejudice or egregious and pervasive prosecutorial misconduct. As neither scenario is present here, the trial court acted within its discretion by refusing dismissal.”

The retrial “cured this concern,” the opinion stated.

“The jury had the opportunity to evaluate [the witness] testimony and discount or disregard it accordingly,” Ortiz wrote.

As for Lee’s action, the panel said dismissal should not be considered punishment for him. Personal punishment is under the umbrella of the Virginia State Bar.

As a result of the Brady violation, Lee’s law license was suspended for two years. In March, the Supreme Court of Virginia declined Lee’s appeal of the decision.

Reporting by Bill Atkinson, Petersburg Progress-Index