Judge David D. Wolfe takes under advisement Abdul Powell’s renewed motion for a new trial

Lede Stewart County Circuit Court Judge David D. Wolfe on a post‑verdict hearing said he would take under advisement a second amended motion for a new trial filed on behalf of Abdul Powell and left several evidentiary and procedural questions for written ruling, after hearing argument from Powell’s attorney and the state and brief testimony from the defendant’s father.

Nut graf The motion challenges convictions entered after a jury verdict on Dec. 2, 2022, in case 2017‑CR‑155, principally arguing insufficiency of evidence, alleged improper admission of a forensic DNA analysis, alleged improper rebuttal cell‑tower testimony and claimed prejudice from the prosecutor’s closing argument and the court’s denial of a midtrial request to replace counsel. The court allowed defense counsel to make an offer of proof and to lodge photographs as exhibits, but said the remaining issues would be addressed in a written order.

Body William Silver, identified in court as counsel for Mr. Powell, opened the defense argument by telling the court that the defendant’s second amended motion for new trial (filed Feb. 28, 2025) largely incorporated earlier grounds and added a more specific claim about admission of a forensic analysis on a scarf recovered in a related burglary. Silver argued the evidence was insufficient to support convictions on counts 2–4 of the superseding indictment (first‑degree felony murder and related felony counts), saying, “the evidence presented was not sufficient to support the convictions.”

Silver summarized several lines of attack: absence of physical evidence placing Powell inside the Cooksey residence (no fingerprints or DNA tying Powell to that home), lack of proof of non‑consensual entry required for burglary under the Tennessee burglary statute, the need to scrutinize accomplice testimony from codefendants, and concerns about a computer‑assisted DNA analysis performed by a private firm the defense called “Cybergenetics.” He described the scarf DNA as “touch” or transfer DNA that can be easily transferred and argued the jury could be misled about the probative value of that analysis.

The court allowed Silver to incorporate the issues raised in Powell’s initial motion for new trial into today’s hearing and to rely on the written memorandum already filed. Silver also asked to make an offer of proof about a midtrial request Powell made to replace his attorney and offered to call Abdul Malik Rasheed—Powell’s father—to testify about the events that precipitated Powell’s request for new counsel. The judge permitted the offer of proof and allowed Rasheed to testify for that limited purpose.

Abdul Malik Rasheed testified that on the morning of Dec. 2, 2022, he overheard discussion about a “key witness,” Eric Cooksey, and that defense counsel had told the family Cooksey had been subpoenaed but had not appeared. Rasheed recounted a disagreement about whether Cooksey had been subpoenaed; he told the court he believed Cooksey was later produced voluntarily and that differences between Powell and counsel preceded Powell’s request for new counsel.

On the state’s behalf, an Assistant District Attorney (identified in the transcript only by role) argued the record contains corroborating eyewitness and video evidence: testimony from Tiffany Miller and Amy Hankins identifying a white pickup and occupants, Miller’s testimony that she heard a phone call in which Powell discussed going to commit a robbery, Hankins’ testimony that the men left together from Powell’s house, and trial video showing a white truck tied to the sequence of events. The prosecutor also buttressed the significance of the scarf DNA and the connection the jury could draw from the combination of testimony and physical evidence.

The state addressed the defense’s cell‑tower argument by saying cell‑tower evidence concerning John Perry was used to rebut aspects of the defense narrative and to show Perry and Powell were together; the state disputed the defense characterization that rebuttal testimony was improper. The state also responded that the court had ruled pretrial to admit the DNA/scarf evidence and that appellate authority had affirmed such evidence in other cases.

Judge David D. Wolfe said he would take the motion under advisement and issue a written ruling. On the record the judge noted that in his view the jury had evidence—video, witness identifications and corroborating testimony—sufficient for the jury to weigh. He also ruled earlier trial decisions (motions in limine and severance rulings) would be considered as part of his written analysis. The judge allowed the defense to file exhibits (photographs the defendant wishes to lodge) and to make its offer of proof; he also allowed the defense to submit the father’s testimony for consideration even though it was not presented contemporaneously when Powell moved to replace counsel during trial.

The court also addressed the defense’s claim that the prosecutor vouched for a witness’s credibility in closing argument and noted that any sustained contemporaneous objection will be reflected in the record for purposes of the motion. The judge said he would take all briefing and the hearing record under advisement and prepare a written ruling on the second amended motion and the incorporated original motion.

Ending Judge Wolfe announced that a written ruling would follow and that Powell would remain in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction pending resolution. The court granted the defense leave to lodge the photographic exhibits and accepted the limited offer‑of‑proof testimony from Abdul Malik Rasheed for consideration in deciding Powell’s post‑trial motion.

Speakers - Judge David D. Wolfe — Circuit Court Judge, Stewart County Circuit Court (government) - William Silver — Defense counsel for Abdul Powell (business/legal) - Abdul Malik Rasheed — Witness; father of defendant (citizen) - Assistant District Attorney (unnamed in transcript) — Prosecutor for the State of Tennessee (government) - Tiffany Miller — Witness (citizen) - Amy Hankins — Witness and codefendant (citizen) - John (JC) Perry — Witness and codefendant (citizen) - Eric Cooksey — Defense witness (citizen) - Detective Sean Atkins — Law enforcement rebuttal witness (government)

Authorities - rule: Tenn. R. Crim. P. 33 (motion for new trial) — referenced_by: ["motions filed Nov 2024","second amended motion Feb 28, 2025"] - statute: Tenn. Code Ann. § 39‑13‑202 (felony murder, underlying felonies such as burglary/theft) — referenced_by: ["count descriptions in motion"] - motion: motion in limine (pretrial order limiting mention of prior convictions/trials) — referenced_by: ["closing‑argument objection"]

Actions - {"kind":"motion","identifiers":{"case_docket":"2017‑CR‑155"},"motion":"Second amended motion for new trial (filed Feb. 28, 2025), incorporating issues raised in the original motion for new trial (filed Nov. 2024)","mover":"Defense (William Silver)","second":"not specified","vote_record":[],"tally":{},"legal_threshold":{"met":false,"notes":"Court will issue written ruling after taking matter under advisement."},"effective_dates":{},"outcome":"tabled","notes":"Judge took the motion under advisement, allowed offer of proof and directed filing of exhibits and a written ruling; defendant remanded to TDOC custody."}

Discussion/Decision - discussion_points: ["alleged insufficiency of physical evidence tying Powell to victims' residences","admission and probative value of computer‑assisted DNA analysis from a scarf","proper use of cell‑tower location testimony and whether it was improper rebuttal","credibility and corroboration of accomplice testimony","defendant's midtrial request to replace counsel and whether the court inquired adequately" ] - directions: ["defense may lodge photographic exhibits and file an offer of proof; court will accept limited father testimony for record","court will issue written ruling after review of filings and hearing record"] - decisions: ["motion taken under advisement; defendant remanded to custody pending resolution"]

Clarifying details - {"category":"filings","detail":"Second amended motion for new trial filed Feb. 28, 2025; original motion for new trial filed Nov. 2024","value":"dates"} - {"category":"case_docket","detail":"Superseding indictment reference provided in hearing: 2017‑CR‑155","value":"case docket"} - {"category":"convictions","detail":"Defendant convicted Dec. 2, 2022, on counts 2–4; acquitted on count 1","value":"dates/counts"} - {"category":"evidence","detail":"Scarf recovered at a burglary, DNA analysis performed by Tennessee lab then Cybergenetics; defense characterizes result as ‘touch’ or transfer DNA","value":"not specified"}

Proper_names [{"name":"Abdul Powell","type":"person"},{"name":"Judge David D. Wolfe","type":"person"},{"name":"Tennessee Bureau of Investigation","type":"agency"},{"name":"Cybergenetics","type":"organization"},{"name":"Tennessee Department of Correction","type":"agency"},{"name":"Eric Cooksey","type":"person"},{"name":"John (JC) Perry","type":"person"},{"name":"Amy Hankins","type":"person"}]

Searchable_tags ["new trial","felony murder","DNA evidence","cell tower","Stewart County","Tenn. R. Crim. P. 33"]

Salience {"overall":0.72,"overall_justification":"A post‑verdict new‑trial motion in a homicide case raises legal and evidentiary issues with ongoing custody implications; judge will issue written ruling.","impact_scope":"local","impact_scope_justification":"Case affects Stewart County criminal dockets and a person in TDOC custody.","attention_level":"medium","attention_level_justification":"Court will issue a written ruling; not an immediate policy change but procedurally significant.","legal_significance":0.65,"legal_significance_justification":"Issues involve admissibility of novel forensic methods and accomplice corroboration and may recur on appeal."}