Tennessee Supreme Court Hears Appeal Over Alleged False Closing Argument and Lost Evidence in Desmond Ray Case
Loading...
Summary
At oral argument, defense counsel said prosecutors knowingly misstated facts in closing argument and that the state lost a vehicle central to the defense; the state said most objections were waived and that the record and witnesses support the convictions. The court took the case under submission.
The Tennessee Supreme Court heard oral argument in the appeal of Desmond Ray, who was convicted of multiple counts in a March 2020 killing. Defense counsel Wade Davies told the court that prosecutors made an "intentional misstatement" in closing argument by asserting a six-year-old grandchild was in the bed when one victim was shot, although the defense says the child's forensic interview—placed in the supplemental record—says she was not in the room.
Davies argued the prosecutor "absolutely knew that it was false" and urged the court to reverse, citing State v. Goltz and other precedent that allows an appellate court to consider the argument as a whole when intentional misstatements are alleged. He also told the justices the state improperly handled a car tied to the case, saying the vehicle was given away in June 2020 before Davies was appointed in November 2020 and that loss of the car deprived the defense of the opportunity for forensic inspection despite a Ferguson instruction awarded at trial.
The state, represented by Bridal Coleman, told the court most of the complaints were not preserved because they lacked contemporaneous objections and therefore are at best subject to plain-error review. Coleman said the trial record contains photographs and exhibits showing the room’s layout and that the evidence permitted a rational inference about who was present, and she described the prosecution’s proof—eyewitness testimony, processing of the car for blood and DNA, and other exhibits—as "significantly" weighing against the defendant.
On the lost-car issue, Coleman said the car had been seized, processed, and yielded no blood evidence, and that the jury received a Ferguson instruction that could be read in Ray’s favor. On the mental-health defense, the state told the court the trial judge did not exclude the testimony of the defense expert and that any cross-examination about the bases for the expert’s opinion was permissible under the rules of evidence; the state argued Ray waived some objections by tactical choices at trial.
Davies answered that the forensic interview and related materials are in the supplemental record and reiterated constitutional concerns about using statements taken in violation of the right to counsel to impeach experts or otherwise undermine the mental-health defense, citing Edwards, Wainwright, Miranda, and James v. Illinois in support of limiting use of unlawfully obtained statements. The bench thanked counsel and took the appeal under submission.
The court did not issue a ruling from the bench; the matter was submitted for decision and the court recessed for lunch.
