Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

David Garner

Other Federal Exonerations with Misconduct
In May 2005, a Cleveland, Ohio man was carjacked in the driveway of his girlfriend’s home. His girlfriend recognized one of the assailants as her ex-boyfriend Bryce Smith. Both the victim and his girlfriend initially believed that the second assailant was a man named Deandrew Foster, though they later claimed that the assailant said his name was “Pel Pel,” a nickname used by David Garner. Smith pled guilty and agreed to testify against Garner. Just before trial, and five days after the prosecution had received them, prosecutors handed over call records from the victim’s stolen cell phone. The defense asked for a continuance to examine the list, but the judge denied the request, preventing the defense from questioning the victim’s girlfriend about calls that might have been inconsistent with her testimony. On November 22, 2005, a jury convicted Garner of carjacking and the use of a firearm during a commission of a crime. 
Following trial, it was discovered that the government had failed to disclose to the defense all of the names associated with the numbers on the call records. In November 2007, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Garner’s conviction and granted him a new trial because, in the absence of that information, the defense was not able to challenge the girlfriend’s testimony at trial and argue that she was motivated to identify Garner, a stranger, instead of Foster, whom she knew. Prosecutors did not retry Garner and the case was dismised on July 21, 2008. He remained in prison on unrelated drug charges for which he had been convicted on February 24, 2006 and sentenced to 20 years.
- Stephanie Denzel

Report an error or add more information about this case.

Posting Date:  Before June 2012
Most Serious Crime:Robbery
Additional Convictions:Gun Possession or Sale
Reported Crime Date:2005
Sentence:13 years
Age at the date of reported crime:34
Contributing Factors:Perjury or False Accusation, Official Misconduct
Did DNA evidence contribute to the exoneration?:No