Walter Mcmillian v. State

On Return to Remand On September 21, 1990, we remanded this case to the trial court with instructions that that court hold
an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the state had an agreement with Bill Hooks, Jr., in reference to his testimony
in this case, and if so, to determine the facts of that agreement. McMillian v. State, 570 So.2d 1285 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990).
In addition, we instructed the court to determine whether Hooks had been extended any favors or consideration in return for
his testimony and cooperation, and we further instructed the court if it found any favors or consideration to have been extended
or an understanding or agreement to exist, to determine whether that information was furnished to the appellant, Walter McMillian,
prior to trial or whether the appellant was aware of it prior to trial. We further instructed the court to determine the precise
agreement that existed between the state and Ralph Bernard Myers at the time he gave his testimony and to determine whether
information about that agreement was furnished to the appellant prior to trial or whether the appellant was aware of such
information prior to trial. The trial court has conducted a hearing in accordance with our remand and has filed a return with
this court, which includes a transcript of the proceedings below along with written findings of fact. A copy of the findings
of fact is attached to this opinion as Appendix A and made a part thereof. The appellant, relying on Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), contends that he was denied due process of law by
the state's failure to disclose an alleged agreement it had with Hooks, a key prosecution witness, in reference to his testimony
at trial. After a hearing, the trial court found that there was no agreement between Hooks and the state with respect to his
testifying in the appellant's trial. This finding is supported by the testimony at the hearing.