Kenneth Isom, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee

Summary

The court granted Isom permission to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to pursue a writ of error coram nobis based on alleged Brady violations. It found the proposed claim concerning an alternative suspect and a possibly recovered pair of scissors potentially meritorious because conflicting testimony by the prosecutor created a factual issue that could not be resolved on the limited record. The circuit court was left to determine the factual issues, including diligence and timeliness. Justice Danielson, dissenting, would have denied the petition because the alleged evidence could not have prevented the convictions and trial counsel already knew of the potential alternative-suspect information.