In 2014 a jury found a Sioux Falls man guilty of causing the death of an 18-month-old boy. The South Dakota Supreme Court upheld that conviction on direct appeal, but when the defendant challenged his conviction because of insufficient assistance from his lawyers, a habeas court found in his favor.
Now the state is appealing that decision to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which heard arguments on Monday, Oct. 4.
Manegabe Ally was tending to his girlfriend’s two children on the day before Christmas 2011, and had put them down for a nap. He later told police that he heard the 18-month-old boy cry out, and he found the boy on the bedroom floor unconscious. Ally immediately called 9-1-1.
The boy was pronounced dead the following day. Ally was questioned by a police detective on three separate dates, for a total of six hours, and continued to maintain that he had done nothing wrong.
Ally was charged with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and four counts of manslaughter.
The police interview was videorecorded but was not presented to the jury that heard Ally’s case in 2014. That was one of the errors Ally claimed when he successfully sought habeas relief.
Assistant Attorney General Matthew Templar told Supreme Court justices at oral arguments that the habeas judge engaged in armchair quarterbacking. Templar said what’s important is that Ally’s attorneys managed to get a not guilty verdict on the two most serious charges, first- and second-degree murder.
“That’s why we cannot use hindsight to go back and look at what trial counsel did,” he said. “We have to give them the benefit, and we have to rely on those standards and presumptions that they acted reasonably.”
But the attorney speaking for Ally said the two lawyers also erred in other ways. Minnehaha County Public Advocate Mark Kadi said Ally’s lawyers should have brought back their expert witness to rebut the state’s expert and should have allowed the jury to see video of yet another expert.
“Habeas hearings are designed to look back and to see if things were done right. That’s what the function of those hearings are,” Kadi said.
The Supreme Court will issue an opinion after it has determined whether the habeas judge acted appropriately in reversing Ally’s conviction.
