Judge rejects appeal of teen’s 1999 murder conviction

By Matt Pordum (contact)

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 | 9:25 a.m.

District Judge Nancy Saitta on Monday rejected the argument that the trial attorney of a 14-year-old boy facing murder charges in 1999 was negligent for not calling an expert witness to question the validity of witness statements.

Attorney David Schieck argued that if an expert in eyewitness identification had been called in the trial of Marcus Dixon, now 19, to question the testimony of a victim who survived and three other eyewitnesses, a jury might have acquitted Dixon.

Marcus Dixon and his brother Calvin, who was 16 at the time of the killing, were charged with slaying Daryl Crittenden, 16, and shooting Steven Austin. Austin and three other eyewitnesses testified that Marcus Dixon was the "triggerman."

Marcus Dixon is currently serving 40 years in prison for the murder.

Pete Christiansen, Dixon's attorney in his trial, testified he should have followed up on inconsistencies he noticed between statements eyewitnesses gave during Marcus Dixon's trial and those given during his brother's trial.

Christiansen said he should have had an expert examine the testimony of three witnesses because they were asked to identify both Marcus and Calvin Dixon while lined up in front of a police car parked in front of their home the same day of the murder.

Christiansen said an expert could have told jurors how the immediacy and fact that the police lined up two youths in front of them could have prejudiced their identifications.

Christiansen also testified that one of the witnesses could not consistently name which of the brothers was the shooter during the two trials. He said three of the eyewitnesses continually confused Marcus and Calvin.

Saitta reasoned that was not an example of ineffective counsel by Christiansen, but simply "second guessing."

Saitta also said that she felt the most compelling witness was Austin, who never changed his story as to who shot both Crittenden and himself.

"I would have to say the most meaningful identification was Austin's, as a victim witness," Saitta said. "Austin never wavered from it being the shorter of the two who shot him. Whether a jury bases a verdict on one or several witnesses doesn't matter. I'm not going to put myself in the place of the jury on the credibility of the witnesses."

Schieck said he would appeal Saitta's ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court.