Man convicted of killing Jordan’s dad says trial was unfair
SANFORD, N.C. — One of the men convicted of murdering Michael Jordan’s father in 1993 argued Wednesday that alibi witnesses and evidence of his innocence weren’t given a close enough look during his trial, violating his constitutional rights.
A defence attorney for Daniel Green urged a North Carolina judge during oral arguments to allow a wider-ranging evidentiary hearing that could lead to a new trial. Green admits that he helped dump James Jordan’s body but maintains he wasn’t present when Jordan was fatally shot in the chest. Green’s conviction for first-degree murder has previously been upheld by two state courts.
Superior Court Judge Winston Gilchrist said he would rule at a later date on whether to allow Green’s latest effort to proceed or deny it.
Defence attorney Chris Mumma argued Green’s right to a fair trial was violated by ineffective counsel who failed to adequately explore ballistics evidence that cast doubt on Green’s role or to call testimony by several witnesses who say Green was at a house party when Jordan was killed. She also questioned testimony by a state agent who tested for blood on Jordan’s car seats, and she pointed to discrepancies in descriptions of a bullet hole in Jordan’s shirt.