The Supreme Court, yesterday, reversed the murder conviction of Juan Smith for the failure of the government to comply with Brady v. Maryland. In Brady the Supreme Court held that prosecutors have a duty to provide the defense with all evidence that is both exculpatory and material.

Several men broke into the New Orleans residence of Rebe Espadron in a home invasion robbery and killed five people. Smith was convicted on the basis of only one witness. Larry Boatner, one of the survivors, identified him from a picture spread and was the sole witness against Smith at trial. But prior to trial the prosecution failed to provide the defense with a number of Boatner’s statements, in some of which he said that he could not identify the killers. Since the statements could have been used at trial to impeach Boatner there iss no question that the statements are exculpatory. The Court also found the statements material since “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” When there is only one witness, his credibility is crucial to the prosecution and the failure to provide Brady evidence for impeachment can make a major difference.

The sad part is that New Orleans prosecutors have a long history of violating Brady. They have been called on this before but they continue to violate the law. They don’t seem to learn

One issue not raised in the Supreme Court decision is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Here you have only one eyewitness who’s statements are all over the book. At one point he says he did not see the faces of the murderer. At another point he says he could not recognize the murderers. And at a third point, while he is on the witness stand he states he is absolutely positive that the defendant is the murderer. As we have pointed out in the past eyewitness testimony is the number one cause of DNA post conviction exonorations. Over 75 per cent of those exonorated by the Innocence Project have been convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony.

As part of the Alaskan corruption investigation involving former Senator Ted Stevens, the government prosecuted State Representative Victor Kohring. He was convicted of attempted extortion and bribery.

The Ninth Circuit reversed Kohring’s conviction on Brady grounds, Friday, similar to those used to dismiss the charges against Stevens.

After Steven’s conviction and while Kohring’s case was on appeal the government disclosed significant documents that should have been disclosed prior to Stevens’ trial. At that point Kohring made a Brady motion and received thousands of pages of material most of which should have been disclosed prior to trial.

The documents included “FBI 302 reports,” undated and dated handwritten notes from interviews with Allen and Smith, e-mails, various memoranda, and police reports. They involved evidence that that Bill Allen who’s oil field services company, VECO, was attempting to get legislation through the legislature, was being investigated for having sex with minors. While this might not in and of itself been particularly relevant he attempted to suborn perjury and he attempted to hide a witness in the investigation. This affects his credibility and opens him up to significant cross examination. Other documents show that Allen and his colleague, Rick Smith, gave significantly different numbers as to the amount of money given to Kohring. The difference in the amounts would have given additional credibility to Kohring’s testimony and the jury may have found that the money was given for legitimate reasons if it believed the lower figures given to agents during the investigation.

In Brady v. Maryland the Supreme Court held that the government had to provide favorable, material evidence to the defense. To show a violation of Brady one must show “(1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have ensued.” In reversing the conviction the Ninth Circuit found that a Brady violation occurred. There is no question that the government suppressed evidence and that a significant amount of the evidence was favorable to Kohring. Furthermore he was prejudiced in that the jury could have found him not guilty if it had seen some of the suppressed evidence.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed two District Court decisions excluding cooperating witnesses from testifying based on the alleged failure of the government to provide Brady discovery. The Supreme Court held in Brady v. Maryland that the government had a duty to provide the defense with all exonerating evidence. By exonerating evidence the Supreme Court meant evidence that is “favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment.” Specifically it requires the provision of evidence that is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature.

Joseph Prochilo is charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and Elvis Guerrero is charged with attempting to buy cocaine for purpose of sale in separate cases. The cases against both men rely primarily upon cooperating witnesses. In each case the government provided initial Brady discovery relating to the cooperating witnesses. Defense counsel in both cases moved for further discovery.

Prochilo requested:

(1) details regarding the witness’s work with the United States Secret Service, the Essex County Sheriff’s Department, the DEA, and the FBI; (2) information regarding the other ATF cases on which the cooperator worked; (3) the witness’s cooperation agreements with government agencies other than the ATF; (4) a description of other firearms seized by the government as a result of the witness’s cooperation; (5) information about the cooperator’s contacts with other government agencies as they related to other matters or other investigations; and (6) a list of all benefits the witness received as a result of these contacts.

Guerrero requested:

to produce all information in its possession, custody, or control, regarding the witness, and identifying several categories of information.

Prochilo said that the requested information might reveal that the cooperating witness is “flawed”, that the discovery could help substantiate an entrapment defense, that many of the cases that the cooperating witness handled were thrown out requiring an explanation, and because only his counsel, not the government or the district court, will be able to judge what evidence is both favorable to him and material.

Guerrero claims that the discovery is needed for impeachment purposes.

The First Circuit reversed the District Court decisions in both cases. It held that for the defendants to obtain a court order for Brady material beyond what the government provides the defense must make specific requests for specific items and give specific reasons why the discovery is necessary. “[T]he defendant should be able to articulate with some specificity what evidence he hopes to find in the requested materials, why he thinks the materials contain this evidence, and finally, why this evidence would be both favorable to him and material.”

The problem with this is that you are asking defense counsel to request specific items from the prosecution’s file. If the defense knew what was in the file the defense would not need to ask for discovery. It is the basic requirement of due process and fairness that originally led the Supreme Court to require discovery of exculpatory evidence that is violated when you require the defendant to list specific items out of the government’s file so that he/she can use the items to impeach the cooperating witness.

In the classic case of Brady v. Maryland the Supreme Court found that prosecutors must provide material evidence in their possession or the possession of the law enforcement agency to the defense where that evidence might be helpful. Today we will look at a Seventh Circuit case in which the appellate court refused to order a new trial since the evidence held by the prosecutor and law enforcement agencies was not material.

To establish a Brady violation the defendant must prove:

(1) that the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) that
the evidence was favorable to the defense; and (3) that the evidence was material to an issue at trial.

James Daniel started an on-line conversation with Amanda_13 about sex. Eventually they agreed to meet in Will Park in Valparaiso, Indiana. Daniel promised to bring a condom. But Amanda_13 was not named Amanda and “she” was not 13. “She” was Sergeant Richard Howard of the Porter County Sheriff’s Department. Instead of having sex in the park Daniel was arrested there. Daniel’s second mistake was to give consent to search his computer. The government’s expert found two more sets of communications involving daisy13_Indiana and blonddt. Both sets of conversations were introduced at trial. But unbeknownst to the prosecutor at trial both daisy13_Indiana and blondtt were law enforcement officers working the same scam as Sergeant Howard. At some point between the end of trial and sentencing the prosecutor found out that daisy13_Indiana was a law enforcement agent and it wasn’t until oral argument that the prosecutor found out that blonddt was also a government agent.

After the prosecutor informed the defense counsel that daisy13_Indiana was a police officer, counsel did not request a new trial or inform the court. (Habeas on incompetence of counsel coming up next?) Without objection from in defendant in the trial court, at least as far as Daisy13_Indiana the appellate court uses a plain error test judge the Brady error.

Under the plain error standard, the alleged Brady violation must be an obvious error that affected Daniel’s substantial rights and created a substantial risk of convicting an innocent person.

The appellate court found that the evidence was not material. First, impeaching the expert would do no good since he was not involved in the investigation. Second, since the conversations with daisy13_Indiana and blonddt occurred after the conversation with amanda_13 they could not be used to show entrapment and finally the evidence was admitted to show Daniel’s state of mind and whether they were peace offices or not was not relevant as long as Daniel thought that they were young girls.

The Supreme Court ruled last week held that there is no due process right to DNA discovery post conviction.

William G. Osborne was convicted of rape and assault for a 1993 incident in Anchorage, Alaska.At the time of the trial modern DNA tests were not available. The results obtained from the DNA test did not exclude eighteen percent of African American men.

Osborne filed a 1983 civil rights action in Federal Court to get the DNA sample which he plans to have tested at his own expense. The District Court denied his request. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his right to the discovery and the Supreme Court last week reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.

While, under Brady, there is a pretrial right to discovery, the Ninth Circuit erred, according to Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion, in extending the right to post trial discovery, despite the fact that Osborne has a liberty interest in pursuing post conviction relief.

The Supreme Court held that one can only obtain post trial due process relief if the available process “offends some fundamental principle of justice” or “transgresses any recognized principle of fundamental fairness.” While Alaska does not have a statute specifically granting the right to post trial DNA, a review of the statutes and judicial decisions in Alaska indicates that post trial right to a DNA examination is available under various circumstances and the process by which it can be obtained does not offend the fundamentals of justice or transgress recognized principle of the fundamental fairness.

Furthermore the Court refused to extend the right to substantive due process to the right to post trial discovery of DNA samples. First there is no long standing right to DNA and secondly the court did not want to interupt the legislative and judicial process which is happening in each of the states and Congress. There are 46 states in which legislation has been enacted which in one way or another guarantees the right post trial discovery of DNA samples.

Justice Stevens in dissent, wrote that while Alaskan law permits post trial discovery of DNA samples it is not clear that the discovery is granted in practice, In particular he noted that it was not granted to Osborne even though it appears that it could exonerate him. Second, Stevens states that there is a fundamental right in not being incarcerated if one is innocent and that denial of the DNA discovery violates his due process liberty right.