MICHAEL WEARRY v. BURL CAIN, WARDEN
Supreme Court of the United States, Per Curiam, Filed March 7, 2016,
Brady – In a weak case, prosecution’s failure to disclose evidence that could have been used to discredit two different witnesses case
sufficient doubt on the verdict as to “undermine confidence”

(Dissent – Alito with Thomas joining – The information should have been disclosed, but it wasn’t enough to overturn a murder conviction from 14 years ago)

The more interesting part of this case is that the USSC reversed without having a hearing or receiving briefs. The opening line of the Per Curiam opinion is that “Michael Wearry is on Louisiana’s death row,” and based on the underwhelming Brady evidence it’s hard to believe that the opinion was based on anything other than that.

The state did not disclose:
– Statements by two inmates suggesting a material witness (that they were incarcerated with) wanted to get the defendant convicted
– Medical records of an alleged co-conspirator that one expert would testify made him incapable of performing the acts alleged by a material witness (though another expert disagreed with that assessment)
– A material witness twice tried to get a plea deal in order to testify

The jury heard that the state’s star witness materially changed his story four times and was involved in the murder and that the supporting witness was doing 15 years in prison on a drug charge, so it’s possible that this would have tipped the scales…

Brady – Defendant need not show that he “more likely than not” would have been acquitted had the new evidence been admitted, but rather must show that the new evidence is sufficient to “undermine confidence” in the verdict.
(Dissent states that “The failure to turn over exculpatory information violates due process only ‘if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'”)

Brady – The evidence must be material in that there is “any reasonable likelihood” it could have “affected the judgment of the jury”