ANTHONY BERNARD JUNIPER v. DAVID W. ZOOK
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Wynn, Nov. 16, 2017,
Brady – The defendant is entitled to a hearing to determine whether a verdict should stand in light of the State’s failure to disclose a witness who picked out a different suspect from a photo array and gave a story inconsistent with the State’s theory of the case.

Facts:
In 2004, Juniper killed Nykia Stephens, her younger brother, and her two daughters in Norfolk, Virginia.
Juniper and Stephens had “an on-again, off-again tumultuous relationship.”
Juniper had a friend take him to Stephens’ apartment where the friend heard them arguing. The friend recalled Stephens saying, “there’s nobody but you.” As the friend left, she heard four “booms” that sounded like gunshots.
Shortly thereafter, Juniper called Murray and told him that “they gone” and that he “killed them.” Juniper didn’t say who he had just killed.
Murray called one of Stephens’ neighbors and had him go check on Stephens. When the neighbor arrived, he saw that the door had been kicked in. Juniper was standing in the living room with a white substance on his face and holding an “automatic pistol.” The bodies of the brother and daughter were on the bed in the bedroom. The neighbor asked Juniper where Stephens was and Juniper directed him to “between the bed and the dresser.” The neighbor then left.
Shortly thereafter, Juniper left the apartment and got into a car with Murray and a couple other people who came to pick him up. The car’s occupants stated that Juniper had a gun in his hand and appeared “jittery.”
Police had been called to the apartment complex, but walked around and then left believing that it had been a false report.
When the neighbor saw police leaving the area, he called 911 again.
This time, police walked by Stephens’ apartment and saw that the door had been “completely knocked inward into the apartment, and wooden debris from the door was lying inside the apartment.”
Four bodies were in the apartment. Three had been shot with 9mm rounds. Stephens had been both stabbed and shot.
A snapped steak knife was found nearby. Juniper’s latent thumbrint was recovered from the blade near the handle and his DNA from the knife handle. A cigarette butt with his DNA was at the threshhold of the apartment.
A box of 9mm ammunition was found at the scene with an unidentified print (not belonging to Juniper).
An ashtray by the bed contained a cigarette butt with an unidentified DNA profile (not belonging to Juniper).
Juniper was convicted in state court and sentenced to death. His conviction was affirmed on appeal.
In 2011, the lead investigator in the case was indicted for bribery. During that investigation, it was revealed that not all of his notes from Juniper’s case had been turned over to Juniper. Included in those notes was information from an interview with a previously undisclosed witness. The witness was one of Stephens’ neighbors. Her story was inconsistent with the State’s version of events and she had been shown a photo array where she failed to identify Juniper as the man she saw leaving Stephens’ apartment.
When Juniper failed to obtain relief in state court, he filed in federal court alleging that the State failed to disclose required exculpatory “Brady” material prior to trial.
The federal court dismissed Juniper’s claim without a hearing.
Juniper then appealed, arguing that he was entitled to a hearing in order to prove his claim.

Held:
The Fourth Circuit held that the district court judge improperly considered whether to grant a hearing or not. Case sent back for a hearing to determine whether a new trial is required.

Discovery – The State “must give the defendant potentially exculpatory material under its control (including material in the hands of police investigators) prior to trial.

Discovery – Brady- Failure to do so may result in a new trial where: (1) The evidence at issue is favorable to the defendant, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; (2) that evidence was suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) the defendant was prejudiced by the failure

Brady – A defendant is prejudiced when the evidence not disclosed is “material” to the case. That is, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.

Photo Identification – Failure of a witness to identify the suspect in a photo array is potentially exculpatory and must be turned over to the defendant prior to trial.

From the Case: the investigator’s notes and records were exculpatory because they withheld a witness that contradicted the timeline of the murder, contained identification of a suspect other than Juniper, contained information about a vehicle leaving the scene that contradicted the other witnesses, and introduced possible motive for another suspect.

Practice Notes: Do not hold back information about a witness statement just because his/her story appears unfounded. Explaining your reason for not believing the witness in a report will prevent the defendant from arguing after the fact that you were “hiding the ball” and that this witness is actually a key to the case (as happened here). These issues are easier to tackle before trial than they are ten years after trial.