CHARLES S. TURNER v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of the United States, Breyer, June 22, 2017,
Brady- Failure of the prosecutor to turn over exculpatory material is not fatal to a conviction where the exculpatory material was “too little, too weak, or too distant” from the primary evidence in the State’s case
(Dissent- Kagan with Ginsburg- The exculpatory material could have been used to re-shape the co-defendants’ cases into a unified front and thereby made a difference in the outcome)
There doesn’t seem to be any reason for SCOTUS to have taken this case. It establishes no precedent and affirms a lower court, so… why? SCOTUSBlog suggests that the justices may have been leaning the other way when they granted cert and that the SG actually turned them around at oral argument. Yes, I googled the opinion in the hopes that SOMEONE could explain why they took this case…
Facts:
In 1985, a group of co-defendants were convicted of murder in Washington, DC related to the kidnapping, robbery, beating, sodomization, and ultimately the murder of a woman blocks from her home.
At trial, two of the co-defendants admitted to being part of the group and identified the co-conspirators in the victim’s murder. These confessions were corroborated by direct and circumstantial evidence.
Seven of the co-defendants were found guilty, while two were acquitted.
In 2010, the co-defendants began filing post-conviction motions and learned that some evidence had been withheld from them at trial by the State.
Information withheld from the defense included: the identity of a circumstantial witness, an interview that could have contradicted part of the State’s case, notes that a discredited witness said someone else committed the crime, notes suggesting a witness admitted to lying at some point, admission of a witness that they had taken PCP, and contradictory witness information.
A hearing was held by the DC Superior Court, which heard testimony and received evidence regarding the issue over the course of sixteen days. The court concluded that the evidence was exculpatory and was withheld, but was not “material.” Because there was no reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been any different, the DC Superior Court denied the post-conviction motions.
The co-defendants appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with the trial court.
The co-defendants then asked the Supreme Court to review the issue, arguing that there was enough evidence withheld to call the verdict into question.
Held: The Supreme Court disagreed with the co-defendants. In light of the strength of the State’s case, there is no reasonable probability that disclosing this information would have made a difference.
Exculpatory Material- The Supreme Court held in Brady v. Maryland that the government violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause “if it withholds evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to the defendant’s guilt or punishment.”
Note: Because of the Supreme Court’s holding in Brady v. Maryland, evidence that is “favorable to the defense” is commonly referred to as “Brady Material”
Brady Material- Evidence is “favorable to the defense” if it is potentially exculpatory (has a tendency to make it less likely that the defendant committed the crime or his sentence should be reduced) or impeaches a state witness (calls into question the truthfulness of a state witness)
Brady Material- The prosecutor is required to hand over Brady Material even if it is “known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor.”
Practice Note: This is why it is exceptionally important to get a copy of your case folder to the prosecutor. If your case folder contains Brady Material that is later decided to be material, the conviction can be vacated and a new trial ordered. At latest, bring a copy to the first court date and give it to the prosecutor. In serious cases, be certain to set up an appointment to drop off a copy well in advance of trial.
Brady – A conviction isn’t automatically vacated when Brady Material is withheld. For the defendant to receive a new trial, the Brady Material must be “material.” This means that there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.