H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , J udge of the U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal * T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

______ N o. 11- 1646

______ CH A RL ES D I G G S, A ppel l ant

v. DAVI D DI GUGL I E L M O, S u p e r i n t e n d e n tS CI Gr a t e r f o r d ; AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T H E S T A T E O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA ; D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y O F D A U P H IN CO UN TY

______ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C i vi l N o. 4: 07- cv- 01505) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es III

______ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember16, 2011

______ B e f o re : F U E N T E S , C H A G A R E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s ,

and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber13, 2011)

______ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

______2

R E ST A N I , J udge. Pet i t i onerC har l es D i ggs appea l s the deni al of hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus , fi l ed on the bas i s thatdefe ns e couns el fai l ed t o di s cl os e mat er i al evi dence . For th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. B eca us e w e w r i t e forthe part i es , w e r ecountonl ythe es s ent i al fac t s and pr ocedur al hi s t ory . Pet i t i onerw as arr es t ed forand cha r ged w i th the ki dnapi ng and fi r s tdegr ee m ur derof N ancyW hi t e. J ack Si ngerw as the pr os ecut i on’ s keyw i tnes s , connec t i ng D igg s to the crim e. W h il e inc arc era ted a s a p aro le vio lat o r, Jac k S ing er w rote f o u r l ett ers t o the pol i ce a nd di s tr i ctatt orneyi n H arr i s bur g, Penns y l vani a off er i ng i nform at i on conce rni ng D i ggs ’ s cas e. I n t hos e l ett er s , Si ngeras ked the di s tr i ctatt orneyt o arr ange f or hi m t o r eturn t o par ol e s t atus and t o hel p hi m avoi d pr i s on, buts t at ed thathi s t es t i m ony a n d h e l p w e r e n o tc o n t i n g e n tu p o n th e s e r e q u e s t s . A tth e t i m e o f h i s tr i a l t e s t i m o n y, S in g e r w a s n o t in c a rc e ra ted , n o c h a rg e s w e re p e n d in g a g a in st h im , an d n o d e a l f o r h is t es t i m onyw as i n pl ace . I n A pr i l 1977, pet i t i onerw as convi ct ed. A ft erpet i t i onerexhaus t ed hi s r i ghtof di r ectappea l , he fi l ed a ha beas corpus pet i t i on and a s t at e courtpet i t i on underPenns y l vani a’ s PostC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct ( “PC R A ”) , w hi ch w er e deni ed. See 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. §§ 9541–46. I n N ovember 2000, pet i t i onerfi l ed a s econd PC R A pet i t i on, cl ai m i ng, i nt eral i a, thatevi dence i m peac hi ng Si ngerhad bee n w i thhel d and the fa i l ur e t o di s cl os e thi s evi dence cons t i tut ed a vi ol at i on underB r adyv. M ary l and, 373 U . S. 83 ( 1963) . T he PC R A courtfound no3

B radyviol at i on and den i ed rel i ef. D i gg s exhau st ed h i s st at e cou rtapp eal s. In A ug ust 2007, pet i t i onerfi l ed hi s s econd ha beas corpus pet i t i on, w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tfort he M i dd l e D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a den i ed. P et i t i on er now app eal s. T hi s courthas j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and § 2253. [ W ]h e re a h a b e a s p e tit io n e r’s c laim w a s “ a d ju d ic a te d o n th e m e rits” in sta te court , the pet i t i on m aynotbe gr ant ed unl es s the s t at e cour tdeci s i on “w as contr a r yt o , o ri n v o l v e d a n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f , c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe S upr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ” or“w as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e d eterm ina t i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence p re s e n te d in th e S ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g .” Si m m ons v. B ear d, 590 F. 3d 223, 231 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ) . O ur r evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons i s pl enary . See C oom bs v. D i gugl i el m o, 6 1 6 F . 3 d 2 5 5 , 2 6 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). A B r adyvi ol at i on occur s w hen evi dence , 1) i s favor abl e t o the ac cus ed, 2) w as s uppr es s ed bythe pr os ecut i on, and 3) i s pr ej udi ci al orm at er i al t o pet i t i oner ’ s gui l t . See St r i ckl erv. G r eene , 527 U . S. 263, 281–82 ( 1999) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A gur s , 427 U . S. 97, 1 1 2

– 1 3 (1 9 7 6 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n to uphol d Penns y l vani a Super i orC our t ’ s aff i rm ance of the PC R A court ’ s deci s i on. T he Super i orC our tagr eed w i th t he PC R A courtthatthe pr os ecut ordi d nots uppr es s the l ett er s Si ngerw r ot e w hi l e i ncar cer at ed bec aus e no evi dence of a de al exi s t ed and the St at e had f

i l ed an “ A ppl i cat i on C oncerni ng M at er i al W i tnes s ” r egar di ng Si ngers even m onths befor e pet i t i oner ’ s tr i al . T he A ppl i cat i on s t at ed thatSi ngerhad bee n i ncar cer at ed butw as r el eas ed and thatthe cha r ges agai ns thi m had bee n dr opped. I tal s o s t at ed that4

S in g e r w a s p re v io u slym o tiv a ted to tes tifyo u t o f a f e a r th a t h e m ig h t b e im p riso n e d a g a in and he f el tendange r ed i n pr i s on. E ven though thi s A ppl i cat i on w as docket ed butnot p e rso n a llyse rv e d o n p e tit io n e r’s c o u n se l, th e A p p lica tio n w a s s e rv e d o n th e P u b lic D efe nder ’ s O ffi ce a nd w as a mat t erof publ i c r ecor d. T her efor e, pet i t i onerw as on not i ce thatdocument aryevi dence r egar di ng Si nger ’ s t es t i m onym i ghtexi s t . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n agr eei ng w i th the s t at e courtthatthe l ett er s w er e not s uppr es s ed. S e c o n d , ev e n if

th e lette rs w e re su p p re ss e d , the yw e re n o t m a ter ial. E v id e n c e is m at er i al “‘ i f ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , had the evi dence been di s cl os ed t o t he defe ns e, the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ’ ” Str i ckl er , 527 U . S. at 280 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. B agl ey , 473 U . S. 667, 677–81 ( 1985) ( not i ng a s tr i ct er s t andar d form at er i al i tyw her e def endantfai l s t o m ake a s peci fi c r eques tforthe evi dence i n ques t i on) ) . H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r ecomm endat i on a n d S u p e rio r C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e lette rs d id n o t cr e a te a re a so n a b le d o u b t as to p e tit io n e r’s g u ilt , an d th e re f o re th e f o u r le tters w e re n o t m a ter ial. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id noterrbeca us e, atthe t i m e of the tr i al , Si ngerw as notfac i ng cr i m i nal char ges or in c a rc e ra te d , s o h is te s tim o n yw a s n o t m o tiv a te d b yf e a r o r a n ya g re e m e n t w ith th e S ta te . M o re o v e r, S in g e r in iti a llyo f f e re d to tes tifya t th e trial e v e n if th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im w e re n o t d ro p p e d . T h u s, th e lette rs w e re n o t m a ter ial. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.