T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J AM ES S. GA RNET T, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. R I C HA R D MOR GA N, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 35316 D . C . C IV 2 : 0 5 -0 1 4 3 8 M JP ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on M a r s ha J . P e c hm a n, C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r5, 2011

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: T A S H IM A , M cK E O W N , an d T A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Ja m es G ar n ett, a W as h in g to n state p riso n er , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f

ora w r i tof

ha be a s c orpus . G a rne tt ’ s pe t i t i on i s gove rne d by th e A n tite rr o r is m a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . G a rne tta r gue s tha tthe S t a t e vi ol a t e d B r ady v . M ar y land , 373 U . S . 83 ( 1963) , by



# FI LED DE C 20 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

f a ilin g to d is c lo s e e v id e n c e th a t G a rn e tt c o u ld h a v e u s e d to im p e a c h a s ta te wi tn e s s . We a f

f i r m th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f Ga rn e tt ’ s p e t i t i o n b e c a u s e we a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t th e s u p p r e s s e d e v id e n c e w a s n o t m a te r ia l. A tthe r e que s tof

the S t a t e , a f

t e rvi c t i m D a n D i or i o’ s body w a s f ound, K ri st i ne A nd er son rec orded a se ri es of conv er sa t i on s w i th G arnett ’ s w i fe K ym berl y G arnett . A ft erthe re cordi ng s w er e m ade, bu tbefore G arnett ’ s tri al be ga n, pr os e c ut or s t ol d A nde r s on tha ta pr i va t e f ounda t i on ha d of

f e r e d a $5000 r e w a r d i n the c a s e . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tA nde r s on unde r s t ood tha ts he ne e de d the pr os e c ut or s ’ r e c om m e nda t i on t o r e c e i ve the r e w a r d, a nd tha tthe re com m endat i on w as depend enton her c on t i nu ed coop er at i on and t es t i m on y a t tr ia l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t th e p r o s e c u tio n d id n o t r e v e a l th is in f o r m a tio n to the defense . G arn ettarg u es th ath e rai sed th i s B rady c l a i m i n hi s s t a t e pe r s ona l r e s tr a i nt p et i t i o n , b u tth atth e W ash i n g t o n co u rt s fai l ed t o ad j u d i cat e i to n th e m eri t s. T h u s, h e r e a s o n s th a tw e s h o u l d e v a l u a t e th e c l a i m de no vo , C o n e v . B e ll , 556 U . S . 449, 12 9 S . C t . 17 69 , 17 84 (200 9), and con si der e vi dence adduced i n h i s f eder al habeas ca se , se e C ul l en v. P i nh ol ster , 1 3 1 S . C t. 1 3 8 8 , 1 4 0 1 n .1 0 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ; i d. a t 1 4 1 7 n .5 ( S ot om a y or , J . , di s s e nt i ng) . F ori t s pa r t , the S t a t e c ont e nds tha tthe W a s hi ngt on co u rt s rej ect ed G arn ett ’ s B rady c l a i m o n th e me r i t s , w h i l e a tth e s a me t i me3

sugg es t i ng thatthe part i cul ar B rady c l a i m r a i s e d he r e w a s ne ve rpr e s e nt e d t o a ny Wa s h i n g t o n s t a t e c o u r t . We n e e d n o td e c i d e th e s e p r o c e d u r a l i s s u e s b e c a u s e we c onc l ude tha te ve n on de nov o re v iew an d co n sid er in g th e n ew ev id en ce , G ar n ett’ s c la im is w ith o u t m e r it.

“ T here ar e three com po nent s of atrue B r ady vi ol at i on : T he evi dence at i ssu e m u stb e fav o rab l e t o th e accu sed , ei th er b ecau se i ti s ex cu l p at o ry, o r b ecau se i ti s i m peac hi ng ; thatevi dence m usthave been supp re ss ed by the S t at e, ei ther w i l l ful l y or i nadv ert ent l y; and p re j ud i ce m usthave ensued. ” Str i c kl e rv . G r e e ne , 5 2 7 U .S . 2 6 3 , 2 8 1 - 8 2 ( 1 9 9 9 ) . “[ E ]v id e n c e is m a te r ia l o n ly if th e r e is a r e a s o n a b le pr oba bi l i ty tha t , ha d the e vi de nc e be e n di s c l os e d t o the de f e ns e , the r e s ul tof

the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ag l ey , 473 U . S . 667, 6 8 2 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; se e al

so K yles v. W hi t l ey , 51 4 U . S . 41 9, 43 4 (19 95 ). G arn ett ’ s B r ady cl ai m fa i l s bec ause there i s nota r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty of a d i f f e r e n tr e s u l th a d th e r e wa r d e v i d e n c e b e e n d i s c l o s e d t o th e d e f e n s e . At G arn ett ’ s tri al fo r fi rst -d eg ree m u rd er, th e st at e cal l ed fo rty-n i n e w i tn esses, i n cl u d i n g A n d erso n . T h e st at e p resen t ed a h o sto f ci rcu m st an t i al ev i d en ce ag ai n st G arnett , i ncl ud i ng thathe w entt o a bar w i th D i ori o o n the ni gh tof the m urder, that h e h a d a f

in a n c ia l m o tiv e f

o rth e m u r d e r , th a t D io r io ’s b o d y w a s f o u n d in a r e m o te4

l oc a t i on w i th w hi c h G a rne ttw a s f a m i l i a r , a nd tha tG a rne ttha d s t ol e n the s a m e ty pe a n d c a lib e rg u n f

r o m a n e ig h b o ra s w a s u s e d in th e m u r d e r . T h e st at e al so i n tro d u ced tw o o f A n d erso n ’ s reco rd i n g s. O n th e fi rst re cordi ng , on e s peaker des cr i bed h ow she had di sposed of bl oo dy cl othi ng , w hi ch a n uni de nt i f

i e d m a l e w a s w e a r i ng w he n he r e turne d hom e . O n the s e c ond reco rd i n g , o n e sp eak er st at ed th at“ Jam es” h ad u sed a “ zap p er” o n “ D an ” b ecau se h e is a “b ig b o y .” N e ith e rr e c o r d in g id e n tif ie d th e s p e a k e r s , id e n tif ie d th e f u ll na m e s of “ J a m e s ” or“ D a n, ” ordi r e c t l y t i e d the c onve r s a t i ons t o the m ur de rof D io r io . A nde r s on t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe pe r s on de s c r i bi ng the di s pos a l of bl oody c l othi ng and t he zapp eruse on t he re cordi ng s w as K ym berl y G arnett , and t hat“ zapp er ” r e f e rr e d t o a T a s e r . A nde r s on f ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha tthe c onve r s a t i ons w e r e a bout the D i ori o m urder. T he s uppr e s s i on of

the r e w a r d e vi de nc e w a s notm a t e r i a l be c a us e e ve n i f the s uppr e s s e d e vi de nc e w hol l y unde r m i ne d A nde r s on’ s c r e di bi l i ty , i ti s not reaso n ab l y p ro b ab l e th atth e j u ry w o u l d n o th av e co n v i ct ed G arn ett . T h e d efen se di d notc ha l l e nge A nde r s on’ s i de nt i f i c a t i on of

the s pe a ke r s on the r e c or di ngs . T he de f e ns e appa r e nt l y di d nota tt e m ptt o a r gue tha tthe r e c or di ngs r e f e rr e d t o a di ff er ent“ Ja m es ” or adi ff

er ent“ D an, ” or that“ zapp er ” m ea ntsom ethi ng other5

tha n a T a s e r . T hus , i ti s r e a s ona bl y pr oba bl e tha te ve n i f the j ury di d notbe l i e ve A nde r s on, the j ury w oul d s t i l l ha ve c onc l ude d tha tG a rne tt ’ s w i f e s t a t e d on the r e c o r d in g s th a t s h e h a d d is p o s e d o f G a rn e tt’s b lo o d y c lo th in g a n d th a t G a rn e tt used a T as eron D i ori o. A nd i f the j ury bel i eved thatK ym berl y G arnettdesc ri bed th e d is p o s a l o f

G a rn e tt’s b lo o d y c lo th in g a n d G a rn e tt’s u s e o f a T a s e ro n D io r io , it i s notre as on abl y probabl e thatthe j ury w ou l d h ave c on cl ud ed thatre corded c o n v e r s a tio n d is c u s s e d a h y p o th e tic a l s itu a tio n r a th e rth a n th e m u r d e ro f D io r io . T he e vi de nt i a ry va l ue of the r e c or de d c onve r s a t i ons a tG a rne tt ’ s tr i a l di d not depend on A nd er son’ s c re di bi l i ty. A nd even i f i tdi d, the decre as ed evi dent i ary w e i ghtof

thi s pi e c e of

e vi de nc e w oul d notr e a s ona bl y unde r m i ne c onf i de nc e i n the out c om e of

the e nt i r e tr i a l . T he r e f

or e , the s uppr e s s i on of

e vi de nc e tha tc oul d ha ve unde r m i ne d A nde r s on’ s c r e di bi l i ty a ttr i a l doe s notunde r m i ne c onf i de nc e i n the o u tc o m e o f

G a rn e tt’s tr ia l. A cc ordi ng l y, the j ud gm entof the di stri ctcourt , denyi ng G arnett ’ s habea s p et i t i o n , i s AF F I RME D.