2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-12-2006 

# R i ve r a v . C omm P A P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2072

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " R ive r a v . C omm P A" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 757. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/757NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_ _ N o. 04- 2072 ANGE L RI VE RA ,

A ppel l ant v. CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A; AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF P E NNS YL VANI A; UN I TED STATES ATTO RN EY FO R TH E M I DD LE DI S T RI CT OF P A

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 02- cv- 08399) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e C har l es R . W ei ner
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary13, 2006 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed J ul y12, 2006) OPI NI ON OF TH E CO UR T A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge.R ivera su b m itted th e A u g u st 11 , 2 0 0 3 let ter pro se , p rio r to re ten tio n o f c o u n se l f

o r h is 1 fede r al habea s pet i t i on. A l t hough t hatl et t erdoes notpr emi s e i t s el f t o be a not i ce of appea l and ce r t ai nl ydoes nots t r i ct l ycompl yw i t h t he not i ce r equi r ement s of R ul e 3( c) of t he Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, i tqual i fi es as a not i ce of appea l ( 1) beca us e of t he l i ber al s t andar ds byw hi ch w e r evi ew a pro se appel l ant ’ s compl i ance w i t h t he stan d ard s o f R u le 3(c ) an d (2) b ec au se itev iden ce s an inten t t o ap p ea l th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s deni al of hi s habea s pet i t i on. See Torr es v. O akl and Scave ngerC o. , 487 U . S. 312, 316- 317 ( 1988) ( s t at i ng t hat“a c our tm aynonethel es s fi nd thatthe [ pro se ] l i t i ganthas c o m p lied w ith th e ru le if th e lit ig a n t’s a c tio n is th e f u n c tio n a l eq u iv a len t o f

w h a t th e ru le 2 A ngel R i ver a appe al s fr om a deni al of hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus r el at i ng t o hi s Penns y l vani a s t at e courtconvi ct i ons forr obbery , at t empt ed homi ci de and cons pi r acy . R i ver a fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr el i ef unde r28 U . S. C . § 2254 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. T h e C o u rt re stric ted its a n a ly sis to t hos e cl ai m s R i ver a had e xhaus t ed i n t he s t at e court s : tw o s epar at e cl ai m s thatthe p rose cu ti o n w ith h eld e v iden ce in v iolati o n o f B rad yv . M ary land , 3 7 3 U . S . 8 3 (19 6 3 ). It t hen rul ed aga i ns tR i ver a, fi ndi ng t hatthe s t at e court s ’ adj udi cat i on of thos e cl ai m s w as “notcontr aryt o cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Supr eme C our tpr ece dent . ” W e agr ee w i t h t he Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n a n d wi l l a f f i r m. I. B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notcompl yw i t h t he s epar at e document r equi r ementof R ul e 58 of the Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, the w i ndow for fi l i ng a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l w as 150 day s fr om the dat e of i s s uance of i t s A pr i l 16, 2003 opi ni on, i . e. , bySept ember16, 2003. R i ver a’ s A ugus t11, 2003 l ett ert o t he D i s tr i ct C our t , w hi ch qual i fi es as a not i ce of appea l , w as ther efor e t i m el yfi l ed. A ccor di ngl y , w e.

1r equi r es . ”) ; B r annan v. U ni t ed St at es , 993 F. 2d 709, 710 ( 9th C i r . 1993) ( cons i der i ng a

l et t ert o t he courtt o be a not i ce of appea l w her e i tevi dence d defe ndant ’ s des i r e t o appea l h is sen tenc e). 3 h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to h e a r t h is a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 2 5 3 . II. T he part i es ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s and pr ocee di ngs i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tand the Penns y l vani a s t at e court s , s o w e w i l l onl ybr i efl yr evi s i tthem her e. I n A l l ent ow n, Penns y l vani a, on t he ni ghtof Sept ember19, 1996, A r qui m i des B oni l l a w as beat en, s t abbed, r obbed and l eftfordead i n a parki ng l ot . H e w as found al i ve the nextm orni ng behi nd M annyand El i zabe t h R odr i guez’ s m ot or cy cl e s hop. A ngel R i ver a and hi s codefe nd ant, R afael Santos, w ere s ub sequen t l yi den t i fi ed as B on i l l a’s assai l ants . A tt r i al , R i ver a as s er t ed hi s i nnocenc e – ar gui ng thatthe r eal as s ai l antw as a man named A ngel C ruz “Papo” D el gado. R i ver a s t at ed thaton t he dayof the att ack he w as now her e nea rB oni l l a, i ns t ead a verr i ng thathe had gone t o N ew Y or k C i t yt o pi ck up a fr i end w ho had fl ow n i n fr om Puer t o R i co. N evert hel es s , evi dence w as i ntr oduced a tt r i al t hatt i ed hi m t o t he att ack. O n O ct ober16, 1997, R i ver a w as found gui l t ybya j uryi n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas forL ehi gh C ount yof r obbery , at t empt ed cr i m i nal hom i ci de and co n sp ir ac y . T h e c o u rtthen sen tenc ed h im to six a n d o n e-h alf to tw en tyy ea rs i m pr i s onm entfort he r obberycount , fourt o t w entyy ear s i m pr i s onm entforthe att empt ed cr i m i nal hom i ci de count , and fourt o t w entyy ear s forthe cons pi r acycount . T he at t empt ed cr i m i nal hom i ci de and c ons pi r acys ent ence s w er e t o run concurr ent l y , w hi l e theI n hi s habea s pet i t i on t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , R i ver a pr es ent ed fi ve cl ai m s : tw o al l egi ng 2 v io la tio n s o f

B ra d y , a n d th re e o th e rs a lle g in g th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l h a d b e e n in e f f e c tiv e . T he D i stri ctC ou rtdis m i ssed the thr ee i neff ect i ve assi st ance o f cou nsel cl ai m s, concl udi ng t hatt heyhad notbeen e xhaus t ed i n t he s t at e court s . I tdi d, how ever , concl ude t hat the tw o B radycl ai m s had b een ex hau st ed an d acco rdi ng l yadd res sed theirm eri t s, r ej ect i ng eac h i n tur n. 4 ro b b e ry se n te n c e w a s c o n s e c u tiv e . T he Penns y l vani a Super i orC our taff i r m ed R i ver a’ s s ent ence and convi ct i on on N ovember23, 1998, and hi s pet i t i on foral l ow ance of appe al w as deni ed bythe Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our ton M ay11, 1999. O n February4, 2000, R i ver a fi l ed a pro se pet i t i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pur s uantt o t he Penns y l vani a Pos tC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( PC R A ) , 42 Pa. C ons . St at . § 9541- 9545, w i t h t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas forL ehi gh C ount y( t he “PC R A C our t ”) . C ouns el w as then appoi nt ed forR i ver a’ s pet i t i on and, f o llo w in g a h e a ri n g , th e P C R A C o u rt d e n ie d R iv e ra ’s P C R A p e titio n o n J u ly 1 4 , 2 0 0 0 . T he Super i orC our taff

i r m ed thi s deci s i on i n a mem or andum opi ni on fi l ed February26, 2002. O n A ugus t8, 2002, R i ver a fi l ed a pro se pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforE as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. I n a mem or andum o p in io n a n d o rd e r f

iled A p ril 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , the C o u rt d e n ied R iv e ra ’s p e tit io n . T h e C o u rt, 2 h o w e v e r, d id iss u e a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili tyf

o r R iv e ra ’s tw o B ra d yc laim s. T h is a p p e a l o f th o s e tw o c la im s f

o llo w e d . III .T h e A E D P A lim its “ th e a u th o rities o n w h ich f e d e ra l co u rts m a yre lyin m a k in g th is 3 det erm i nat i on t o t he dec i s i onal l aw of the Supr eme C our t , thati s , the ‘ Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned byt he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es . ’ ” Lew i s v. J ohns on, 359 F. 3d 646, 6 5 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). A lo w e r f e d e ra l co u rt d e c isio n m a y , h o w e v e r, b e c o n sid e re d in as s es s i ng w hethera s t at e court ’ s appl i cat i on of the l aw w as r eas onabl e. M at t eo v. S u p e ri n te n d e n t, S C I A lb io n , 1 7 1 F .3 d 8 7 7 , 8 9 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b a n c ). 5 B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed R i ver a’ s habea s pet i t i on bas ed s ol el yupon a r evi ew of the s t at e courtr ecor d, w i t houthol di ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng, w e r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on de novo . M a rs h a ll v . H e n d ri c k s , 3 0 7 F .3 d 3 6 , 5 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). R i ver a’ s pet i t i on forhabea s corpus r el i ef f r om hi s s t at e courtconvi ct i on i s governed by t he A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t yA ctof 1996 ( “A E D PA ”) , 28 U . S. C . §§ 2241- 2254. U ndert he A E D PA , t her e i s a bi fur cat ed s t andar d of r evi ew – di ffe r ent s t andar ds appl yt o fede r al cour tr evi ew of the s t at e court s ’ adj udi cat i on of the fa ct s and th e law . A s f

o r th e law , fe d e ra l h a b e a s c o rp u s re lief w ill o n lyb e g ra n ted if

th e sta te deci s i on bei ng chal l enged “ w as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es . ” § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ). In W ill iam s v . T a y lo r, 5 2 9 U .S . 3 6 2 (2 0 0 0 ), th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t a s t at e courtdeci s i on i s “contr aryt o” cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw i f the dec i s i on ( 1)

“ c o n tra d icts th e g o v e rn in g law se t f o rth in [ th e S u p re m e ] C o u rt’s c a se s” o r (2 ) “ c o n f ro n ts a se t of fa cts th at are m aterial lyind ist ing u isha b le fro m a d ec isi o n o f [ the S u p rem e] C o u rt a n d n e v e rth e les s a rriv e s a t a [ d if f e re n t] re su lt. ” Id . at 4 0 5 . A n “ u n re a so n a b le 3 appl i cat i on” of Supr eme C our tpr ece dentoccur s : ( 1) “i f the s t at e courti dent i fi es theR o d rig u e z ’s id e n tific a tio n a llo w e d in v e stig a to rs to tie R iv e ra to th e a ttac k . U sin g th is 4 i nform at i on, t heyw er e abl e t o putt ogethera phot o l i neup fr om w hi ch B oni l l a i dent i fi ed R iv e ra a s h is a ss a ilan t. 6 c o rre c t g o v e rn in g leg a l ru le f ro m [ th e S u p re m e ] C o u rt’s c a se s b u t u n re a so n a b lya p p lies it t o t he fa ct s of the part i cul ars t at e pr i s oner ’ s cas e; ” or( 2) i f i t“ei t herunr eas onabl yext ends a l egal pr i nci pl e fr om [Supr eme C our t ] pr ece dentt o a new cont extw her e i ts houl d not a p p lyo r u n re a so n a b lyre f u se s to e x ten d th a t p rin c ip le to a n e w c o n tex t w h e re it sh o u ld a p p ly.” I d . a t 4 0 7 . I V. Ri v e r a a r g u e s t h a tt h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ta n d s t a t e c o u r t s e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s two B r adycl ai m s . H e cont ends t hatt he governm entw i t hhel d: ( 1) a not e upon w hi ch w as w r i t t en the name “Papo” a nd a t el ephone number , w hi ch w as found i n co- defe ndant S a n to s’ a p a rtm e n t ap p ro x im a telyo n e w e e k a f terB o n ill a ’s a ttac k ; an d (2 ) th a t E liza b e th Ro d r i g u e z h a d p r e v i o u s l yi d e n t i f i e d An g e l Ri v e r a t o i n v e s t i g a t o r s a s h a v i n g th e n i c k n a me “Papo. ” R i ver a ar gues t hatbot h of thes e pi ece s of i nform at i on w er e mat er i al , and that

4 theyeith er w ere im p ea ch ing o r ex cu lpato ryev iden ce o r co u ld h av e lea d to the d isco v ery of s uch evi dence . T he Penns y l vani a Super i orC our tr evi ew i ng R i ver a’ s PC R A pet i t i on concl uded th a t n o B ra d yv io latio n o c c u rre d . In so d o in g , itm a d e tw o d istin c t h o ld in g s. F irst, ith e ld t hatno B r adyvi ol at i on occurr ed bec aus e R i ver a di d not“poi ntt o anyevi dence i n t he r ecor d t hatr evea l s t he pr os ecut orengage d i n m i s conductt o conce al , w i t hhol d, orT he PC R A C our thad hel d t hat( 1) the nondi s cl os ur e of the not e w as nota vi ol at i on of 5 B r adybeca us e R i ver a di d nots how thati tw as m at er i al evi dence , and ( 2) thatthe nondi s l os ur e of El i zabe t h R odr i guez’ s pr i ori dent i fi cat i on w as nota vi ol at i on of B r adybeca us e R i ver a had nots how n t hatthi s evi dence w as w i t hhel d ors uppr es s ed byt he pr os ecut i on. ( PC R A C t . O p. , app. at5a- 7a. ) I n s o rul i ng, unl i ke the Super i orC our t , t he PC R A C our tdi d notm ake a l t ernat i ve hol di ngs , buti ns t ead i ndi vi dual l yrul ed on w hether eac h pi ece of w i t hhel d evi dence cons t i tut ed a Bra dyvi ol at i on. W e agr ee w i t h R i ver a thatt he s t at e court s obvi ous l yerr ed i nas m uch as theyhel d t hat 6 B ra d yre q u ire s th a t th e n o n d isc lo su re b e c a u se d b yp ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t. B ra d yo n ly r equi r es t hatm at er i al evi dence t hati s favor abl e t o t he def endantbe undi s cl os ed, w i t hout r egar d fort he good orbad fa i t h r eas ons of the nondi s cl os ur e. B r ady , 373 U . S. at87. 7 s uppr es s excul pat or yevi dence . ” ( Sup. C t . O p. , app. at21a. ) Second, i thel d i n t he al t ernat i ve thateven i f a Bra dyvi ol at i on occurr ed, “anyB r adyerr or s w er e harm l es s and d id n o t so u n d e rm in e th e tru th -d e ter m in in g p ro c e ss th a t n o re liab le a d ju d ica tio n o f

g u ilt ori nnocenc e coul d have t aken pl ace . ” ( I d. at21a- 22a. ) W e i nt erpr etthi s t o m ean that ev en if ev iden ce w as w ith h eld, th at ev iden ce w as n o t m aterial o r fa v o rab le, an d so there w as n o erro r. 5 T o es t abl i s h a B r adyvi ol at i on, a def endantm us tpr ove thr ee thi ngs : “( 1) the governm entw i t hhel d evi dence , ei t herw i l l ful l yori nadvert ent l y ; ( 2) the evi dence w as favor abl e, ei t herbeca us e i tw as excul pat oryorof i m peac hm entval ue; and ( 3) the w ith h e ld e v id e n c e w a s m a te ri a l.” L am b ert v. B lack w ell , 3 8 7 F . 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 5 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). W e w ill f o llo w th is f

o rm a t in a n a ly z in g th e a rg u m e n ts pr es ent ed. A. W e start w ith the a ssu m p ti o n that there w as a w ith h o lding o f e v iden ce , an d turn 68

i m m edi at el yt o an exa m i nat i on of the Super i orC our t ’ s al t ernat i ve hol di ng: thatthe w i t hhol di ng di d notamount t o a B r adyvi ol at i on becaus e the undi s cl os ed evi dence w as no tm at eri al . N evertheles s, befo re eval uati ng the m at eri al i t yof the evidence, w e m ust det erm i ne the ext entt o w hi ch i ti s favor abl e. See U ni t ed St at es v. B agl ey , 473 U . S. 667, 674 ( 1985) ( s t at i ng t hatt he pr os ecut ori s onl yr equi r ed t o “di s cl os e evi dence f avor abl e to th e a c c u se d th a t, i f

su p p re ss e d , w o u ld d e p riv e th e d e f e n d a n t o f

a f a ir trial” ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). E v id e n c e is f

a v o ra b le if

it i s e x c u lp a to ryo r im p e a c h in g . Id . E v id e n c e o f slig h t, triv ial o r h yp o th e tica l f

a v o ra b ili tyo b v io u slyd o e s n o t sw a yu s a s m u c h in o u r m a ter iality a n a lysis a s d o e s e v id e n c e o f a c le a rl yim p e a c h in g o r e x c u lp a to ry n a tu re . W e do notvi ew t he not e cont ai ni ng the name “Papo” a nd a phone numberas bei ng g re a tlyf a v o ra b le to th e d e f

e n se . F irst, th e re a re n o in d ica tio n s in th e re c o rd th a t th e n o te w a s e x c u lp a to ry, o r t h a t it d id o r w o u ld le a d to a n ye x c u lp a to ry o r i m p e a c h in g e v id e n c e . ( See, e. g. , PC R A T r . , t es t i m onyof D et ect i ve M arkow i t z, app. at231a ( s t at i ng that “n o thing o f sig n ifi ca n ce ca m e o u t of [th e n o te], o therw ise th ere w o u ld b e a p o li ce rep o rt i ndi cat i ng s uch”) . ) R i ver a ar gues t hathad he be en pr ovi ded w i t h t he not e pr i ort o t r i al he coul d have us ed i tt o i nves t i gat e and di s coverw hetheri tr efe r ence d A ngel C ruz D el gado. ( R i ver a B r . at29. ) W e ac know l edge thatcour t s r evi ew i ng B r adyvi ol at i ons s houl d be aw ar e of “ t he di ffi cul t yof r econs t ruct i ng i n a pos t - t r i al pr ocee di ng the cour s e thatthe defe ns e w oul d have t aken” had theybeen pr ovi ded w i t h t he undi s cl os ed i nform at i on, s ee B agl ey , 473 U . S. at683, buther e w e ar e conf r ont ed w i t h t he i nes capa bl e fa ct s that : ( 1)R iv e ra c o n ten d s th a t “[ a ]f ter b e in g p ro v id e d w ith th e h a n d w ritten n o te, [ h e ] w a s a b le to 7 d ev elop ev iden ce co n ce rnin g M r. D elga d o , inclu d ing o b tai n ing a p h o tog rap h o f M r. D e lg a d o .” (R e p lyB r. at 1 1 , 1 4 .) B yth is s tate m e n t, R iv e ra su g g e sts th a t th e n o te d ire c tly led to a n d im p lica ted D e lg a d o . W e a re u n a b le to a g re e . T h e re c o rd o n lyin d ica tes th a t a pr i vat e i nves t i gat orhi r ed pos t - t r i al byR i ver a w as abl e t o di s coveri nform at i on on D e lg a d o , (P C R A T r., ap p . at 2 2 0 a -2 2 5 a .), bu t th e re is n o su p p o rt f o r th e a ss e rtio n th a t th is w as as a r es ul tof i nform at i on on t he not e. R i ver a att empt s t o r ebutt he pr es um pt i on cr eat ed bythe s t at e court s thathe bea r s the 8 ni ckname “Papo” byci t i ng t o t he t es t i m onyof var i ous i ndi vi dual s w ho as s ert ed that “Papo” i s nothi s ni ckname. See 28 U . S. C . § 2254( e) ( 1) ( s t at i ng thatas forfac t s found byt he s t at e court s , “[t ] he appl i cants hal l have the bur den of r ebut t i ng the pr es um pt i on of c o rre c tn e ss b yc lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e ” ). N o n e th e les s, b o th B o n ill a a n d E liza b e th R odr i guez t es t i fi ed thatR i ver a w as know n bythe name “Papo. ” A ccor di ngl y , R i ver a has n o t p re s e n te d c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld re b u t th is p re s u m p tio n . 9 t he governm entw as unabl e t o pr oduce l eads fr om thi s document , and ( 2) thatR i ver a has n o t cite d to a n ye v id e n c e th a t h e h a s b e e n a b le, p o st-tria l, t o d isc o v e r f ro m th e n o te. It is

7 t her efor e pur e s pecul at i on t hatt hi s not e c o u ld be i m peac hi ng orexcul pat ory . I f anyt hi ng, t he n ote i s i ncu l

pa t ory , beca us e i tw as found i n Sant os ’ apart m ent , Sant os w as convi ct ed a s R iv e ra ’s a c c o m p lic e in th e a tta c k , a n d R iv e ra w a s k n o w n b yth e n a m e “ P a p o .” 8 M or eover , t hatE l i zabe t h R odr i guez i dent i fi ed R i ver a pr i ort o t r i al as bear i ng t he n a m e “ P a p o ” is e v e n les s f a v o ra b le to th e d e f

e n se . R iv e ra a rg u e s th a t th is e v id e n c e is favor abl e bec aus e “a l l i nform at i on r egar di ng hert es t i m onythatm ayhave pr ovi ded for heri m peac hm entorcr os s - exami nat i on cons t i tut es favor abl e orexcul pat oryevi dence u n d e r B ra d y .” (R iv e ra B r. at 3 0 .) H e late r a rg u e s th a t “it is e x c u lp a to ryin f o rm a tio n a s it w as i nform at i on nece s s aryfori m peac hm ent . ” ( I d. at32. ) St eppi ng off thi s car ous el of l ogi c, w e ca nnots ee how t hi s i nform at i on i s excul pat oryori m peac hi ng. I tm ayhave10

been he l pful fort he def ens e t o know thatE l i zabe t h R odr i guez c oul d connec tR i ver a t o a ni ckname bor ne byt he att acke r , butw e do nots ee ther ei n t he s eeds of anyl i ne of a t t ack t h a tc o u l d i mp e a c h h e rc r e d i b i l i t yo rl e a d t o e v i d e n c e th a two u l d e x o n e r a t e Ri v e r a . He a p p e a rs to g lo ss o v e r th e n a tu re o f ju st how thi s i nform at i on w as favor abl e, i ns t ead a rg u in g th a t itis f

a v o ra b le b yb o o tstra p p in g it t o h is a rg u m e n t th a t itis m a ter ial. T hes e ar gum ent s ar e ana l ogous thos e w e r ej ect ed i n U ni t ed St at es v. B oone, 279 F .3 d 1 6 3 (2 0 0 2 ). T h e re in , w e h e ld th a t th e p ro se c u tio n h a d n o t v io late d B ra d yw h e re it fai l ed t o di s cl os e i ncul pat or ys t at ement s m ade bya conf i dent i al i nform antaboutthe defe ndant . I d. at190. M or eover , w e r ej ect ed the def endant ’ s ar gum entthat , r egar dl es s of w hethert he evi dence w as i ncul pat ory , he coul d have us ed i tt o i m peac h t he i nform antand s how t hatt he def

endanthad bee n fal s el yacc us ed. I d. ( r ej ect i ng defe ndant ’ s “domi no theo ry ” tha t he c o u ld h av e u sed the in cu lpato ryev iden ce to d ev elop ex cu lpato ry ev iden ce ). A cc o rdin g ly , alth o u g h n eith er the P C R A C o u rtn o r th e S u p erior C o u rt expr es s l ybas ed thei rconcl us i ons upon a det erm i nat i on thatthe w i t hhel d evi dence w as notfavor abl e t o R i ver a, w e ce r t ai nl yper cei ve thati t s favor abi l i t yw as nonexi s t entat w o rst a n d d u b io u s a t b e st. B. N onethel es s , as s um i ng ar guendo thatthes e tw o pi ece s of evi dence ar e fa vor abl e, w e agr ee w i t h t he s t at e court s t hatt heyar e notm at er i al . T he Supr eme C our thas s ai d t hat “evi dence i s m at er i al onl yi f ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t ythat , had the evi dence been11

d i s c l o s e d t o t h e d e f

e n s e , t h e r e s u l to f

th e p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i f f e r e n t . ” B a g l e y, 473 U . S. at682. T he ques t i on coul d be phr as ed as bei ng, “w hen vi ew ed as a w hol e and i n l i g h to f

t h e s u b s t a n c e o f

t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s c a s e , ” d i d th e n o n d i s c l o s u r e o f th e s e two pi ece s of evi dence pr i ort o t r i al l ead t o an untrus t w or t hygui l t yver di ct ? S ee U ni t ed St at es v . P elulo , 1 0 5 F . 3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). R i ver a ar gues t hatt he w i t hhel d not e w as m at er i al beca us e i tcoul d have l ed t o the devel opm entof evi dence i m pl i cat i ng D el gado and notR i ver a as B oni l l a’ s as s ai l ant , and t hati tcoul d have l ed t o i m peac hi ng evi dence . ( R i ver a B r . at38. ) A s forthe n o n d isc lo su re o f

E liza b e th R o d rig u e z ’s p rio r id e n tific a tio n o f R iv e ra , h e a rg u e s th a t th is i nform at i on w as m at er i al beca us e of the i m pacti tw oul d have ha d on hi s tr i al pr epar at i on, i . e. , had he know n t hatE l i zabe t h R odr i guez kne w R i ver a as “Papo, ” R i ver a’ s couns el w oul d nothave a s ked herdur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on w hethers he coul d r eci t e the n ick n a m e s b yw h ich R iv e ra is k n o w n (to w h ich sh e re p lied “ Ja y -O ” a n d “ P a p o ” ). (R e p ly B r. a t 1 5 .) F irst, as to th e im p e a c h in g o r e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e th a t c o u ld have be en pr oduced byt he def

ens e had i tbeen i n pos s es s i on of the not e, w e ar e dw el l i ng i n t he r eal m of pos s i bi l i t i es . “The m er e pos s i bi l i t yt hatan i t em of undi s cl os ed i nform at i on m i ghthave helped t he d efen se, or m i gh thav e affected t he o utcom e of the t ri al , do es not es t abli sh

‘ m at er i al i t y ’ i n t he cons t i tut i onal s ens e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. A gur s , 427 U . S. 97, 109- 110 ( 1976) . W e ca nnots ayt hatt he nondi s cl os ur e of thi s evi dence s o pr ej udi ced the tr i alT h is w as th e stan d ard reli ed u p o n b ythe P C R A C o u rt , (see P C R A C t. O p . , ap p . at 7a . ), 9 and the D i s t r i ctC our t , ( D . C t . O p. , app. at31a. ) . T he Super i orC our tdi d notr el yupon th is g ro u n d in a s s e s s in g m a te ri a lity. 12 pr ocee di ngs t hatourfai t h i n the r el i abi l i t yof the ver di ctw as underm i ned. T he pr os ecut i on w as appar ent l yunabl e t o pr oduce a nyevi dence fr om the not e, and R i ver a has n o t ci ted to an yev iden ce h e h as b ee n ab le t o p rod u ce as a resu lto f th e n o te, see su p ra not e 7. I ndeed, R i ver a’ s ow n t r i al couns el , w hen t es t i fy i ng atthe PC R A hear i ng, even a d m itte d th a t h e w a s n o t s u re ju s t h o w h e lp f u l th e n o te w o u ld h a v e b e e n . (S e e P C R A tr ., ap p . at 21 2 a.) Second, as fort he mat er i al i t yof El i zabe t h R odr i guez’ s pr i ori dent i fi cat i on of R iv e ra a s “ P a p o ,” th e iss u e , p ro p e rlyp h ra se d , is n o t w h e th e r th e g o v e rn m e n t k n e w o r d id notknow t hati n put t i ng heron t he s t and s he coul d pr ovi de pot ent i al l yi ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence , butw hethert he nondi s cl os ur e of he rpr i ori dent i fi cat i on s o pr ej udi ced the

9 pr ocee di ngs s uch thatt her e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t ythat“the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ngs w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e re n t,” i.e., tha t o u r c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tco m e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s is underm i ned. See B agl ey , 473 U . S. at682. I n as s es s i ng m at er i al i t y , “[t ] hi s cour thas r ecogni zed that[B r adym at er i al i t y ] r equi r es cons i der at i on of the t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng pos s i bl e ef fec t s of non- di s cl os ur e on the def ens e’ s tr i al preparat i on . ” U nit ed S t at es v. P erdom o, 92 9 F . 2d 96 7, 97 1 (3d C i r. 19 91 ). N on et heles s,

“ th e C o n stitu tio n is n o t v io late d e v e rytim e th e g o v e rn m e n t f a ils o r c h o o se s n o t to d isc lo se e v id e n c e th a t m ig h t pr ove hel pful t o t he def ens e. ” K y l es , 514 U . S. at43613

(em p h asis ad d ed ). H er e, hert es t i m onyw as noti ntr oduced bythe pr os ecut i on forthe purpos es of havi ng hers t at e thatR i ver a’ s ni ckname w as “Papo. ” I tw as onl yupon cr os s - exami nat i on th a t th e d e f

e n s e p ro c e e d e d u p o n th is p a th a n d f e ll, u n w ittin g ly, in to th is p itf a ll. E s s ent i al l y , R i ver a as ks us t o fi nd a B r adyerr orw i t hi n hi s tr i al couns el ’ s t act i cal err orof notknow i ng w i t h cert ai nt yt he ans w er s t o t he ques t i ons he w oul d pos e t o a w i t nes s . T hat t hi s i nform at i on w as notdi s cl os ed – i nform at i on thati s ar guabl yi ncul pat oryand not ex cu lpato ryo r i m p ea ch ing – d o es n o t r ise t o the lev el of m aterial ityjust be ca u se R ivera ’s c o u n se l d id n o t k n o w th e a n sw e r to h is q u e stio n b e f o re h e p o se d it t o E liza b e th R o d rig u e z . C f. U n ited S tate s v . Ja c k so n , 4 4 3 F .3 d 2 9 3 , 3 0 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (re f u sin g to fi nd r ever s i bl e, pr ej udi ci al err orw her e def endantas s ert ed thathi s cr os s - exami nat i on w as h in d e re d b yth e n o n d is c lo s u re o f c e rt a in e v id e n c e ). A ccor di ngl y , beca us e w e ca nnots aythat“w hen vi ew ed as a w hol e and i n l i ghtof t he s ubs t ance of the pr os ecut i on’ s cas e, ” the nondi s cl os ur e of thes e tw o pi ece s of e v id e n c e p rio r to trial le d to a n u n tru stw o rth yg u iltyv e rd ict, n e ith e r th e n o te n o r E liza b e th R o d r i g u e z ’ s p r i o ri d e n t i f i c a t i o n w e r e m a t e r i a l f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

B r a d y. C . F i n a l l y , b e c a u s e we a r e v i e wi n g th i s c a s e th r o u g h l e n s o f th e AE DP A, e v e n i f

we w er e t o s ayt hatt he w i t hhel d evi dence w as m at er i al , w e coul d nots aythatthe Super i orW e w i l l onl yanal y ze the “unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on” s t andar d of § 2254( d) ( 2) beca us e, 10 u n lik e th e ir e x a m in a tio n o f B ra d y ’s w ith h o ld in g p ro n g , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t th e sta te co u rt s’ ad

jud icati o n o f m aterial ityw as “ co n tr aryto” c o n tr o ll ing S u p rem e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. 14 C o u rt ’s co n tr aryh o lding w as a n u n rea so n ab le ap p li ca ti o n o f th e stan d ard s o f B rad y . In 10 as s es s i ng t he r eas onabl enes s of s t at e courtappl i cat i on of Supr eme C our tpr ece dent , t he S u p re m e C o u rt h a s a d m o n ish e d th a t “a f e d e ra l co u rt m a yn o t issu e th e w rit sim p ly b ec au se th at co u rtco n clud es in it s ind ep en d en t j u d g m en t th at th e re leva n t st ate-co u rt deci s i on appl i ed cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw err oneous l yori ncorr ect l y. . . that appl i cat i on m us tal s o be unr eas onabl e. ” W i l l i ams, 529 U . S. at411. H er e, the Super i or C o u rt w a s e x a m in in g tw o p iec e s o f u n d isc lo se d in f

o rm a tio n th a t w e re p e rh a p s o n ly s lig h tly f a v o ra b le a n d a rg u a b ly m a te ri a l – in th e B ra d ys e n s e – to R iv e ra ’s c a s e . C ons equent l y , beca us e the Super i orC our tcorr ect l yi dent i fi ed the corr ects t andar d for B r adym at er i al i t y , ( s ee Super . C t . O p. , app. at21a- 22a ( as s es s i ng the r el i abi l i t yof the a d j u d i c a t i o n o f

g u i l to ri n n o c e n c e b a s e d o n th e n o n d i s c l o s u r e o f th e e v i d e n c e ) . ) , we cannots ayt hati tw as unr eas onabl e forthe Super i orC our tt o concl ude thatthi s equi vocal e v id e n c e w a s n o t m a ter ial. V. W e have cons i der ed al l cont ent i ons r ai s ed bythe part i es and conc l ude thatno fur t herdi s cus s i on i s nece s s ary . T he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.