I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - DR- 0 1 3 3 5 - S CT
J US T I N U ND ER WOOD a

/ k / a J US T I N H . UNDERWOOD
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 25/ 1995 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. J OH N B
. TON EY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : J AM E S W
. CR AI G M AR K D. J I CK A AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L B Y : JA S O N L
. D A V IS M AR VI N L. W HI TE N A TU RE O F TH E C A SE: CI V I L - D EA TH PEN A LTY - PO ST CO NVI CT I ON DI S P OS I T I ON: L E AVE T O S E E K P OS T CO NVI CT I ON R E L I E F D E N I E D - 05/ 13/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. Ju stin U n d e rw o o d w a s in d ic te d fo r c a p ita l m u rd e r i n th e k id n a p in g a n d s h o o tin g d e a th
o f V irg in ia A n n H a rris. H e w a s c o n v icte d b y a M a d iso n C o u n ty ju ry a n d w a s s e n ten c e d to death atthe conc l usi on o f t he penal ty phas e of hi s bi f ur cat ed tr i al
. T hi s C our taf f i r m ed U nderw ood’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence i n U n de rw o o d

v. S ta te , 7 0 8 S o . 2 d 1 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ).

### 2

U n d e rw o o d th e n so u g h t p o s t- c o n v ictio n re lief p u rsu a n t to th e M iss iss ip p i U n ifo rm P o stC onvi ct i on C ol l at er al R el i ef A ct(U P C C R A )
. M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 99- 39- 1 t o 99- 39- 119 ( R ev. 2007 and Supp. 2009)
. H i s pe t i t i on w as deni ed i n U n de rw o o d

v. S ta te , 919 So. 2d 931 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶2. U nderw ood r eturns t o thi s C our t and has f i l ed a M ot i on f

or R el i ef f

r om J udgm entor fo r L e a v e to F ile S u c c e ss o r P e tit io n fo r P o st-C o n v ictio n R e lief, a lleg in g th a t th e S tate
w i thhel d excul pat ory i nf or m at i on i n vi ol at i on of Bra dy v. Mar

y land , 3 7 3 U .S . 8 3 , 8 3 S . C t. 1194, 10 L
. E d. 2d 215 (1963)
. B eca us e thi s evi dence w as noti n f actexcul pat ory orhel pf ul to U n d e rw o o d a n d w o u ld n o t ha v e aff e c ted the o u tco m e o f th e tri a l, h is p e tit io n fo r le a v e to
s eek pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i s deni ed. I. ¶3
. O n F eb rua ry 1 5 , 1 9 9 4 , L ind say H arris return ed h o m e from w o rk to fi n d that h is w if e V i r gi ni a w as m i s s i ng. H erbody w as found the nextday i n a w ooded ar ea appr oxi m at el y a
m i l e and a hal f

f r om herhom e. She had bee n s ho tfour t i m es. T es t i m ony attr i al r evea l ed thatU nderw ood’ s vehi cl e had be en se en neart he H arr i s hous e on the morni ng of the cr i m e. U nderw ood’ s uncl e t es t i f i ed thathi s . 32 c al i berhandgun had be en s t ol en pr i ort o the murde r
an d that h e su b seq u en tl y h ad rec o v ere d the w ea p o n from U n d e rw o o d ’s c a r. T h e S tat e’s f i r earm s expertt es t i f

i ed thatthe bul l et s r emoved f r om V i r gi ni a H arr i s ’ s body w er e f i r ed f r om thatw eapon. U pon i nt err ogat i on, U nderw ood admi t t ed thathe had shotM r s . H arr i s w i t h t he handgun he ha d s t ol en f r om hi s uncl e. H e cl ai m ed thatM r s . H arr i s had aske d hi m t o ki l l her beca us e herhus band had gi ven herA I D S. T he def endantand t he St at e s t i pul at ed attr i al t hatA m o re th o ro u g h re c ita tio n o f t h e fa c ts is fo u n d in th e o p in io n o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. 1 U n de r w o o d

, 7 0 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 8 -2 5
. 

### 3 M r s . H arr i s neverhad A I D S orH I V
. T he j ury r eturned a ve r di ctof gui l ty and det erm i ned thatU nderw ood s houl d be putt o death. H e w as s ent ence d acc or di ngl y. 1 ¶4. U nderw ood now cont end s t hat, p ri or t o t ri al , the prosecuti on w i thhel d evi dence f avor abl e t o hi m . H e mai nt ai ns thatt he St at e f ai l ed t o di s cl os e t hati thad s ubj ect ed Li nds ay H arr i s , the vi ct i m ’ s hus band, t o tw o pol ygr aph t es t s a boutthe ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng t he
m ur der
. U nderw ood s ubm i t s thatone of those t es t s i ndi cat ed thatM r . H arr i s w as bei ng d e c e p tiv e . U n d e rw o o d c laim s th a t th is e v id e n c e w a s n e v e r tu rn e d o v e r to th e d e fe n se in di s co ve ry a nd tha the on l y r e c e nt l y l e a rne d tha tthe po l yg r a ph t e s t s ha d b e e n a dmi ni s t er ed to M r. H a rris. U n d e rw o o d ’s tria l atto rn e y h a s s u b m itt e d a n a ffid a v it i n w h ich h e sta tes th a t, h ad h e k n o w n o f th e re su lt s o f th o se tests, h e w o u ld ha v e cro ss-ex am ined M r. H arris m o re aggr es s i vel y r egar di ng M r . H arr i s ’ s c l ai m thathe w as atw or k w hen the cr i m e occ urr ed. T he att orney al s o aver s thathe “w oul d have f ur theri nves t i gat ed L i nds ay H arr i s and hi s pot ent i al
connec t i on t o hi s w i f

e’ s death. ” II. ¶ 5
. T h e S tate h a d a d u ty to tu rn o v e r all e x c u lp a to ry m a ter ial to U n d e rw o o d p rio r to trial. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d i n B r ady , 373 U
. S. at87, that“the s uppr es s i on by t he pr os ecut i on of

evi dence f

avor abl e t o a n a ccus ed upon r eques tvi ol at es due pr oces s w her e the evi dence i s m at er i al ei thert o gui l tort o puni s hm ent , i rr es pect i ve of the good f

ai th orbad f ai th of the pr os ecut i on. ” See al s o Ho w a rdv. S ta te , 9 4 5 S o . 2 d 3 2 6 , 3 3 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 );

### 4

S im o n v. S ta te , 857 So. 2d 668, 698 ( M i s s . 2003)
. I n or dert o es t abl i s h a B r ady vi ol at i on, th e d e fe n d a n t m u st s h o w : ( 1) thatt he governm entposs es s ed evi dence f avor abl e t o the def

endant ( i ncl udi ng i m peac hm ente vi dence ) ; ( 2) thatthe def endantdoes notpos s es s the evi dence norcoul d he obt ai n i thi m s el f w i th any r eas onabl e di l i gence ; ( 3) that t he p r os e c ut i on s up pr e s s e d the f a vo r a bl e e vi de nc e ; a nd ( 4) tha tha d t he evi dence be en di s cl os ed t o the def ens e, a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty exi s t s thatthe o u tc o m e o f t h e p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if fe re n t. How ard , 945 So. 2d at337 ( quot i ng K in gv. S ta te , 6 5 6 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 8 , 1 1 7 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 )). ¶6. T he St at e ar gues that U nderw ood’ s pr es ent f i l i ng i s barr ed as a s ucce s s i ve w r i tunder M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 9 -39 -27 (9), as this i s hi s second peti t i on for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef. U n d erw o o d m aintains th at he m ee ts an ex ce p ti o n t o th e p roc ed u ral ba r be ca u se M r. H arris’ s po l yg raph t est s should be co nsi dered n ew l y d i scovered ev i den ce. T he U P C C R A provides, in re lev a n t p a rt: [ E ] xcept ed f

r om thi s prohibi t i on ar e thos e ca s es i n w hi ch the pr i s onercan d e mo n s tr a t e . . . t h a th e h a s e v i d e n c e , n o tr e a s o n a b l y d i s c o v e r a b l e a tth e t i me o f tria l, th a t is o f su c h n a tu re th a t itw o u ld b e p ra c tica lly c o n c lu siv e th a t, i f it had bee n intr oduced a ttr i al , i tw oul d have c aus ed a di f f er entr es ul ti n the convi ct i on ors ent ence . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 27( 9) ( Supp. 2009)
. T he St at e does notcl ai m thatthe r es ul t s of t he pol ygr aph t es t s w er e notdi s cover abl e, and the St at e does notdi s put e t hatthe exi s t ence of t he pol ygr aph t es t i ng w as new l y di s cover ed by the def ens e. H ow ever , the St at e mai nt ai ns that U n d e rw o o d is e n title d to n o re lie f, a n d w e a g re e . ¶7. D es pi t e U nderw ood’ s c l ai m thatM r . H arr i s w as decept i ve w hil e being t est ed, the
r es ul t s of

the pol ygr aph exa m i nat i ons w er e “i nconcl us i ve. ” The St at e has produ ced an

### 5

af f i davi tf r om the i nves t i ga t orw ho c on du c t e d the po l yg r a ph e xa mi na t i ons f orthe M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau of

I nves t i gat i on i n 1994. I n thataf f i davi t , t he i nves t i gat ors w ear s that , “I conduct ed tw o pol ygr aph exa m i nat i ons on L i nds ay H arr i s on February 25, 1994, i n connec t i on w i t h t he in v e stig a tio n o f th e m u rd e r o f M r. H a rris’ w ife V irg in ia H a rr is
. . . . B o th p o ly g ra p h tes ts
a d m in is te re d to M r. H a rr is w e re in c o n c lu s iv e a n d d id n o t in d ic a te d e c e p tio n .” ¶8. U nderw ood’ s ent i re cl ai m i s t hat the h usban d’s al l eged decep t i on w oul d have pr ovi ded a ba s i s f

orf ur theri nves t i gat i on orc r os s - exami nat i on w hi ch m i ghtha ve pr oduced
a d iffe re n t re su lt at tria l. C o n tra ry to U n d e rw o o d ’s r e p re se n tatio n , th e p o ly g ra p h tes ts d id
n o ti n d i c a t e d e c e p t i o n o n Ha r r i s ’ s p a r t , wh i c h c o mp l e t e l y n e g a t e s th e p r e s e n tc l a i m. ¶9. M or eover , thi s C our t has r epea t edl y hel d that the r es ul t s of pol ygr aph t es t i ng ar e not
a d m is s ib le in e v id e n c e . W e a th e rs p o o n v. S ta te , 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ) (“ It is w e ll
s ett l ed thatne i therthe f actof the t aki ng of

a pol ygr aph exa m i nat i on northe r es ul t s of s uch
an exa m i nat i on ar e admi s s i bl e i nt o evi dence
. ”) ( quot i ng Ca rrv . S ta te , 655 So. 2d 824, 836 (M is s . 1 9 9 5 ))
. See a l

so G a rr e tt v. S ta te , 5 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ); Mis kel ley v. S ta te , 4 8 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); P en n ing ton v . S ta te , 43 7 S o. 2d 37 , 40 (M i ss. 1 9 8 3 ); Ma ttox v. S ta te , 2 4 0 M iss . 5 4 4 , 5 6 1 , 1 2 8 S o . 2 d 3 6 8 , 3 7 3 (1 9 6 1 ). E v e n if th e S tate had di s cl os ed t o the def ens e al l i nf

or m at i on r el at ed t o M r . H arr i s ’ s pol ygr aph t es t s , none of th a t e v id e n c e c o u ld h a v e re a c h e d th e ju ry . ¶10. I n W

ood v. B ar tholom ew , 516 U
. S. 1, 116 S. C t . 7, 133 L
. E d. 2d 1 ( 1995) , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed a ve ry s i m i l arar gum ent . D w ayne Bar thol om ew w as convi ct ed of

murde ri n the s t at e of W as hi ngt on f

ors hoot i ng a nd ki l l i ng a l aun dr om at

### 6

a tte n d a n t d u ri n g a ro b b e ry . I d. , 516 U
. S. at2. B arthol om ew cl ai m ed thatthe s hoot i ng w as
an ac ci dent , a nd thathi s s i ngl e- act i on r evol verha d di s char ged by ac ci denttw i ce dur i ng t he
ro b b e ry . I

d. at3. A tt r i al , B arthol om ew ’ s brotherand hi s brother ’ s gi r l f r i end t es t i f

i ed that B a rt h o lo m e w a d m itte d in te n ti o n a lly k illin g th e a tte n d a n t s o a s n o t to le a v e a w itn e s s . I d. I n f eder al habea s corpus proc eedi ngs , t he def endantcl ai m ed t hatt he St at e vi ol at ed B r ady by fa ilin g to d is c lo s e p ri o r t o tr ia l th a t p o ly g ra p h te s tin g o f h is b ro th e r i n d ic a te d d e c e p tio n . I d. at4- 5. T he S up rem e C our thel d thatthe def endanthad notbeen de pr i ved of m at er i al
ev iden ce u n d er B r ady , not i ng thatpol ygr aph r es ul t s w er e notadmi s s i bl e underW as hi ngt on law : T he i nf

or m at i on ati s s ue her e, t hen – t he r es ul t s of a pol ygr aph exa m i nat i on of one of the w i tnes s es – i s not“ evi dence ” ata l l
. D i s cl os ur e of the pol ygr aph res ult s, then , cou l d h ave h ad no di rectef fecton the ou t com e of tri al , becau se r es pondentcoul d have made no ment i on of them ei therdur i ng ar gum entor w h ile q u e s tio n in g w itn e s s e s . I d. at6. T he N i nth C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s had found that , al though the pol ygr aph t es t i ng
w as i nadmi s s i bl e, i tm i ghthave l ed t o a ddi t i onal e vi dence thatmi ghtha ve been us ef ul t o the d e fe n d a n t. I

d. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt re jec ted th is r ea so n ing as itw as “ b ase d o n m ere
s pecul at i on. ” I

d. Such i s the ca s e her e. ¶11. T he Supre m e C our tal s o not ed thatB arthol om ew ’ s tr i al couns el acknow l edged that th e p o ly g ra p h re s u lts w o u ld n o t h a v e a ff e c te d th e s c o p e o f h is c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . I d. at7. U nl i ke W

ood , i n the i ns t antcas e, U nderw ood’ s tr i al couns el s w ear s thati f he ha d know n t hat “Li ndsay H arr i s f

ai l ed the f

i r s texami nat i on, [ hi s ] tr i al s tr at egy w oul d have be en much di f f er ent . ” H ow ever , as not ed above , M r . H arr i s di d not“f ai l ” a pol ygr aph exa m i nat i on.

### 7

A n y c laim th a t a n “ in c o n c lu siv e ” p o ly g ra p h re su lt c o u ld h a v e le d to e v id e n c e fa v o ra b le to U nderw ood i s hi ghl y s pecul at i ve; U nderw ood confess ed t hathe s hotthe vi ct i m , and the
m ur de rw e a po n was f ou nd i n h i s c a r . The r e f or e , no tw i ths t a nd i ng the a f f i da vi tf r om U nderw ood’ s tr i al couns el , w e f i nd t hatt he r eas oni ng of the Supr eme C our ti n W ood app l i es. U nderw ood’ s cl ai m f

ai l s beca us e ther e i s no r eas onabl e l i kel i hood thatthe outcom e o f t he tr ial w o u ld h av e b ee n d if feren t i f U n d erw o o d an d h is co u n sel h ad k n o w n o f th e h u sb an d ’s i nco nclusi ve p olygraph tes t s. CO NC L US I ON ¶12. C ontr ary t o U nderw ood’ s as s ert i on, the r es ul t s of the pol ygr aph t es t i ng per f or m ed on M r. H a rris d id n o t in d ic a te d e c e p tio n , an d th u s c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n o f a n y sig n ifica n c e to U nderw oo d’s def

ense ev en in the u nli kely even tthat the incon cl usi ve resul t s could hav e bee n admi t t ed i nt o evi dence
. A s ther e i s no r eas onabl e p robabi l i ty thatthe out come of t he pr ocee di ngs w as af

f ect ed by the St at e’s f

ai l ur e t o di s cl os e the pol ygr aph i nf or m at i on, U nderw ood’ s pr es entm ot i on i s deni ed.
¶ 1 3
. LE AVE TO S EE K P OS T- CONVI CT I ON RE LI EF DE NI ED . W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AN D G RA VE S , P . J J . , DI CKI NS ON , RA ND OL P H, LA M AR, CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE J J . , CONCUR.