The Honorable R. L eon Jordan, Senior United States District Judg e for the Easter

n District * of Tenne ssee, sitting by

designation. NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON

Fi l e N ame: 09a0527n. 06 N o. 08- 3411 UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT FREDRI CK HA LL, ) ) P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, ) ) ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE v . ) UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT ) COURT F OR THE S OUTHERN HAR RY RU S S E L L , Wa r d e n , ) DI S T RI CT OF OHI O ) R es pondent
- A ppel l ee. )
B efor e: CL AY and ROGERS , C irc u it Ju d g e s; J ORDAN , D i s t r i ctJ udge. *

LE ON J ORDAN , D i s t r i ctJ udge. Pet i t i oner Fr edr i ck H al l appea l s t he di s tr i ct
cour t ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C
. § 2254 pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . Fort he r eas ons t h a tf o l l o w, we a f

f i r m. I. I n 1999, an O hi o j uryconvi ct ed H al l of fe l oni ous assa u ltand att empt ed
m u rd e r. T h e c h a rg e s p e rta in e d to th e sh o o tin g s o f K e v in D a v is a n d Jo h a n n H a rt. L ol i t a M oor e and J i m m i e M art i n cl ai m t o have at l eas t par t i al l yw i t nes s ed the
s hoot i ngs . B ot h w er e i nterview ed att he s cene byr es pondi ng O ffi cerSt ephen Fr om hol d. A c c o rd in g to M o o re , sh e a n d M a rtin to ld p o lice th a t th e sh o ts c a m e f ro m a m o v in g v e h icleHall’s first trial ended in a mistrial for reasons unrelated to the proof. 1 Citi ngyear s of drugabuse, Martin is una ble to recall whether hewas taken to the police 2 statio n th at ni ght. 2 cont ai ni ng t hr ee c l ean- s haven mal es i n t hei rear l ytw ent i es . T hatver s i on contr adi ct s t he t es t i m onyof the vi ct i m s , bot h of w hom i dent i fi ed pet i t i oner( m i ddl e- aged, notcl ean- s haven,
an d sitti n g in a s tat ion aryca r) as the irsh o o ter.

A l t hough s ubpoenae d byboth s i des , nei t herM oor e norM arti n test i fi ed at ei t herof pet i t i oner ’ s t r i al s . H al l w as aw ar e of the cont entof M oor e and M art i n’ s pot ent i al 1 tes tim o n y , h o w e v e r, b e c a u se h is a tto rn e yc ro ss -e x a m in e d O f f ice r F ro m h o ld e x ten siv e ly du ri ng t he fir stt ri al regar ding t ho se w i t nesses’ i den t i t i es and o ral st at em ents .

S oo n afterH al l ’s con vict i on , d e f e n se coun sel l ocated M oo re vi a an arres t
r ecor ds sea rch
. H al l t hen l earned of M oor e’ s cl ai m thataft erthe s hoot i ng bot h s he and M ar t i n w er e t aken t o t he pol i ce st at i on w her e each pr oduced a handw r i t t en s t at ement . T he 2 pol i ce de nyt he exi s t ence of t hos e docum ent s , ort hatt he tw o w i t nes s es w er e eve reven t aken t o t he s t at i on. N o w r i t t en s t at ementbyM oor e orM art i n w as turned overt o t he def ens e. A l l egi ng i n par tt hatt he purpor t ed w i t hhol di ng of M oor e and M art i n’ s w r i t t en
s t at ement s vi ol at ed B r ady v. Mar yland , 373 U
. S. 83 ( 1963) , H al l m oved for a new t r i al
. T hat
m ot i on w as deni ed. T he C our t of A ppeal s of O hi o s ubs equent l y aff i r m ed t h e c o nvi ct i on, S ta te v . H

a ll , No. C- 9 9 0 6 3 9 , 2 0 0 0 W L 1 1 6 2 0 0 0 ( Ohi o Ct
. App
. Aug
. 1 8 , 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d t he S u p re m e C o u rt o f

O h io d e n ied lea v e to a p p e a l.3 H al l t hen fi l ed hi s pet i t i on forhabea s r el i ef, cont i nui ng t o al l ege a B r ady vi ol at i on. T he di s t r i ct cour t di r ect ed t he m agi s t r at e j udge t o conduct an evi dent i aryhear i ng on t hati s s ue. T he di s t r i ct cour ts ubs equent l yadopt ed the magi s t r at e j udge’ s s uppl ement al
re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n d en y ing th e h a b e a s p e titio n . H all v. Moo re , N o. 1: 02- C V
- 00034, 2 0 0 8 W L 5 6 5 7 8 8 (S .D . O h io F e b
. 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 ). A c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty w a s issu e d o n ly
w i t h r es pectt o t he B r ady c l a i m. II.

In a hab eas p roceeding, w e revi ew a dis t ri ct cou rt ’s l egal conclusi on s de novo
a n d its f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r. Mi l l erv. W ebb , 3 8 5 F . 3 d 6 6 6 , 6 7 1 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). Fur t h er, H all ’ s appl i cat i on cannotbe gr ant ed w i t h r es pectt o anycl ai m adj udi cat ed on the
m er i t s i n a s t at e courtpr ocee di ng unl es s the adj udi cat i on: (1 ) re su lted in a d e c isio n th a t w a s c o n tra ryto , o r in v o lv e d a n u n re a so n a b le 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 h e d F e d e r a l l a w, a s d e t e r mi n e d b yth e S u p r e me C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ; or ( 2) r es ul t ed i n a deci s i on t hat w as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of t he fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n t he St at e courtpr ocee di ng. 2 8 U . S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 (d). III .

T o es t abl i s h a B r ady vi ol at i on, H all m u s ts how : ( 1) t hatt he pr os ecut i on wi l l f u l l y o ri n a d v e r t e n t l ys u p p r e s s e d e v i d e n c e ; ( 2 ) th a tth e e v i d e n c e wa s f a v o r a b l e t o h i m;
a n d (3 ) t h a t th e e v id e n c e w a s m a te ri a l. Str i cklerv. G r eene , 5 2 7 U . S
. 2 6 3 , 2 8 1 -82 (19 9 9 ).4

T o s at i s fyt he mat er i al i t ypr ong, H al l m us t d em o n st r at e “a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hatt he
s uppr es s ed evi dence w oul d have pr oduced a di ffe r entver di ct . ” I d. at281. T he s t at e appe l l at e courtaddr es s ed and r ej ect ed the mat er i al i t yel ementof Ha l l ’ s c l a i m. B as ed upon M oor e’ s aff i davi t , w e hol d thathert es t i m onyw oul d not have be en excul pat or y , butw oul d have be en cumul at i ve evi den ce r egar di ng t he co n fli cti n g iden ti fica ti o n o f th e n u m b er o f p erso n s inside the H o n d a A cc o rd and t he i dent i fi cat i on of H al l as the dr i verof thatvehi cl e. M oor e w as l i s t ed as a w itn e ss b yth e sta te, w a s s u b p o e n a e d b yb o th p a rties , b u t w a s n o t ca lled to t es t i fybyei t herpar t y . Si nce H al l fai l ed t o cal l M oor e as a w i t ness , t o s eek a cont i nuance , ort o pr offe rM oor e' s expec t ed t es t i m ony , H al l cannotcl ai m that th e d isc o v e ryo f

th is w itn e ss p ro v id e d th e b a sis f o r a n e w trial. S ta te v . H

a ll , 2 0 0 0 W L 1 1 6 2 0 0 0 , at * 3
. T h a t d e c isio n w a s n o t b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e f a c ts n o r w a s it c o n tr a ry to , o r a n u n re a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n o f , B r ady. Fur t herm or e, att r i al , H al l w as aw ar e of M oor e and M art i n’ s i dent i t i es and the cont entof thei rpot ent i al t es t i m ony . A l t hough t he s t at e courtdi d notdi s t i ngui s h betw een the
or al and w r i t t en s t at ement s , i tw as nonethel es s r eas onabl e t o concl ude thatH al l had the abi l i t yt o obt ai n al l of the i nform at i on cont ai ned i n the evi dence he now cl ai m s w as
s uppr es s ed. T her e i s no B r ady vi ol at i on w her e the def ens e knew ors houl d have know n of t he exc ul pat or yi nform at i on, orw her e the di s put ed evi dence w as avai l abl e fr om another
s o u rc e . S e e C o e v . B e ll , 1 6 1 F . 3 d 3 2 0 , 3 4 4 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ).

W e ther efor e AF F I RM the deni al of habe as r el i ef.