# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 23 49

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ch ris to ph er Whit e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Troy Steel e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 9 , 20 17
Fil ed : Ap ril 6, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg e, an d S CHREIER, 1 2

Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1

St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it on Mar ch 1 0

, 2 0 1 7

. He ha s be en

su ccee de d b y

th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.

The Hon or ab le Karen E. Sch rei er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 2

of So ut h Dak ot a, si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.Ch ri sto phe r W hit e w as co nvi cted of fir st -d eg ree m ur de r, arm ed cr im ina l ac tio n,

an d fir st -d eg ree as sa ul t fo ll owi ng a jury tri al in Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t. W hi te

pe ti ti on ed fo r a writ of ha be as co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 54

, arg ui ng th at th e St at e

fai le d to di sc lo se th at a ke y pr os ecu ti on wit ne ss rece iv ed fav or ab le co ns id erat io n in

e x c h a n g e fo r hi s te st im on y

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed W hi te ’s pe ti ti on , an d we 3

affi rm

.

I.

On th e m or ni ng of Ju ne 21

, 20 02

, th ree m en wit h gu ns ap pr oa ch ed th e ho us e

of Fred di e Ch ew. Ch ew dr ew hi s gu n an d fir ed on e sh ot at th e m en

. In res po ns e, th e

men s h o t an d ki ll ed Ch ew. Je ffre y Sh oc kl ey , a fri en d of Ch ew who was pr es en t a t

th e sc en e, la te r id en ti fie d Whi te as o ne of t he sh oo te rs

.

Sh oc kl ey te st ifi ed at W hi te ’s tri al in Ja nu ary 20 04

. At th e ti m e, Sh oc kl ey ha d

st at e fel on y ch arg es pe nd in g ag ai ns t hi m fo r po ss es si on of co cai ne an d un la wfu l us e

of a weap on

. On cro ss -ex am in at io n, Sh oc kl ey ad m it te d th at th es e st at e ch arg es were

pe nd in g. On re-d ire ct

, he te st ifi ed th at he ha d no t rece iv ed a de al fro m th e St at e an d

di d no t ex pe ct to “ ge t an y th in g” in ex ch an ge fo r hi s te st im on y

. The jury fo un d W hi te

gu il ty of al l ch arg es , an d he was s e nt en ced to li fe wit ho ut pa ro le

. Late r, Sh oc kl ey pl ead ed gu il ty to hi s st at e fel on y ch arg es an d rece iv ed a su sp en de d im po si ti on of

se nt en ce an d o ne y ear o f un su pe rv is ed pro ba ti on

.

On di rect ap pe al

, W hi te arg ue d th at a de la y in hi s pr os ecu ti on vi ol at ed hi s rig ht

to a sp ee d y t ria l, th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in ov erru li ng hi s ob jecti on s to th e jury

in st ru ct io ns , an d th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in pr ev en ti ng de fen se co un se l from cro ss

ex am in in g Sh oc kl ey ab ou t whet he r he was ret ur ni ng to hi s ho us e to ob ta in dr ug s to

The Hon or ab le Aud rey G

. F l e i ss ig

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 3

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-se ll . Th e Mi ss ou ri Co ur t o f App eal s af fir m ed W hi te ’s con vi ct io n. Whi te th en fil ed

a m ot io n fo r st at e po st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f wit h th e Mi ss ou ri tri al co ur t un de r Mi ss ou ri

Su pr em e Co ur t Ru le 29 .15

, al le gi ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. The tri al co ur t

de ni ed th e m ot io n, an d t he Mi ss ou ri C ou rt o f App eal s af fir m ed

.

In Feb ru ary 2 00 8, W hi te fil ed a fed eral ha be as pe ti ti on , reas se rti ng th e fo ur

gr ou nd s for rel ie f pr ev io us ly rai se d in th e st at e co ur ts

. Afte r W hi te fil ed hi s hab eas

pe ti ti on , on e of his fe llow pr is on ers , Darryl Sm al lwo od

, pr ov id ed hi m wit h an in te rn al

pu bl ic de fen de r co nf

li ct -o f-i nt eres t fo rm reg ard in g hi s co -d efen da nt

, Ju an e Ken ne ll

. Ken ne ll ’s co un se l ha d writ te n on th e fo rm th at he “ le arn ed th at [Sh oc kl ey ’s co un se l]

ha s ne go ti at ed a de al fo r Je ff Sh oc kl ey to te st if y a g a i n s t [Ken ne ll ]

. . . as well as

p os si bl y an ot he r de fen da nt

, Ch ris to ph er W hi te .” W hi te ’s co un se l th en ob ta i n e d

Sh oc kl ey ’s gu il ty pl ea tra ns cri pt

, whi ch di d no t m en ti on a pl ea ag reem en t bu t whi ch

rev eal ed th at th e St at e h ad pa id to rel oc at e Sh oc kl ey fro m hi s n ei gh bo rh oo d.

On th e ba si s of th e co nf li ct

- o f

- i n te res t fo rm an d th e gu il ty pl ea tra ns cri pt

, W hi te am en de d hi s ha b e a s pe ti ti on in Sep te m be r 20 09

. He ad de d a cl ai m th at th e

St at e vi ol at ed Bra dy v. Mar yl an d

, 37 3 U.S. 83 (1 96 3)

, by fai l i n g t o di sc lo se th e

ex is te nc e of a de al wit h Sh oc kl ey , an d he ad de d a cl ai m th at th e St at e vi ol at ed Na pu e

v. Ill in oi s , 36 0 U.S. 26 4 (1 95 9)

, by fai li ng to co rrec t Sh oc kl ey ’s te st im on y th at he di d

no t rece iv e a de al

. W hi te al so m ai nt ai ne d hi s sp eed y tri al an d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce
cl ai m s bu t ab an do ne d hi s ot he r two cl ai m s. By affi da vi t, W hi te as se rte d th at he ha d

rece iv ed th e co nf

li ct -o f-i nt eres t fo rm

in Jan ua ry

20 09

.

The di st ric t co u r t h e l d th at W hi te ’s Bra dy an d Na pu e cl ai m s were no t ti m eba rred un de r th e Ant it erro ris m an d Effect iv e Deat h Pen al ty Act of 19 96 (“ AEDPA”)

be cau se th ey were br ou gh t wit hi n on e y ear of Ja nu ary 20 09

, whi c h th e co ur t

de t e r mi n e d w a s “ th e da te on whi ch th e fact ua l pr ed ic at e of th e cl ai m or cl ai m s

pr es en te d co ul d ha ve be en di sc ov ered th ro ug h th e ex erci se of du e di li ge nc e.” Se e 28

-3

-U.S.C. § 22 44 (d )(1 )(D). Nev ert he le ss , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed W hi te ’s am en de d

pe ti ti on , ho ld in g t ha t al l o f W hi te ’s cla im s fa il ed on th e m eri ts

.

W hi te ti m el y fil ed a m ot io n to al te r or am en d th e jud gm en t, co nt en di ng th at hi s

h ab eas pe ti ti on was de ni ed be fo re he ha d co m pl et ed di sc ov ery o n hi s Bra dy c l a i m.

As a res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d W hi te an ev id en ti ar y h eari ng

. Dur in g th e
he ari ng , W hi te an d Sm al lwo od bo t h men t i on ed th at Sm al lwo od ha d gi ve n th e

co nf li ct -o f-i nt eres t fo rm to W hi te in 20 07 or 20 08

. Sh oc k l e y’s f o rm er de fen se

co un se l, Ro be rt Taaffe

, te st ifi ed th at he ne ve r ob ta in ed a pl ea ag reem en t fo r Sh oc kl ey

an d th at th ere was no “ se cret d e a l

. ” R a t he r, he ex pl ai ne d th at aro un d th e ti m e th e

co nf li ct -o f-i nt eres t fo rm w a s d a t e d

, th e St at e ha d m ad e an of fer to Sh oc kl ey , bu t

Sh oc kl ey de cl in ed th e of

fer be cau se it req ui red hi m to te st ify ag ai ns t hi s br ot he r in

an ot he r cas e. Nev ert he le ss , ba se d on hi s no te s fro m th e t i me he rep res en te d

4

Sh oc kl ey , Taaffe su gg es te d th at th e pr os ecu to r in W hi te ’s cas e “ hi nt ed at a no ll e,”

m e a n i n g t h at th e ch arg es wou ld be di sm is se d. The pr os ecu to r al so te st ifi ed an d

un eq ui vo cal ly den ie d m ak in g a ny suc h h in t.

Afte r th e h eari ng , th e St at e d is cl os ed ex pe ns e reco rd s sh owi ng th at , in 20 02

, th e St . Lou is Cir cu it Att or ne y ’s Vict im Serv ic es Uni t h ad pa id for Sh oc kl ey to st ay

at a ho te l fo r on e week an d la te r pa id hi m jus t ov er $1 ,00 0 to he lp hi m rel oc at e to an

ap art m en t in an ot he r ne ig hb or ho od

. Des pi te th is ad di ti on al ev id en ce, th e di st ric t

co ur t den ie d W hi te ’s m ot io n to al te r or am en d t he jud gm en t. On ce ag ai n, t he co ur t

he ld th at W hi te ’s Br a d

y an d Na pu e cl ai m s fai le d on th e m eri ts

, bu t it is su ed a

cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on th e two cla im s.

Sh oc kl ey ad m it te d th at at so m e po in t he ag reed to te st ify ag ai ns t hi s br ot he r, 4

bu t he de ni ed th at he di d so in or de r t o rece iv e fav or ab le tre at m en t on hi s own ch arg es

.

-4

-II.

On ap pe al

, W hi te arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s Bra dy an d

Na pu e cl ai m s. The St at e res po nd s th at W hi te ’s cl ai m s are ti m e-b arre d, pr oc ed ur al ly

de fau lt ed

, an d wit ho ut m er i t

. “ On ap pe al of a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a § 22 54

pe ti ti on , we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact f o r c l ear erro r an d it s

co nc lu si on s of la w de no vo .” W ri gh t v. Bow er

so x , 72 0 F.3 d 97 9, 98 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ).

A.

Th e St at e fir st arg ue s th at W hi te ’s Bra dy an d Na pu e cl ai m s are ba rre d b y

AEDPA’ s on e-year st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. Tha t pr ov is io n req ui res a ha be as pe ti ti on er

to rai se cl ai m s wit hi n on e y ear of “ th e da te on whi ch th e fact ua l pr ed ic at e of th e cl ai m

or cl ai m s pr es en te d co ul d ha ve be en di sc ov ered th ro ug h t h e e xe rci se of du e
di li ge nc e.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (d )(1 )(D). W hi te rai se d hi s Bra dy an d Na pu e cl ai m s in

hi s am en de d pe ti ti on in Sep te m be r 20 09

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at th e pe ti ti on

was ti m el y be cau se it fo un d t h a t W hi te di sc ov ered th e co nf li ct -o f-i nt eres t fo rm in

Ja nu ary 20 09

. It ba se d th is fin di ng on W hi te ’s affi da vi t sta ti ng th at he rece iv ed th e

fo rm in Jan ua ry

20 09

.

The St at e co nt en ds th at W hi te ’s affi da vi t is refu te d by th e su bs eq ue nt

ev id en ti ary he ari ng , in whi ch he an d Sm al l w o o d bo th te st ifi ed th at W hi te rece iv ed

th e fo rm in ei th er 20 07 or 20 08

. Howev er, th es e st at em en ts al on e do no t pr ov e th at

th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng was cl earl y erro ne ou s. Neit he r W hi te no r Sm al lwo od

rem em be red th e ex act da te th at W hi te rece iv ed th e fo rm

. In fact

, W hi te al so te st ifi ed

th at he rece iv ed it aft er he fil ed hi s or ig in al ha be as pe ti ti on

. Bec au se he fil ed th at

p e t i ti on on Feb ru ary 29

, 20 08

, th is m ean s he co ul d no t ha ve rece iv ed th e fo r m i n

20 07

. Mo reo ve r, as th e St at e ack no wled ge s, Sm al lwo od ’s te st im on y was

in co ns is te nt , and he ad m it te d t o l y in g a bo ut who ga ve hi m th e fo rm

.

-5

-At m os t, it is un cl ear whe n W hi te rece iv ed th e fo rm

. Bu t ev en whe re we ha ve

reas on to do ub t co m

pl ia n c e wit h th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns , we m ay pr oc eed to th e

m eri ts in th e in te res t of jud ic ia l eco no m y

. Se e Sh el to n v. Pur ket t

, 56 3 F.3 d 40 4, 40 7
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ [I]ns te ad of rem an di ng fo r fu r t h e r de ve lo pm en t of th e

no n- juri sd ic ti on al st at ut e of li m it at io ns de fen se , we pr oc eed di rect ly to th e m eri ts of

Sh el to n’s ha be as co rp us pe ti ti on .”); Tr us se ll v. Bow er so x , 44 7 F.3 d 58 8, 59 0 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 ) (h ol di ng th at ev en th ou gh “ [i]t is do ub tfu l th at Trus se ll fil ed hi s pe ti ti on wit hi n

th e on e-year li m it at io ns pe rio d

. . . we sh al l, in th e in te res t of jud i c i a l eco no m y ,
pr oc eed to th e m eri ts of Trus se ll ’s pe ti ti on ”). Acco rd in gl y , we pr oc eed to ad dr es s th e

m eri ts of Whi te ’s cla im s. 5

B.

“ Und er Bra dy v

. M

a r y la nd

, ‘sup pr es si on by th e pr os ecu ti on of ev id en ce

fav or ab le to an accu se d

. . . vi ol at es du e pr oc es s whe re th e ev id en ce is m at eri al ei th er

to gu il t or to pu ni sh m en t

, irr es pe ct iv e of th e go od fai th or ba d fai th of th e

pr os ecu ti on .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Pen dl et on , 83 2 F.3 d 93 4, 94 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng

Bra dy

, 37 3 U.S. at 87 ). “ [E]vid en ce is m at eri al if t h e r e i s a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y
th at

, ha d th e ev id en ce be en di sc lo se d to t h e d e f e n s e , th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g

wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Key s , 72 1 F.3 d 51 2, 52 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )
(q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. “ A reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y of a di ffer en t resu lt is sh own whe n

th e go ve rn m en t’s fai l u r e to di sc lo se un de rm in es co nf id en ce in th e ou tc om e of th e

Lik ewis e, al th ou gh th e St at e arg ue s th at W hi te ’s cl ai m s ha ve be en 5

pr oc ed ur al ly de fau lt ed

, we de cl in e to ad dr es s th is is su e. Se e Dod ge v. Rob in so n , 62 5
F.3 d 10 14

, 10 17 n.1 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 0 ) (“ Si nc e we can di sp os e of bo th cl ai m s on th e

m eri t s , w e d o no t ad dr es s th e is su e of pr oc ed ur al de fau lt .”); se e al so 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (b )(2 ) (“ An ap pl ic at io n fo r a writ of ha be as co rp u s may be de ni ed on th e

m eri ts

, no twi th st an di ng th e fai lu re of th e ap pl ic an t to ex ha us t th e rem ed ie s av ai la bl e in th e co ur ts of t he Sta te .”).

-6

-tri al .” Uni te d St at es v. Jea np ie rr e , 63 6 F.3 d 41 6, 42 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on

om it te d)

.

Bra dy ’s di sc lo su re m an da te ex te nds to “ ag re em en ts or un de rs ta nd in gs be twee n

th e go ve rn m en t an d a wit ne ss fo r le ni en cy in ex ch an ge fo r te st im on y .” Uni te d St at es

v. Rus hi ng , 38 8 F.3 d 11 53

, 11 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (ci ti ng Gig li o v. Uni te d St at es , 40 5

U.S. 15 0, 15 4- 55 (1 97 2) ). And

, un de r Na pu e v. Ill in oi s , “ a St at e m ay no t kn owi ng ly

us e fal se ev id en ce, in cl ud in g fal se te st im on y , to ob ta in a ta in te d co nv ic ti on .” Na pu e , 36 0 U.S. at 26 9.

1.

The di st ric t co ur t f

o un d “ fro m a rev ie w of th e ev id en ce, an d aft er ha vi ng an

op po rtu ni ty to ob se rv e th e de m ean or of t he wit ne ss es at t he ha be as he ari ng , th at no

fo rm al or ta ci t a gr eem en t ex is te d be twee n th e st at e an d Sh oc kl ey .” Not hi ng in th e

reco rd su gg es ts th at th is fact ua l fi nd in g was cle arl y erro ne ou s.

At th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Ken ne ll ’s c o un se l te st ifi ed th at th e no ta ti on he

m ad e on hi s co nf

li ct

- o f

- i n te res t fo rm m ay ha ve m ean t on ly th at Taaffe to ld hi m

“ we’re tryin g to ne go ti a t e a pl ea ag reem en t.” Taaffe ve rif ie d th at he di d try to

ne go ti at e a pl ea ag reem en t an d th at Sh oc kl ey rece iv ed a pl ea of fer. Howev er,
Sh oc kl ey reject ed th e of

fer, an d we do “ no t req ui re di sc lo su re of reject ed pl ea of fers ;

th e du ty to di sc lo se is de pe nd en t u p o n t he ex is te nc e of an ag reem en t be twee n th e
wit ne ss an d t he go ve rn m en t.” Rus hi ng , 38 8 F .3d at 1 15 8.

In ad di ti on , al th ou gh Taaffe te st ifi ed th at th e pr os ecu to r “ hi nt ed at a no ll e,” he

cl ari fie d th at he di d no t be li ev e th at a “ se cret de al ” ex is te d. The p r o s e cu to r

st ead fas tl y de ni ed m ak in g an y su ch hi nt

, an d th e co ur t fo un d hi s te st im on y cred ib le

. Mo reo ve r, th ere was no “ no ll e. ” Th e p r o s ecu ti on di d no t di sm is s th e ch arg es aft er
Sh oc kl ey te st ifi ed at W hi te ’s tri al

, a n d Ta a f fe di d no t m en ti on an y co nt rary

-7

-u n d e r s t an di ng at se nt en ci ng

. Rat he r, Taaffe st res se d to th e se nt en ci ng jud ge th a t

th ere was “ no ag reem e nt ” an d “ no qu id pr o qu o” in ex ch an ge fo r Sh oc kl ey ’s

te st im on y ag ai ns t Whi te

.

Wh i t e al so po in ts ou t th at Sh oc kl ey reac he d an ag reem en t wit h th e St at e t o

te st ify ag ai ns t hi s br ot he r in an un rel at ed cas e, an d he arg ue s th at th e jury sh ou ld ha ve
he ard ab ou t th is ag reem en t be cau se it wou ld de m on st rat e Sh oc kl ey ’s wil li ng ne ss to

m ak e an y de al to st ay ou t of pr is on

. Howev er, th ere is no ev id en ce reg ard in g an y of

th e te rm s of th is ag reem en t. Dur in g th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , Sh oc kl ey ad m it te d th at

he ag reed to te st ify ag ai ns t hi s br ot he r, bu t he de ni ed th at he di d so in or de r to rece iv e

an y th in g in ret ur n. Rat he r, he in si st ed th at hi s bro th er had in st ru ct ed hi m to te st ify.

In su m , th e di st ric t cou rt d id no t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t Sho ck le y rece iv ed

no hi nt

, de al

, or ag reem en t pr om is in g fav or ab le co ns id e r a t i o n in ex ch an ge fo r hi s

te st im on y ag ai ns t ei th er W hi te or hi s br ot he r. W it ho ut an y su ch ag reem en t, th ere is

no th in g th at th e St at e co ul d ha ve su pp res se d. As a res ul t, th e St at e al so co ul d no t

ha ve kn owi ng ly us ed fal se te st im on y , be cau se Sh oc kl ey ’s te st im on y th at he di d no t

rece iv e a de al or ex p e c t to “ ge t an y th in g” was no t fal se

. In de ed

, wit ho ut a hi nt or
de al

, ev en if S ho ck le y

di d e xp ect to ge t s om et hi ng , th e St at e co ul d no t hav e kn own

of Sh oc kl ey ’s ex pe ct at io n. Acco rd in gl y , th e St at e di d no t vi ol at e Bra dy or Na pu e by

fai li ng to di sc lo se an ag reem en t t ha t d id no t ex is t.

2.

The di st ric t co ur t as su m ed th at th e fi na nc ia l as si st an ce pr ov id ed to Sh oc kl ey

f o r st ay in g in a ho te l fo r on e week an d rel oc at in g to an ot he r ap art m en t was Bra dy

m at eri al th at sh ou ld ha ve be en di sc lo se d. Lik ewis e, we as su m e wit ho ut de ci di ng th at

th is fin an ci al as si st an ce was su bjec t to Bra dy ’s di sc lo su re m an da te

. Nev ert he le ss , th e

fai lu re to di sc lo se th is fin an ci al as si st an ce di d no t vi ol at e Bra dy be cau se it do es no t

un de rm in e co nf

id en ce i n t he ve rd ic t.

-8

-At th e ev id en ti ary h eari ng , S ho ck le y ex pl ai ne d th at th e p o l i ce m ov ed hi m to

th e ho te l be cau se he ha d be en rece iv in g th reat s. He al s o t e s t i f i ed th at he rece iv ed

fo od vo uc he rs bu t th at he di d no t kn ow who pa id fo r ei th er th e ho te l or th e vo uc he rs

an d th at he ne ve r rece i v e d c a sh or an y th in g el se of va lu e. The as si st an ce wit h

rel oc at in g to a ne w ap art m en t was no t d i s c u ss ed at th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , bu t at

Sh oc kl ey ’s s en te nc in g, Taaffe ex pl ai ne d to th e se nt en ci ng jud ge th at “ [h ]is li fe ha s
be en th reat en ed ” an d t ha t t he St at e “ m ov ed hi m ” so th at “ he ’s ou t o f th at ele m en t.”

W hi te co nt en ds th at we fo un d a Bra dy vi ol at io n in si m il ar ci rcu m st an ces in

Uni te d St at es v. Li br ac h

, bu t th at cas e in vo lv ed cas h pa y m en ts t h a t p r o vi de d th e
wit ne ss wit h an in cen ti ve to te st ify. Se e 52 0 F.2 d 55 0, 55 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 75 ) (“ W e ha ve

no do ub t th at ev id en ce of pa y m en ts of ne arl y $1 0,0 00 to a wit ne ss in ci rcu m st an ces

pr ov id in g hi m an in cen ti ve to ch an ge hi s t es ti m on y is fav or ab le an d m at eri al to th e
de fen se

. . . . ” )

. Here, th ere is no ev id en ce th at th is fin an ci al as si st an ce pr ov id ed

Sh oc kl ey wit h an in cen ti ve to te st ify. Rat he r th an cas h, Sh o c k l e y rece iv ed a ho te l

st ay , fo od vo uc he rs , an d as si st an ce m ov in g ou t o f a n e i g hb or ho od whe re he was

rece iv in g th reat s. Sh oc kl ey rece iv ed th is as si st an ce in 20 02

, an d W hi te ’s tri al di d no t

oc cu r un ti l Ja nu ary 20 04

. Fu rth erm or e, Sh oc kl ey te st ifi ed th at he di d no t kn ow who

pa id for th is as si st an ce an d th at , i n an y cas e, he was m ot iv at ed to tes ti fy in ord er t o

ge t “ rev en ge ” fo r hi s fr ie nd Ch ew’s de at h.

Mo reo ve r, as th e di st ric t co ur t no te d, di sc lo su re of th is as si st an ce ac t u a l l y

co ul d ha ve hu rt W hi te ’s de fen se a t tri al

. Sp eci fic al ly, ev id en ce th at Sh oc kl ey

rece iv ed th reat s co ul d h a v e i n v i te d te st im on y or sp ecu la ti on by t he jury th at W hi te

ha d ur ge d in di vi du al s to ha rm Sh oc kl ey to pr ev en t hi m fro m te st ifyin g. Und er th es e
ci rcu m st an ces , we de te ct no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si o n th at th is

no nd is cl os ur e do es no t un de rm in e co nf id en ce in th e ve rd ic t. Acco rd in gl y , th e St at e
di d n ot vi ol at e Bra dy by fail in g t o d is cl os e th is fin an ci al ass is ta nc e.

-9

-III.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e de ni al of W hi te ’s pe ti ti on fo r ha be as

co rp us

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-