Opinion ID: 44502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Materiality Standard

Text: The state court alternatively concluded that even if the information was in the possession of the state prosecutor, Smith’s alleged impeachment evidence still would not satisfy Brady’s materiality standard. To satisfy Brady’s materiality standard, Smith must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, had the favorable evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Moon, 285 F.3d at 1308. A reasonable probability of a different result is shown 8 when the government’s evidentiary suppression “‘undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.’” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434, 115 S. Ct. at 1566 (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 678, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3381 (1985)). Smith claims that the state court applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating whether the impeachment evidence was material. We need not resolve that issue because the challenged impeachment evidence so clearly lacked materiality given how minor Sinclair’s role was at trial and given the other overwhelming evidence against Smith. For example, at trial, undercover narcotics detectives Donald Nixon and Robert Cook testified that they made contact with Roland Ball, Smith’s codefendant. Nixon told Ball they wanted to buy forty dollars worth of crack cocaine, and Ball said he could take them to get it. Ball got in the detectives’ car and directed them to a house with a car parked in the driveway. Nixon gave Ball forty dollars in marked money. Ball walked to the car parked in the driveway and got in. Less than a minute later, Ball returned to the detectives’ car with two pieces of crack cocaine. At trial, Ball identified Smith as the man who provided him with drugs and testified that Smith provided him with cocaine in exchange for the money given to him by the undercover detectives. Two blocks away, Officer Sinclair and Detectives Bishop and Van Dyke 9 were given the signal to arrest the individuals involved in the drug transaction. Sinclair testified that he approached the vehicle parked in the driveway and pulled Smith from the vehicle. In searching Smith, he recovered a twenty-dollar bill. Detectives Cook and Nixon both testified that the serial numbers on the money that was recovered from Smith by Sinclair matched the serial numbers on the money that they had given Ball. The jury also heard testimony from Detective Bishop, who testified that he recovered drugs from the car close to where Smith had been sitting, and Detective Van Dyke, who testified that Smith first denied but later admitted that the drugs belonged to him. In sum, given this trial testimony, any failure to disclose the impeachment evidence does not undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial and is thus not material under Brady.2 For all of these reasons, the state court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was it an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. Thus, we affirm the district court’s denial of Smith’s § 2254 petition. AFFIRMED. 2 We also reject Smith’s claim that the district court erred in refusing to grant him an evidentiary hearing. 10