Opinion ID: 2800180
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Evidence Was Suppressed

Text: Evidence is “suppressed” where it is known to the State and not disclosed to the defendant. Strickler, 527 U.S. at 282. The State’s duty to disclose is affirmative; it applies “even though there has been no request by the accused.” Id. at 280 (citing United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976)). To satisfy its duty, the State must disclose evidence known to the prosecutor as well as evidence “‘known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor.’” Id. at 280–81 14 COMSTOCK V. HUMPHRIES (citing Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 438 (1995)). Thus, the prosecutor has an obligation “to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in [the] case, including the police.” Id. at 281 (citing Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437). Once the prosecutor acquires favorable information, even if she “inadvertently” fails to communicate it to the defendant, evidence has been suppressed. Id. at 282. The Nevada Supreme Court did not determine if the information in Street’s statement was suppressed because the court failed to make a factual finding regarding what the State knew prior to trial. The court noted that the State disputed Street’s assertion that he had volunteered his recollections to the prosecutor and detective, but the court nevertheless analyzed, albeit briefly, whether the alleged failure to disclose those recollections violated Brady. Thus, the court appears to have assumed that Street’s recollections were suppressed. Had the Nevada Supreme Court made a finding that the State lacked knowledge of Street’s recollections, we would be bound to show deference to that finding. “But the state court made no such finding.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 530 (2003). Had the district court below made a finding regarding the State’s knowledge, we would review it for clear error. Weaver v. Thompson, 197 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1999). But the district court expressly made “no factual finding or holding as to the nondisclosure element.” We therefore review the record de novo. See Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 531. No evidence in the record contradicts Street’s assertion that prior to trial, he provided the State with the same COMSTOCK V. HUMPHRIES 15 information that appeared in his victim impact statement. The Nevada courts did not hold an evidentiary hearing, and the State did not submit any declarations or other evidence (such as a report, transcript, or recording) to contest Street’s assertion. Although the State’s brief in opposition to Comstock’s new trial motion claimed that Street told the State that he did not lose the ring, arguments in briefs are not evidence, see Barcamerica Int’l USA Trust v. Tyfield Imps., Inc., 289 F.3d 589, 593 n.4 (9th Cir. 2002), and the State agreed at oral argument that we need not consider any unsupported factual contentions in its new trial opposition brief. Moreover, if the State’s contentions in its briefs are relevant, they are relevant as admissions. The brief in opposition to Comstock’s new trial motion conceded that when pressed by the prosecutor and detective, Street acknowledged the possibility that he might have misplaced his ring. In its brief to the Nevada Supreme Court, the State again effectively conceded that it had withheld Street’s recollections, arguing that “it [is] not at all clear that what Street told the prosecutor amounts to Brady material” and that “even if the prosecutor tacked a little too close to [the] wind and should have revealed the ‘inconsistent’ statement, Comstock could not have been prejudiced by [the State’s] withholding this information” (emphases added) (citation omitted). Both in the district court below and on appeal here, the State has not disputed Comstock’s contention that information was suppressed. Because the State has not argued that it was unaware of Street’s recollections and has instead consistently taken the position that its failure to disclose those recollections was not prejudicial, we conclude that evidence was suppressed. 16 COMSTOCK V. HUMPHRIES