Opinion ID: 772156
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Speculation regarding the discovery of admissible evidence

Text: 42 The district court found, and Paradis concedes, that Notes II were not properly Brady material. The district court further found that Notes I and III would not have been independently admissible evidence at Paradis' trial (presumably because of hearsay problems), and that Notes I might not even have been admissible as impeachment evidence (presumably because of even more hearsay problems). 4 Nonetheless, the court concluded that Notes I and III could have led Paradis' defense team to discover admissible evidence and that they appear[ ] to have put the defense team at a substantial disadvantage in preparing their case. The court ultimately found that Notes I and III were material and that the State's failure to disclose them constituted a Brady violation. 43 The State argues that because the district court based its decision on the bald assertion, unsupported by further analysis, that the notes could have led to the discovery of admissible evidence, the court based its decision on speculation in contravention of Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1 (1995). 44 There is no uniform approach in the federal courts to the treatment of inadmissible evidence as the basis for Brady claims. See generally Felder v. Johnson, 180 F.3d 206, 212 & n.7 (5th Cir. 1999) (discussing various approaches taken by different circuits and collecting cases). Some circuits have held that if evidence is itself inadmissible, then it cannot be material under Brady. See, e.g., Hoke v. Netherland, 92 F.3d 1350, 1356 n.3 (4th Cir. 1996). Others allow that inadmissible evidence can be material under Brady, if it could have led to the discovery of admissible evidence. See, e.g. , Wright v. Hopper, 169 F.3d 695, 703 & n.1 (11th Cir. 1999); Madsen v. Dormire, 137 F.3d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 1998). 45 The Supreme Court has likewise provided little guidance. In Bartholomew, the Court did not categorically reject the suggestion that inadmissible evidence can be material under Brady, if it could have led to the discovery of admissible evidence. The purported Brady material at issue was two previously undisclosed polygraph tests that were inadmissible under applicable state law, even to impeach. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. at 6. This court concluded that the polygraph tests could have led the petitioner to depose the tested witnesses and thereby obtain exculpatory evidence, but the Supreme Court found this to be mere speculation, because the test results were consistent with the witnesses' testimony at trial and with the petitioner's guilt. Id. The Court also rejected the suggestion that the polygraph results might have affected the petitioner's trial counsel's preparation, because counsel had himself testified to the contrary at the evidentiary hearing. Id.at 7. But other than its disapproval of such mere speculation, the Court did not rule out the possibility of basing a Brady claim on inadmissible evidence that could have led to the discovery of admissible evidence. 46 It appears that our Circuit's law on this issue is not entirely consistent. Compare Coleman v. Calderon, 150 F.3d 1105, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 1998), rev'd on other grounds , 525 U.S. 141 (1998), and Kennedy, 890 F.2d at 1059 (To be material under Brady, undisclosed information or evidence acquired through that information must be admissible.  (emphasis added)), and id. at 1060-61 (discussing the admissible evidence that the suppressed information at issue could have led to), with United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470, 1505 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that nondisclosure of inadmissible evidence does not give rise to a Brady violation) (citing Kennedy). 47 The instant case does not require resolution of that possible conflict, however, because under Ninth Circuit law [e]vidence is material if it might have been used to impeach a government witness, because if disclosed and used effectively, it may make the difference between conviction and acquittal. Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 481 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Evidence can be used to impeach a witness even if the evidence is not itself admissible, even to impeach. For example, if Haws' notes record Elliott's hearsay reports of Dr. Brady's hearsay statements, then the notes themselves would not be admissible, even to impeach Dr. Brady. But if Dr. Brady's hearsay statements, reflected in the notes, contradict his in-court testimony, then the notes could be used to impeach Dr. Brady by leading the defense team to call Elliott to testify regarding Dr. Brady's prior inconsistent statements, which, as such, would not be hearsay. 5 48 Because evidence is material if it could have been used to impeach a key prosecution witness sufficiently to undermine confidence in the verdict, the district court's decision must be affirmed. First, although the district court found that Notes III would not have been independently admissible, it did not find that they could not have been used for cross examination. Notes III would have been very useful to Paradis in cross-examining Dr. Brady regarding the labia wound, because they indicated (1) that Dr. Brady saw no evidence of bleeding (evid no bleeding), which is not the same as the lack of evidence of vital reaction that was described in the autopsy report, and (2) that Dr. Brady thought that there was blood, not skin slip, at Palmer's nose and ear, and that the blood could have immediately followed her strangulation. 6 49 Second, disclosure of the fact that there was no evidence of a sexual assault (not sexually assaulted in Notes I, and no gross evid. sex. molest. in Notes III) could have been used to impeach Dr. Brady because it would have freed Brown to cross-examine Dr. Brady regarding the labia wound, an issue that the district court found might have refuted jurisdiction. Dr. Faith testified that Brown did not question Dr. Brady regarding the labia wound because he feared implications of sexual assault. The district court found that the police report given to Brown had actually stated that Palmer was sexually assaulted. The court thus found that the erroneous police report and the nondisclosure of the notes together had a chilling effect on Brown's ability to cross-examine Dr. Brady regarding the labia wound. If Brown had had access to the note not sexually assaulted in Notes I, he could have used this information to enable him to impeach Dr. Brady by cross examining him regarding the labia wound, a cross examination that would have been guided by the impeachment evidence in Notes III. 50 Third, the remainder of Notes I could have been used to impeach Dr. Brady, and the evidentiary hearing itself indicated what admissible evidence could have been discovered if the notes had been disclosed. At the evidentiary hearing, Elliott testified that he saw only a small amount of fluid come out of Palmer's lungs and that at the autopsy Dr. Brady said that he could not tell who had died first. Elliott's testimony, if Paradis had known to ask for it (on the basis of no time of death either and spoonful water in lungs in Notes I), could have directly impeached and undermined Dr. Brady's testimony regarding Palmer's alleged aspiration of water and his opinion that Currier died first. Elliott also testified that it was after the autopsy that he first suggested the idea to Dr. Brady that Palmer had aspirated water and that, at that time, Dr. Brady did not adopt the theory, but said that he would have to check it out. This testimony, had Paradis known to ask for it (on the basis of siphon prob in Notes I), would have undermined the purported scientific basis of the theory by showing that it originated with a police officer rather than a pathologist, was not accepted by Dr. Brady when it was first suggested to him, and was later adopted by Dr. Brady, even though he had received no new medical information. Cf. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 443 (finding an item of undisclosed evidence to be material because it would have destroy[ed] confidence in a witness' story by raising a substantial implication that the prosecutor had coached him to give it). 51 For all of these reasons, the district court was not merely speculating when it concluded that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different if Notes I and III had been disclosed. On the contrary, its conclusion has solid support in the record. Notes III would have been valuable impeachment evidence, part of Notes I would have freed Brown to cross-examine Dr. Brady regarding the labia wound, and the remainder of Notes I would have been useful to impeach Dr. Brady either by cross examination or via Elliott's testimony, as the evidentiary hearing showed.