Opinion ID: 2800180
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Evidence Was Favorable

Text: Evidence is “favorable to the accused” for Brady purposes if it is either exculpatory or impeaching. Strickler, 527 U.S. at 281–82. If information would be “advantageous” to the defendant, Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 691 (2004), or “would tend to call the government’s case into doubt,” Milke v. Ryan, 711 F.3d 998, 1012 (9th Cir. 2013), it is favorable. The Nevada Supreme Court did not make a clear determination as to whether Street’s recollections were favorable to Comstock. The court concluded that the 3 The State argues that the portion of Street’s statement regarding his specific recollection of placing his ring down outside pertained to a prior incident, and that Street subsequently retrieved the ring and had it in his possession before Comstock allegedly stole it. The much more natural reading of Street’s statement is that he specifically remembered removing the ring and did not recall having it again before it was recovered at the pawn shop. Otherwise, why would he remark that he did not “remember putting it back on”? Moreover, even if the jury “could have” indulged the State’s strained interpretation of Street’s statement, Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627, 630 (2012), that would not alter our conclusion that the evidence was suppressed in violation of Brady. The nondisclosure of a statement the jury could have—here, likely would have—interpreted as a concrete recollection of the specific incident in which the ring could have been lost undermines confidence in the jury’s verdict. See id. Finally, even if we assume the jury would have adopted the State’s interpretation, Street’s statement would still be Brady evidence, as we discuss infra, because it supported the theory that the ring could have been lost, which would have been materially useful for the defense. COMSTOCK V. HUMPHRIES 13 information in the statement was “mere speculation” that did “not contradict [Street’s] trial testimony or rise to the level of a recantation” and had only “minimal” impeachment value. In so holding, the court may have intended to suggest that Street’s recollections were not favorable. However, whether evidence is favorable is a question of substance, not degree, and evidence that has any affirmative, evidentiary support for the defendant’s case or any impeachment value is, by definition, favorable. See Strickler, 527 U.S. at 281–82. Although the weight of the evidence bears on whether its suppression was prejudicial, evidence is favorable to a defendant even if its value is only minimal. See id.; Milke, 711 F.3d at 1012. Accordingly, Street’s recollections were favorable to Comstock—they impeached Street’s credibility in terms of how he handled his ring, and more importantly, affirmatively cast serious doubt on whether there was a crime in the first place. Any suggestion otherwise in the state court’s decision was contrary to Brady. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Williams, 529 U.S. at 405–06; Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 785 (9th Cir. 2012) (“In the context of a Brady claim, . . . a state court’s use of the wrong standard . . . will result in a decision that is ‘contrary to’ clearly established federal law.”).