Opinion ID: 1009453
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tracy Turner

Text: Turner testified that Bramblett made several incriminating statements about the Hodges murders. These statements came to light during a series of meetings between Turner and Agent Barry Keesee of the Virginia State Police. During state habeas proceedings, the State for the first time disclosed notes that Agent Keesee had taken of his first conversation with Turner. Bramblett claims that these notes were materially exculpatory and should have been disclosed prior to trial. Bramblett also contends, based on a post-trial affidavit by Turner, that an agreement existed between Turner and the State regarding the benefits Turner would obtain by testifying against Bramblett.14 Even if Bramblett can establish cause to excuse his default of this claim, there is no reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different if the suppressed documents had been disclosed to the defense. Id. at 289 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Keesee notes pertain to incriminating statements made to Turner by Bramblett, and are thus not exculpatory—much less materially so —in and of themselves. And, while Bramblett maintains that the notes are valuable for impeachment purposes because there are inconsistencies between the Keesee notes, Turner’s testimony, and Turner’s notes, he fails to explain what these inconsistencies are and how they are material to the issue of guilt or innocence. Further, the alleged agreement between Turner and the State—assuming for purposes of decision that it actually existed—is not material in light of the weakness of Turner’s testimony. Even without evidence of the agreement, the jury knew that Turner had been convicted of numerous offenses involving dishonesty and that Turner’s testimony was inconsistent 14 Additionally, Bramblett complains that the State did not timely disclose Turner’s criminal history, transcripts of taped conversations between Turner and Agent Keesee, and Turner’s notes of his conversations with Bramblett. However, the record establishes—and Bramblett does not dispute—that counsel received these materials in time to use them at trial. That is all that Brady requires. 18 BRAMBLETT v. TRUE with the medical evidence regarding the order in which the Hodgeses were killed. And, on cross-examination defense counsel raised the possibility that Turner was testifying against Bramblett in hopes of regaining his status as a prison trustee. Although this attack would certainly have carried more weight if counsel had known about the existence of an agreement between Turner and the State, there is no reasonable probability that such additional weight would have persuaded the jury to reach a different result.