Opinion ID: 2629208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brady Violation: Brady v. Maryland

Text: Thomas insists that the State knew, but failed to disclose, that Rembert would not be testifying after the State outlined Rembert's testimony in opening statement and that such a failure is a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). He contends that the trial court erred when it denied his subsequent motion for a mistrial and that his conviction and death sentence should be reversed. The State denies a Brady violation occurred. In Brady, the Supreme Court held the prosecutor's suppression of an accomplice's confession to the murder violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 86, 83 S.Ct. 1194. The rule announced was that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Id. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. Evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); In re Pers. Restraint of Benn, 134 Wash.2d 868, 916, 952 P.2d 116 (1998). In applying this reasonable probability standard, the question is whether the defendant received a fair trial without the evidence that is, a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995); Benn, 134 Wash.2d at 916, 952 P.2d 116. Accordingly, the reasonable probability of a different result is shown when the State's suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 678, 105 S.Ct. 3375. No Brady violation occurs if the defendant could have obtained the information himself through reasonable diligence. Benn, 134 Wash.2d at 916, 952 P.2d 116. Here, the evidencethe knowledge that Rembert refused to testifymust have been requested by Thomas and material to his guilt or punishment for Brady to apply at all. The State closed its case without Rembert's testimony as he refused to testify. It is material only if knowing Rembert would not testify would make it reasonably probable that Thomas would have been found not guilty or not been sentenced to death. Thomas contends that Rembert's testimony was material to Thomas's guilt because the State had listed Rembert as a witness and informed Thomas that Rembert would be testifying pursuant to his plea agreement. The State's opening argument summarized that the evidence would show that Thomas shot Geist in the back of the head from the backseat of the van. At no time did the State allege that Rembert in particular would be testifying as to the events of the night. Thomas believes that the details of the murder and burglary that the State was allowed to present in opening argument, allegedly in reliance on Rembert's testimony, imprinted on the jurors' minds and were left unchallenged. Without Rembert's account of the night, Thomas contends that, based on the evidence adduced at trial, it was just as likely that Rembert shot Geist as it was that Thomas shot Geist. In the first place, it is arguable that knowledge of whether or not a witness will testify can even be characterized as evidence at all. If it is, Thomas is confusing what evidence is subject to the materiality test. He begins by arguing that the content of Rembert's testimony was material and argues that the State received an unfair advantage by being able to discuss Rembert's potential testimony during opening arguments. To the contrary, to meet the Brady test here, Thomas must persuasively argue that mere knowledge of whether or not Rembert would testify would have a reasonable probability of changing the outcome in the case. To that end, Thomas contends that, had he known Rembert would not be testifying, he would have moved for a mistrial earlier, when it would more likely have been granted, changed his strategy for examining witnesses, or developed the defense that the State was taking inconsistent positions on Rembert's complicity in the crime. Br. of Appellant at 112. He claims this is sufficient to violate Brady and CrR 4.7. First, Thomas does not indicate that he requested the information and pursuant to CrR 4.7(a)(1)(i) the State's obligation is to provide a list of witnesses, not a guaranty of who will testify. Second, the tactical changes he claims he would have made had he known earlier that Rembert was not testifying are not part of the equation under Brady. The Brady test focuses on the evidence that was suppressed and its immediate effect on the outcome, in all reasonable probability. Thomas has not shown how his own knowledge of Rembert's refusal to testify would change the jurors' minds as to his guilt beyond noting that the State's comments as to the events of the night were allowed to be left unchallenged. However, Thomas did, in fact, seize his opportunity in his own closing argument to point out to the jury his contention that holes were left in the State's case without Rembert's testimony. Thus, the State's statements were not left unchallenged. Moreover, even if we do consider his potential tactical changes as the evidence in this Brady evaluation, Thomas has failed to show that any of those changes, with any reasonable probability, would lead to a different outcome in his case or that the outcome in his case is unreliable. As a note, the record reflects that Thomas was aware of the possibility that witnesses, especially codefendants, sometimes do not testify, even when it is part of their plea agreement. [4] We find no Brady violation because Thomas has failed to show that the requirements of the Brady test have been met in his case.