Opinion ID: 692054
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Randy Newell's Statements

Text: 135 The last pieces of evidence at issue are Mr. Newell's statements to various law enforcement personnel. Although it does not appear a specific request for these statements was made, the State does not dispute its obligation to produce a witness' prior statements. The state post-conviction court found [r]eports indicate statements were taken from Newell which statements were not in the files of the District Attorney, were not examined by the District Attorney, and which have never been located or verified as existing or as to content. The magistrate judge did not expressly address the merits of this claim, stating only: 136 Petitioner ... contends that much of the evidence marshalled by the Torrence [sic] County law enforcement, such as ... statements made by Newell, were material and exculpatory and should have been disclosed.... The Bernalillo County investigation superseded the preliminary one of Torrence [sic] County. The Torrence [sic] County tapes were not part of that investigation. 137 Thus, the magistrate judge seemed to erect a wall between the two local investigations, notwithstanding the fact they were both state entities and that the prosecuting office was aware that both entities were involved in investigating this case. 138 The State attempts to defend the nondisclosure of these statements by arguing its open file policy, and further, that [t]he prosecution apparently did not have possession of or use the supposed statements during the trial or for purposes of investigation. We have previously noted why the State's reliance on the open file policy is misplaced. As an aside, the issue of Mr. Newell's statements presents a perfect example of the inadequacy of an open file policy with respect to the prosecution's obligations under Brady: the state postconviction court found that Mr. Newell's statements were not even in the file. 139 Furthermore, even assuming the prosecution did not know about these statements, 48 it is clear the various law enforcement personnel did. Accordingly, their knowledge is again imputed to the prosecuting attorneys for Brady purposes. The prosecution's alleged nonuse or lack of possession of these statements is an attempt by the State to alter the relevant inquiry. It remains undisputed the law enforcement personnel possessed these statements, and this is what is important, not whether the prosecution did or did not use or possess the statements. 140 Moreover, these statements are again evidence favorable to Mr. Smith as impeachment evidence relative to Mr. Newell's credibility. For the same reasons espoused above, we believe the failure to disclose these statements, when taken in conjunction with the other nondisclosures, undermines our confidence in the outcome of this case. 141 In sum, we hold the cumulative 49 effect of the prosecution's nondisclosures undermines our confidence in the outcome of the trial. We perceive the primary cause for these nondisclosures to be a lack of communication between various law enforcement agencies of the State of New Mexico, rather than a deliberate suppression of evidence. Nonetheless, the prejudice resulting from the prosecution's failure to coordinate the various investigations in this case cannot be allocated to the defendant when his constitutional right to a fair trial lies in the balance. [T]he existence of any small piece of evidence favorable to the defense may, in a particular case, create just the doubt that prevents the jury from returning a verdict of guilty. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 693, 105 S.Ct. at 3389 (Marshall, J., dissenting); see also Robinson, 39 F.3d at 1119. While some of this evidence, standing alone, may seem somewhat trivial, in the context of the entire record in this case, we believe the disclosure of all of this evidence might have led to a different result. In short, our confidence in the result of the retrial has been sufficiently undermined to warrant relief in this case. 142 Almost all of the nondisclosed evidence was relevant to Mr. Smith's attempt to demonstrate why Randy Newell had as much reason to have committed these murders as did Mr. Smith. The nondisclosure of this evidence altered and affected Mr. Smith's preparation and presentation of his defense at trial. The fact that the prosecution's case was entirely circumstantial, coupled with the fact that the jury in Mr. Smith's first trial was unable to reach a unanimous decision, creates a reasonable probability the result of the proceeding would have been different had this evidence been disclosed to the jury. Prosecutor Virginia Ferrara even expressed her skepticism at whether a conviction would have been possible if this evidence had been disclosed. E.g., Bowen, 799 F.2d at 610 (recognizing the relevance of the prosecutor's own views as to the effect the evidence would have had on the ability to convict). Therefore, we find Mr. Smith has sustained his burden of establishing he was denied a fair trial under Brady. 50