Opinion ID: 1795704
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: prosecution's alleged failure to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence

Text: Jackson next argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the prosecution failed to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence. Specifically, Jackson points to four police reports in which several members of a drug conspiracy indicated that Donald Hughes, the conspiracy's ringleader, wanted Thornton killed. Thornton apparently owed a large debt to Hughes, and as a result, Hughes ordered Thornton's murder. In the report, Andrew Adams, an inmate at the Douglas County Correctional Center, overhead a telephone conversation between Hughes and an individual named Jason, which is Thornton's first name. An argument ensued during which Hughes demanded repayment of money and threatened Jason. Adams stated that Jason hung up on Hughes. Hughes then retrieved a telephone number from his jail cell and placed a call to an individual identified as Mike, a derivative of Jackson's first name. Adams overheard Hughes direct Mike to go ahead and take care of that business. After getting off the telephone, Hughes allegedly explained to Adams that he had fronted Thornton cocaine which Thornton had refused to pay for. Thornton was shot and killed shortly thereafter. Days later, Hughes and Adams were watching a news report about the shooting death of Thornton, after which Hughes told Adams, I told you that's how I take care of business, I told you he would be buried with it. Jackson argues that the prosecution's failure to disclose these reports violated his right to exculpatory evidence under the Due Process Clause and Nebraska statutory law.