Opinion ID: 1622782
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: brady violation claim

Text: The defendant's first claim is based on alleged Brady violations. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 [83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215] (1963), holds that the prosecution bears the duty of disclosing to the defense any material exculpatory information in its possession. The United States Supreme Court refined the materiality standard in United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 [96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342] (1976), holding that `(t)he mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish materiality in the constitutional sense. 427 U.S. at 109 [96 S.Ct. at 2400] The Court explained that the proper test was whether the suppressed information creates a reasonable doubt of guilt that did not otherwise exist. The Agurs materiality test was further expanded in a 1985 case, where the court stated: `The 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. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 [105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481] (1985). Applying the above standards, this court's findings are briefly summarized as to each item of evidence or information allegedly withheld by the prosecution:
Even if the State had deliberately withheld the transcript, which is not this Court's finding, this evidence was legally immaterial. The testimony regarding Irene Maxcy's sexual misconduct would have been inadmissible for the purpose of impeaching John Sweet. Furthermore, defense counsel was aware of the allegations concerning Mrs. Maxcy. The testimony regarding the taped phone conversations was also immaterial. The defense possessed a copy of the transcript of Sweet's second trial which contained essentially the same information as the first trial, and Sweet's alleged statement to Irene Maxcy that he did not know a `William Kelley' is rendered irrelevant by Sweet's later testimony that he lied to the police about knowing the defendant.
The defendant never had actual physical possession of this report. However, the defense was aware, from the beginning of the trial, that none of the fingerprints matched the defendant's, and commented upon this fact during the closing argument. Moreover, John Sweet testified that the killer was wearing gloves at the time of the murder.
From the testimony presented at the hearing, it appears likely that the defendant possessed a summary of the police report which, unlike the original full report, did not contain the line about Ms. Carter's identification of the defendant's photograph. The court finds no evidence, however, that the State intentionally or knowingly withheld the original report. Also, this evidence, even if helpful to the defense, was not material. Ms. Carter did pick out the defendant's photograph in 1967 during an investigative interview with police. Moreover, she positively identified a photo of the defendant at Sweet's second trial. Ms. Carter was not asked to make a courtroom identification of the defendant during his trial.
No photographs were deliberately withheld from the defense. The four photos which the defendant alleges would have helped in his defense were not introduced in evidence at trial, but were available for the defendant's inspection upon request. At least one photograph shows what appears to be bloody footprints or smudge marks at the crime scene. This evidence is immaterial, because the three color photographs which were introduced depicted `a great deal of blood', as pointed out by Mr. Kunstler during cross examination. Even more important, the defense argument was contradicted by the testimony of J.C. Murdock, who stated that no bloody footprints were found.
The fact that John Sweet received immunity in both Florida and Massachusetts was well known by defense counsel. Sweet was extensively cross-examined by Mr. Edmund concerning the crimes for which he received immunity in Massachusetts. The court finds no evidence to support the inference that Sweet's Massachusetts immunity was contingent upon his testimony in the defendant's Florida trial.
The court finds that there was no deal or agreement by the State not to call Roma Trulock, the primary investigating officer of the Maxcy murder. The defense could have called Mr. Trulock as a witness and, in fact, his name was included on the list of witnesses for the defense. To summarize the court's findings regarding the defendant's first claim, it agrees with the State that there were no Brady violations. The fingerprint report, the transcript of John Sweet's first trial, and the original 1967 police report were the only items of evidence which the defense did not possess or have access to. The results of the fingerprint report were known to the defense and utilized at trial. The alleged items of exculpatory testimony presented at Sweet's first trial were either known to defense counsel, admitted by Sweet at the defendant's trial, or irrelevant as not involving Sweet, and Kaye Carter's questionable identification of the defendant in 1967 was immaterial.