Opinion ID: 273485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Capes' Perjury Conviction

Text: 10 Contrary to the State's contention, Ingram is not required to show a deliberate suppression of Capes' record of conviction in order to support his claim that he was denied a fair trial. The question is whether the defendant was deprived of an effective defense because the critical information was unavailable to counsel at the trial. It is immaterial that this unavailability may have been occasioned by the prosecutor's error in misnaming the prosecuting witness in the indictment rather than by deliberate concealment. See E.g., Levin v. Katzenbach, 363 F.2d 287 (D.C. Cir. 1966); Barbee v. Warden, 331 F.2d 842 (4th Cir. 1964); United States v. Consolidated Laundries Corp., 291 F.2d 563 (2d Cir. 1961); Griffin v. United States, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 172, 183 F.2d 990 (1950). See Note, the Prosecutor's Constitutional Duty to Reveal Evidence to the Defendant, 74 Yale L.J. 136 (1964), which traces the trend of decisions from the earlier emphasis on protecting the integrity of the judicial process from official abuse to a growing concern with the possible harm to the defendant. Accordingly, the motives of the prosecutor are of diminised importance, while the fairness of the trial has become a major theme. 11 After-discovered evidence, which is merely impeaching, cumulative or corroborating will not ordinarily invalidate a verdict, but if such evidence is of a character to raise a substantial likelihood that it would have affected the result if known at the trial, its nondisclosure cannot be ignored. 2 It is reasonable to think that a jury, if made aware that the Commonwealth's principal witness was a convicted perjurer, would have been disposed to discount his testimony. In the absence of adequate independent evidence, the jury might well have entertained a reasonable doubt of Ingram's guilt.