Opinion ID: 2806764
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence Concerning the Other Acts Witness

Text: Jerry argues that two pieces of related evidence concerning Andrea were suppressed: (1) the Huron Township Police Report––which consists of typed police notes from an interview with Andrea––and (2) a short, hand-written set of notes from Andrea’s therapist. Jerry argues this evidence would have demonstrated a number of inconsistencies in Andrea’s trial testimony. The police report indicates Andrea was nine years old during the road trip she took with Linda and Jerry, while the therapist notes suggest she was ten or eleven, and at trial, Andrea testified she was twelve. Further, there were inconsistencies concerning whether Jerry had a key to Andrea’s home. Andrea’s testimony at trial and the police report indicate that Andrea told a neighbor about Jerry’s abuse, but the police report identifies the neighbor Andrea told was Leah Ratti, who, when interviewed by police, could not recall such a conversation. We agree with the warden that the inconsistencies in Andrea’s statements fall short of “demonstrat[ing] conclusively that her stories were continually changing and concocted,” as Jerry claims in his brief. Whether Jerry had a key to Andrea’s home is tangential to her claim that Jerry waited for her at her home after school. Whether she told her neighbor about the abuse is also of little direct relevance. The police report indicates that Andrea “may have told a nextdoor neighbor about what [Jerry] was doing to her, the neighbor’s name is Leah Ratti.” (Emphasis added.) When the police followed up with Ms. Ratti, she could not recall such a conversation. However, Andrea told police she “had briefly confided in a friend named Sara 2 After oral argument, Jerry submitted a letter, which cited Gumm v. Mitchell, 775 F.3d 345 (6th Cir. 2014), as additional authority in support of his habeas petition. However, Gumm is factually and legally distinct from the issues in this case. In Gumm, ADEPA deference did not apply because the state court determined it did not have jurisdiction over the petitioner’s Brady claim. Id. at 362. Moreover, the suppressed evidence in Gumm was material, and included evidence that police had other legitimate suspects and evidence that would serve to undermine the State’s theory of the case. Id. at 364–69. No. 13-2404 Bales v. Bell Page 7 Suemnick” about the abuse. When the police investigated, Sara did recall such a conversation with Andrea. Additionally, the therapist notes are vague and would have provided little assistance to Jerry or the prosecutor. The police report is more damning to Jerry’s case than helpful. Consistent with Andrea’s testimony, the police report discusses Andrea’s road trip with Linda and Jerry and indicates that Jerry assaulted her in the car and in the motel in New Orleans; it also indicates that after the road trip, Jerry would wait for Andrea when she got home from school. The most significant inconsistency brought to light through the police report and therapist notes was Andrea’s reported age during the road trip she took with Jerry and Linda. However, the discrepancy in Andrea’s reported age (between nine and twelve) is relatively slight. Because the police report and therapist notes would provide some impeachment value, however small, we will proceed to the last question in the Brady analysis––whether the suppression was prejudicial to Jerry. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82 (1999) (noting favorable evidence is favorable either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching). “‘[W]here the undisclosed evidence merely furnishes an additional basis on which to challenge a witness whose credibility has already been shown to be questionable or who is subject to extensive attack by reason of other evidence, the undisclosed evidence may be cumulative, and hence not material.’” Byrd v. Collins, 209 F.3d 486, 518 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 257 (2d Cir. 1998)). Here, defense counsel cross-examined Andrea extensively at trial and impeached her with her testimony from the prior trial. Defense counsel also asked questions intended to highlight the implausibility of some of Andrea’s testimony. While Andrea’s age during the road trip was never particularly challenged, defense counsel attempted to challenge Andrea’s credibility and show that she had changed her story. Showcasing that Andrea made inconsistent remarks regarding her age during the road trip with Jerry would not create “a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different verdict.” Strickler, 527 U.S. at 281. Indeed, even without crossexamination on the subject, Andrea struggled at trial to recall her age during the road trip, stating “I’m going with [I was] twelve, I believe . . . I can’t really remember.” The undisclosed evidence would have merely emphasized that Andrea struggled to recall how old she was during No. 13-2404 Bales v. Bell Page 8 the road trip, but it would, by no means, cause one to lose confidence in the jury’s verdict. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 435 (1995).