Opinion ID: 2978761
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Importance of Sims’ Testimony

Text: There was no physical or testimonial evidence, except Sims’, that contradicted Robinson’s assertion of self-defense. The victim was a known drug dealer who was trying to collect a debt from Robinson. It is undisputed that when Robinson entered Irwin’s vehicle, Irwin had his .357 magnum conspicuously displayed. Robinson testified that Irwin threatened him regarding payment of the $200 debt and that Irwin grabbed for his gun while pulling into the parking lot. Sims admits that at the critical moment, she was bent down in the front seat trying to pick up her cigarette case, which had fallen on the floor. The threats by Irwin, coupled with Robinson’s testimony that Irwin reached for his gun, make Robinson’s self-defense theory plausible; such facts do not constitute a premeditated, deliberate intent to kill Irwin. Sims, however, told a much different story before the trial court. During the preliminary hearing, Sims stated that she did not see what happened at the crucial moment and did not know if Irwin reached for his gun. Yet, at trial Sims testified that Irwin had a pork chop sandwich in his right hand while turning into the parking lot, thus making it unlikely that Irwin reached for the gun as Robinson claimed. Sims also provided damaging testimony regarding Robinson’s demeanor after shooting Irwin. Initially, Sims stated that Robinson “just stared” at her after shooting Irwin. At trial, however, Sims testified that Robinson was “smiling” after shooting Irwin, making Robinson seem cold and calculating, and thus undermining his assertion of self-defense. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals found that “[a]lthough certain details were corroborated by a number of other witnesses, the State's theory was established principally by Kim Sims, the only eyewitness to the crime.” Robinson, 1999 WL 61062, at . Since Sims’ testimony was the basis of the State’s theory and the only testimony in conflict with Robinson’s, impeachment of Sims by the defense was crucial to the outcome of the case and the determination of Robinson’s guilt or innocence hinged on the jury’s critique of Sims’ truthfulness and reliability. As this Court has observed, “[c]onsiderable authority from the Supreme Court and our court indicates that a defendant suffers prejudice from the withholding of favorable impeachment evidence No. 09-5243 Robinson v. Mills Page 9 when the prosecution’s case hinges on the testimony of one witness.” Harris v. Lafler, 553 F.3d 1028, 1034 (6th Cir. 2009). The State argues that the undisclosed impeachment information would have been merely cumulative because Sims had already been impeached by the jury’s attention to the discrepancies between Sims’ testimony at the preliminary hearing and her testimony at trial. “[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)). We are not swayed by the prosecution’s argument. Although Robinson attempted to demonstrate that Sims’ trial testimony differed from her testimony at the preliminary hearing, the undisclosed information was different in kind because the suppressed materials would have offered insight into why Sims’ testimony at trial differed from her testimony at the preliminary hearing. Moreover, Robinson could have used the information to demonstrate that Sims had a pro-prosecution bias at the time of trial. As the Ninth Circuit has noted: It makes little sense to argue that because [the defendant] tried to impeach [the key witness] and failed, any further impeachment evidence would be useless. It is more likely that [the defendant] may have failed to impeach [the key witness] because the most damning impeachment evidence in fact was withheld by the government. United States v. Serv. Deli Inc., 151 F.3d 938, 944 (9th Cir. 1998).