Opinion ID: 3012034
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Witness Protection Program

Text: Marshall further complains that it was unreasonable for the New Jersey Supreme Court, on appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, to conclude that the prosecutor’s failure to disclose information about McKinnon’s possible cooperation with federal law enforcement agents was immaterial. App. Br. at 90. We note first that the New Jersey Supreme Court was skeptical about whether such information existed, and particularly whether it existed within the control of the prosecutorial team, reasoning only that if the information existed, it would have been immaterial. Marshall II, 690 A.2d at 38. The District Court characterized Marshall’s request to develop the limited information he has about the connection further as a fishing expedition. Marshall III, 103 F. Supp. 2d at 762. In order to agree with Marshall, we would need to hold the State accountable for knowledge possibly possessed by the F.B.I. or other federal agents. There is no indication in the record that the federal agents who might have possessed such information were working together with state agents investigating Maria Marshall’s death. Thus, such a holding would require a further expansion of Brady, possibly beyond what we would consider clearly established law even now, and certainly beyondclearly established law as of the time Marshall’s conviction became final.13 Thus, we decline to hold that there was _________________________________________________________________ 13. The controlling case in this area, Kyles , was not decided until 1995. In earlier cases, such as United States v. Antone, 603 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1979), federal and state authorities had pooled their efforts, such that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deemed it appropriate to consider both part of a single prosecutorial team. Id . at 569-70. See also United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 970 (3d Cir. 1991) (following Antone). In contrast, where there was no pooling, even within a single jurisdictional 32 clearly established law requiring Brady disclosures in this situation; consequently, we do not reach the question whether the New Jersey Supreme Court’s determinations were reasonable.