Opinion ID: 179722
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Presentation of and failure to correct the false testimony of Agent Phillips

Text: The second claim raised by Brooks on appeal is that the prosecution knowingly presented, and failed to correct, the false testimony of Agent Phillips concerning the fingerprint evidence discovered on the two beer cans found at the scene of Wisniewski's homicide. Brooks asserts that procedural default is not an issue here since Brooks did in fact raise his fingerprints/false-testimony claim in the state trial and appellate courts, and because the prosecution obstructed those claims by presenting misrepresentations to the trial court and the postconviction court about the fingerprints. The State responds that this claim was not in fact fairly presented to the state courts because the fingerprint evidence was previously presented in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim rather than a false-testimony claim, and hence is barred by procedural default. At any rate, argues the State, it is entirely meritless. The Supreme Court has long recognized that due process is denied where [the] state has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935). Such conduct by the prosecution is inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice. Id. The same holds true when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). As the Court explained in United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103-04, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), a false-testimony claim falls under the Brady disclosure doctrine. The contours of this claim were predominantly shaped by two Supreme Court cases: Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. at 269-72, 79 S.Ct. 1173, and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). This court has developed a three-part test for determining if the prosecution has committed a Brady-Napue-Giglio violation: The knowing use of false or perjured testimony constitutes a denial of due process if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. In order to establish prosecutorial misconduct or denial of due process, the defendants must show (1) the statement was actually false; (2) the statement was material; and (3) the prosecution knew it was false. The burden is on the defendants to show that the testimony was actually perjured, and mere inconsistencies in testimony by government witnesses do not establish knowing use of false testimony. Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 343 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Lochmondy, 890 F.2d 817, 822 (6th Cir.1989)). A false statement is material under this standard, and [a] new trial is required[,] if the false testimony could in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154, 92 S.Ct. 763 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Napue, 360 U.S. at 271, 79 S.Ct. 1173). In the present case, Brooks argues that Agent Phillips falsely testified that both beer cans recovered at the scene of Wisniewski's homicide bore Brooks's fingerprints, when in fact the TBI lab reports show that Brooks's palm print was found on only one of the cans. The prosecution did not correct this inaccurate testimony, and Brooks's trial counsel declined to cross-examine Agent Phillips. (Brooks has not pursued an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on appeal.) The inaccuracy of Agent Phillips's testimony was demonstrated by materials presented at the state postconviction hearing. During that hearing, Brooks's counsel entered into evidence the investigative file of Detective Charvis, the lead investigator in the Wisniewski homicide case. The records contained in this file indicate that three beer cans were recovered and submitted to Agent Phillips for latent fingerprint examination. Two of these beer cans were recovered from Barge Point Road, where Wisniewski's body was found, and were labeled exhibits 40037890 and 40037891 in Agent Phillips's January 1995 report. The third beer can was recovered at the home of Brooks's girlfriend, Connie Gonzalez, and was labeled exhibit 50023469 in Agent Phillips's August 1995 report. Brooks's palm print was found on one of the beer cans from Barge Point Road, exhibit 40037891. Lunceford's prints were found on the beer can from Gonzalez's house, exhibit 50023469. An identifiable but unmatched print was discovered on the second beer can from Barge Point Road, exhibit 40037890. There is no report in the record, however, indicating that Brooks's prints were discovered on this second beer can. (The TBI reports were not entered into evidence at trial.) During oral argument before this court, the State reiterated the argument made in its brief that [t]here is no evidence ... that the lab reports that Brooks presented at the evidentiary hearing represent all the reports that were generated by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. The State appears to be suggesting that Agent Phillips could have created another report that was not included in the lead investigator's file but that revealed Brooks's fingerprint on the second Barge Point Road beer can, exhibit 40037890. Perhaps recognizing that this argument was at best speculative and disingenuous, the State eventually conceded during oral argument that Agent Phillips's trial testimony was mistaken. The State argued, however, that his testimony was not intentionally false and, in any event, was not material. We find the State's materiality argument persuasive. Even Brooks does not contest the fact that his palm print was found on one of the two beer cans discovered at the scene of the Wisniewski homicide, which implicates Brooks in the crime. Thus, Agent Phillip's inaccurate testimonythat Brooks's prints were found on both beer cans found at the scene of the homicide instead of only onecould not in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury. See Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154, 92 S.Ct. 763 (quoting Napue, 360 U.S. at 271, 79 S.Ct. 1173). Brooks tries to get around this inevitable conclusion by arguing that the false testimony was material because the fact of the identifiable yet unmatched fingerprints on the second Barge Point can was powerful and objective exculpatory evidence. But no evidence concerning the unmatched print was elicited at trial, and Agent Phillips did not testify that only Brooks's prints were discovered on the two Barge Point Road beer cans. He was asked if, after comparing the latent fingerprints recovered from the beer cans with Brooks's fingerprints, he had an opinion concerning a possible match. His failure to further opine about other fingerprints found on the beer cans does not amount to false testimony. Brooks is thus unable to demonstrate that Agent Phillips testified falsely concerning the identifiable but unmatched fingerprint on the second Barge Point Road beer can. Moreover, both the prosecution and the defense apparently had access to the TBI reports during trial, and therefore both parties were in equal positions to clarify Agent Phillips's testimony. See Norris v. Schotten, 146 F.3d 314, 334-35 (6th Cir. 1998) (concluding that there is no Brady violation where the defense had in its possession evidence that demonstrated the witness's inconsistent statements, and remarking that there would be no need for a jury if trials did not contain such inconsistencies). Brooks has neither argued nor provided any evidence that the prosecution withheld Agent Phillips's TBI reports from the defense. And because Brooks has not demonstrated that Agent Phillips's inaccurate testimony was material under the Brady-Napue-Giglio standard, he is not entitled to relief on this claim. We do not reach Brooks's further argument that the identifiable but unmatched print on the second Barge Point Road beer can potentially implicates Richard Roberts, also known as Boston Rick, as the real killer. Brooks has not pursued in this court an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim concerning this evidence. Nor does Brooks argue that the State's presentation of witnesses who further compounded the inaccuracy of Agent Phillips's trial testimony during the state postconviction hearing and the federal habeas evidentiary hearing constitutes an independent due process claim.