Opinion ID: 3030011
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Information

Text: [6] The State did not violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it failed to disclose evidence that would have impeached the credibility of both Brady and Kenneth. Specifically, Allen claims the prosecutor failed to disclose (1) Brady’s cooperation with authorities and testimony in People v. Marshall, 13 Cal. 4th 799 (1996), a case similar to Allen’s; (2) information about Brady’s previous insanity finding and Brady’s early case-related conversations with authorities; and (3) the existence of a letter written by Kenneth’s wife Kathy, instructing Kenneth how to change his testimony at Hamilton’s trial. The constitutional guarantee of due process imposes upon the State the affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory information. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. The failure to disclose this information “amounts to a constitutional violation only if it deprives the defendant of a fair trial,” and requires reversal “only if the evidence is material in the sense that its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 678 (1985). The testimony of Brady and Kenneth was substantially impeached. The jury heard about Brady’s substance abuse problem, numerous prior felony convictions, blackouts, agreements dropping charges against Brady and his wife in exchange for 970 ALLEN v. WOODFORD his testimony, and his placement in the witness protection program. The jury was also fully apprised of Kenneth’s failed plea bargain and inconsistent statements. The additional impeachment evidence identified by Allen is simply cumulative of other impeachment evidence.