Opinion ID: 772156
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidentiary hearing and decision on remand

Text: 18 At the evidentiary hearing, the district court heard testimony from Elliott, Krueger, Haws, Dr. Brady, and Dr. Glenn Faith, a medical expert who worked with Paradis' trial team. The court also received into evidence various exhibits, including prior testimony of Dr. Brady at both Paradis' and Gibson's trials and an affidavit from Dr. John Thornton, Ph.D., an expert on luminol testing. The court also received into evidence Elliott's original police report, which stated that Palmer was sexual [sic] assaulted. Although it appeared that other copies of the report indicated that she was not sexually assaulted, the court found that the version stating that she was sexually assaulted was the one given to Brown. 19 In its decision, the district court included a summary of some of the testimony presented at the hearing. In particular, the court noted that Elliott testified that he was present when Dr. Brady cut open Palmer's lungs, and that a small amount of fluid came out. It also noted that Dr. Faith testified that because of the police report, Brown was worried about the suggestion of sexual assault, and that if Brown had known the report was in error, Brown would have cross-examined Dr. Brady regarding the labia wound. 20 The court noted that at Gibson's trial, Dr. Brady testified that the labia wound showed no evidence of bleeding or crusting. It also described Dr. Brady's testimony at the evidentiary hearing regarding his statement in the autopsy report that the labia wound showed no evident vital reaction.  Dr. Brady testified that no evident vital reaction did not mean that the wound did not bleed--a vital reaction is a healing process, not bleeding. Dr. Brady further testified that he assumed that the wound had bled and that the blood had been washed away, but he also testified that he has no evidence that the wound did bleed. The court also noted that Dr. Brady testified that the photographs that appear to show blood on Palmer's nose and ear actually show only skin slippage. Dr. Brady explained that skin (on a corpse) that has been soaking in water for a long time becomes very soft, and that it is very easy for the outer layer of such skin to be rubbed off accidentally when the body is moved or handled. This is called skin slip, and it exposes the lower layer of the skin, which is bright red. 21 In analyzing Paradis' Brady claim in light of the evidence introduced at the hearing, the district court concluded that the notes were material under Brady for the following reasons: Dr. Brady's testimony that Currier died before Palmer and that Palmer aspirated water were instrumental in establishing jurisdiction. Dr. Brady testified unequivocally at Paradis' trial that Currier died before Palmer, but Notes I (no time of death either) could have been used to impeach him on this point. Notes I (spoonful water in lungs and dead when went in water) could also have been used to impeach him regarding Palmer's alleged aspiration of water. The uncertainty expressed in Notes III (may have been alive when went [in water]) could have been used to the same effect. 22 The district court further found that Paradis' lack of access to Notes I (not sexually assaulted) and Notes III (no gross evid. sex. molest.), coupled with the erroneous police report, prevented Brown from cross-examining Dr. Brady regarding the labia wound, an issue that might have refuted jurisdiction. But because there was conflicting evidence regarding whether Brown was given color photographs that showed the blood on Palmer's ear and nose, the court found that Paradis had not carried his burden of proving that this information was not disclosed to him prior to trial. 23 The district court concluded that neither set of notes would have been independently admissible evidence, and that Notes I might not even have been admissible to impeach. But it also concluded that they could have led to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that the nondisclosure of the notes appears to have put the defense team at a substantial disadvantage in preparing their case. For all of these reasons, the district court concluded that the notes undermined confidence in the verdict, that they were consequently material under Brady, and that the writ should therefore be granted.