Opinion ID: 18274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Brady Claim for Impeachment Evidence

Text: Felder argues that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 85, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), by not disclosing that its chief witness, Edith Cobb, had been arrested for forgery in 1982. On appeal, this Brady claim is directed toward only the sentence of death, even though Cobb testified during both the guilt and punishment phases. The state habeas court concluded that evidence of an arrest without conviction was not Brady material because it would not have been admissible to impeach Cobb. In addition, it found that any suppression did not undermine confidence in the trial and cited cases to show that the “mere possibility” that an item “might have helped defendant” is insufficient to make it Brady material. The federal district court found that the evidence was inadmissible, and that, even if admitted, the evidence would not have changed the outcome of the trial. 6 We also note the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mitchell v. United States, 119 S. Ct. 1307 (1999). In Mitchell, the Court held that a guilty plea does not waive the Fifth Amendment privilege against adverse inferences from failure to testify during the sentencing phase. This does not establish anything approaching the right Felder proposes. 10 This court reviews the district court’s Brady determinations de novo. See East v. Johnson, 123 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 1997). Brady’s requirement that the prosecution disclose exculpatory evidence does extend to information that could be used to impeach government witnesses. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3380 (1985). The suppressed information, however, must still be “evidence” that is “material either to guilt or to punishment.” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1197. Evidence is material “only where there exists a ‘reasonable probability’ that had the evidence been disclosed the result at trial would have been different.” Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1, 5, 116 S. Ct. 7, 10 (1995). The Fifth Circuit has not clearly specified how to deal with Brady claims about inadmissible evidence -- a matter of some confusion in federal courts7 -- except to reaffirm that 7 In Wood v. Bartholomew, the Supreme Court did not declare squarely whether inadmissible information could be material evidence under Brady, even though the circuit courts had already developed various approaches to that question. The Court first noted that polygraph results, being inadmissible, were “not ‘evidence’ at all” and “could have had no direct effect on the outcome of trial.” 516 U.S. at 6, 116 S. Ct. at 10. It proceeded, however, to discuss the merits of the Ninth Circuit’s attempt to “get around this problem,” and concluded that “mere speculation” about whether the information could have led defense counsel to “additional evidence that could have been utilized” did not meet “the standards we have established.” Id. Reactions to Wood have been as varied as the pre-Wood jurisprudence. Some courts read Wood to mean inadmissible information cannot be material under Brady. See Hoke v. Netherland, 92 F.3d 1350, 1356 n.3 (4th Cir. 1996) (inadmissible statements are immaterial “as a matter of law”); United States v. Montalvo, 20 F. Supp. 2d 270, 277 (D.P.R. 1998). One circuit has concluded that Wood did not affect its practice of allowing inadmissible evidence to be material if it “would have led to admissible evidence.” See Wright v. Hopper, 169 F.3d 695, 703 & n.1 (11th Cir. 1999). Another has followed Wood’s methodology, noting inadmissible evidence is “not ‘“evidence” at all,’” and then asking whether a link to (continued...) 11 “inadmissible evidence may be material under Brady.” Spence v. Johnson, 80 F.3d 989, 1005 n.14 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Sellers v. Estelle, 651 F.2d 1074, 1077 n.6 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981)). Thus, we ask only the general question whether the disclosure of the evidence would have created a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. See East, 123 F.3d at 237. In this case, the question is whether the disclosure of the inadmissible evidence of Cobb’s arrest would have created a reasonable probability that Felder would not have been sentenced to death. Felder argues that if the evidence of Cobb’s arrest had been disclosed, attempts to follow up on the arrest would have led his attorneys to admissible impeachment evidence about Cobb’s reputation for dishonesty in Denver.8 In the habeas proceeding, Felder produced an affidavit from a Denver police officer saying in part: “During 1988 and 1989 (and perhaps before), Edith Cobb was known by the members of this community to be a dishonest person.” Two aspects of Cobb’s testimony were relevant to the jury’s punishment-phase decisions. First, Cobb testified during the punishment phase that Felder had told her of other crimes he 7 (...continued) admissible evidence is based on more than “mere speculation.” See Madsen v. Dormire, 137 F.3d 602, 604 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 247 (1998). Still another has done the same as the Fifth Circuit and hewed to its pre-Wood practice without discussing Wood’s potential relevance. See Coleman v. Calderon, 150 F.3d 1105, 1116-17 (9th Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, 119 S. Ct. 500 (1998)