Opinion ID: 1031001
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Materiality of the suppressed evidence.

Text: Brady does not `automatically require a new trial whenever a combing of the prosecutors' files after the trial has disclosed evidence possibly useful to the defense but not likely to have changed the verdict.' Moseley v. Branker, 550 F.3d 312, 318 (4th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 677, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Evidence is considered material when it could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555. The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. Id. at 434, 115 S.Ct. 1555. A glaring preliminary problem for Walker is that none of the Brady documents were independently admissible to impeach Bianca because she did not prepare the documents or adopt or subscribe to the statements contained therein. See United States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 757 (4th Cir.2002) (noting that [o]nly prior inconsistent statements made by the witness are admissible as impeachment evidence) (emphasis added); United States v. Saget, 991 F.2d 702, 710 (11th Cir.1993) ([W]e conclude that a witness may not be impeached with a third party's characterization or interpretation of a prior oral statement unless the witness has subscribed to or otherwise adopted the statement as his own.). Walker's defense team would have been forced to call officers Hickman, Mullins, and Ernst as witnesses to testify about their respective reports and interview notes. Of course, having the benefit of a full-blown evidentiary hearing after remand, we now know how these witnesses would have testified. For example, Detective Hickman testified that Bianca did tell him that she saw Walker murder her father even though his notes did not so reflect. Moreover, even if the alleged Brady evidence could be used to impeach Bianca's testimony that she saw Walker shoot her father, there was substantial evidence, as noted by the district court, that the Commonwealth would have offered in rebuttal. For example, the evidence is uncontroverted that Bianca had seen Walker before on many occasions. Moreover, Bianca's mother testified that Bianca argued with Walker after he entered the apartment but before he shot Beale. Tameria Patterson testified that on the night of the shooting, Walker entered her apartment and stated I shot him. Additionally, the Commonwealth presented evidence that a round of ammunition that had been loaded into the murder weapon was recovered from the floor of Walker's apartment. In light of the evidence presented at the hearing and the record in its entirety, we conclude that the district court properly determined that, even if Walker were able to show that the evidence at issue was withheld and that it was favorable to him, the alleged Brady material does not undermine confidence in the guilty verdict.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED