Opinion ID: 999617
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Description of Clothing

Text: In one account, the minor alleged that Love pulled her gown up and pulled down her panties. (J.B. at 65.)8 In another, the minor stated that Love told her to pull up her nightgown. (J.B. at 79.) In another account, the minor did not mention a nightgown and alleged that Love pulled her pants down. (J.B. at 101 (emphasis added).) b. Description of Activities After the Alleged Incident In one account, the minor alleged that after Love left, she locked the door, washed off, changed clothes, and went to her grandmother's room. (J.B. at 66.) In another account, she stated she just stayed in her room. (J.B. at 102.) At trial, she testified that she closed her door and locked it after Love left. (J.A. at 224.) c. Whether Love had been Drinking In her interview with Crews, the minor said that she did not know if Love had been drinking that night. (J.B. at 67.) In another account and at trial, the minor stated that Love had been drinking and that she could smell alcohol on his breath. (J.B. at 101; J.A. at 222.) d. Whether Love Said Anything In one account the minor said that Love did not say anything the whole time and that he did not ask her to do anything. (J.B. at 101; J.A. at 220.) In another account, the minor stated that Love told her to pull up her nightgown. (J.B. at 79.) At trial and in another account, the minor stated (or indicated) that Love told her to put [her] mouth on his thing. (J.A. at 220.) _________________________________________________________________ 8 There are two volumes of the record. Volume A was the record before the court in Love v. Johnson, 57 F.3d 1305. Volume B is generally the previously undisclosed material. For ease of reference, Volume A is cited as J.A. at and Volume B is cited as J.B. at. 10 e. Love's Post-Attack Statements In the first account given by the minor, the most complete questioning of the minor evident in the record, the minor stated that after the rape, Love told her not to tell anyone or he would go to prison. (J.B. at 67.) The minor did not allege that Love threatened to kill her or her family. She ended this interview by saying,I've told you everything. (J.B. at 68.) In another account and at trial, however, the minor alleged that Love told her not to tell because he would go to prison and that Love threatened to kill her and her family. (J.B. at 101; J.A. at 223.) f. Whether the Incident Involved Sodomy In one account and at trial, the minor asserted that Love had her put his thing in her mouth. (J.B. at 67; J.A. at 220-221.) In another account, the minor did not mention any sodomy. (J.A. at 101.) Further, in one account, the minor asserted that Lovetried to put his face down there but I pushed him away. (J.B. at 101.) The minor never included this detail in any other account. (See J.B. at 62-69; J.A. at 201-226.) Also, in one account, and at trial, the minor asserted that Love put his finger in her. (J.B. at 67; J.A. at 223.) In another account the minor did not make this assertion. (J.B. at 101.) g. Conclusion These inconsistencies are clearly relevant. Skillful defense counsel would have been able to use them as one piece of evidence that the minor had manufactured the story. If the inconsistencies were the only pieces of undisclosed evidence, it would be a close question whether they were so material as to cast doubt on the outcome of the trial. As the state points out, the victim's basic account of the attack remained the same throughout and given the child's age, a jury could expect some inconsistencies. Further, the jury could well conclude that some of the inconsistencies, i.e., what Love said after the attack, and what the minor did after the attack, were not inconsistencies at all, but merely omissions of collateral details or consistent descriptions based on varying time frames. 11 We think, however, that when viewed in combination with some of the other suppressed evidence -- i.e., coupled with the evidence that Crews had coaxed the minor into her story through improperly suggestive interview techniques and that the child had a problem with lying -- the evidence of these inconsistencies takes on greater weight. These inconsistencies would certainly have bolstered a theory that counselor Crews' suggestive interview technique helped the child formulate her allegations. Several of the details upon which the child was inconsistent were elicited by leading questions from Crews. For instance, the first mention of whether Love had been drinking the night of the alleged incident came in two leading questions posed by Crews to the minor. (See J.B. at 67.) Similarly, the first mention of sodomy came from a leading question by Crews. (See J.B. at 67.) B. Failure to Disclose Evidence of Minor's Emotional Problems and Problems with Lying The state's case depended centrally upon two lines of evidence -- most primarily the credibility of the minor, and secondarily the medical testimony corroborating that she may have been sexually abused. The improperly withheld evidence contained damaging impeachment evidence against the minor. The state asserts, however, that this evidence is not material because Love could not have obtained admission of most of this evidence, in particular evidence about the minor's emotional problems. Much of this evidence would be subject to a qualified social worker privilege, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.7 (1998), school counselor privilege, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.4 (1998), or psychologist privilege, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.3, 8-53.8 (1998), in North Carolina. We disagree with the state. First, the evidence about the minor's perhaps pathological lying history would clearly be admissible. Second, we think that because the state opened the door to the minor's emotional problems by having the minor testify about some of her emotional problems at trial, and because of its high level of relevance to the defense theory, a judge would have allowed at least the most relevant evidence in. Cf. Chavis, 637 F.2d at 224 (evidence of psychiatric report of key witness relevant to witness' credibility). 12 1. Lying and Fantasy World The suppressed records contain the following evidence that the minor had a problem with lying and distinguishing fantasy from reality: Just one month after the minor made the allegations, the minor's foster mother reported that the minor lies with a straight face and looking you in the eye and said that she lives in a fantasy world. (J.B. at 21.) Just one month after the minor made her allegations, her social worker was working with the minor about being honest and questioned whether they could do psychological testing about her fantasy vs. reality problems. (J.B. at 23.) The records also contain numerous notations from various therapists and Department of Social Services personnel about the minor's lying or exaggeration: Some of her comments were exaggerated, (J.B. at 43),fantasy life, problem with honesty, (J.B. at 118), Can be very`sneaky' and will lie at every opportunity, (J.B. at 122), exhibits a great deal of lying, (J.B. at 124), lying, (J.B. at 119), lies and tells elaborate stories. (J.B. at 94.) This information is obviously highly relevant given the central role the minor's credibility played. When guilt or innocence may well depend upon the reliability of a given witness, non-disclosure of evidence affecting that witness's reliability is very likely to be material. See Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153-54; Ellis , 121 F.3d at 917. We hold that this evidence, standing alone, was material, and entitles Love to the requested relief. 2. Self-Destructive and Attention-Seeking Behavior Love believes the evidence of the minor's troubling behavior would have been admissible to impeach her credibility and to establish that she had a motive to lie. Love cites to the following evidence. There were undisclosed problems with depression, sleeplessness, suicide threats, and one suicide attempt. The suppressed evidence also showed that the minor had engaged in behavior such as head banging that caused holes in the wall, scraping the soles of her feet with a razor, and wrapping a clothesline around her neck. Further, the suppressed evidence showed 13 that the minor set fire to her new brother's bed 9 (the son that Love had fathered) shortly before her accusation against Love because she felt neglected and resented the new baby. The records contain several notes regarding the minor's history of problems with jealousy for her mother's attention. (J.B. at 16, 27, 34, 37, 38, 45, 81.) The evidence also indicates that the minor hated Love. Finally, there is a statement from the minor's social worker that she was concerned about [the minor's] behavior after the new baby is born in February as she will have even less attention at that time and the home will be even more crowded and the stresses will be greater. (J.B. at 116.) Love points out that the time period over which the social worker was concerned is precisely the time period when the minor made her accusation against him. We do not think that all of this evidence is material. The minor's generalized emotional problems are not particularly relevant to her credibility. Also, the fact that the minor hated Love was elicited at trial directly from the minor. However, some of the other evidence was highly relevant to Love's defense, in particular, the evidence indicating that the minor would engage in abnormal behavior in an effort to get attention, and that the minor felt that Love and his new baby were stealing attention away from her. Again, if this evidence was in isolation, it might not be material. In combination with all of the other undisclosed evidence, however, we hold that Love is entitled to relief.