Opinion ID: 1129333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Brady and Giglio Claims

Text: Smith contends that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (holding that the state's failure to provide defendant with favorable, material evidence violates due process), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972) (holding that a defendant's due process right is violated when the State knowingly allows false, material testimony to be presented at trial). We will address each alleged violation in turn.
Smith alleges the State violated Brady by failing to disclose favorable information contained in State documents related to the murder investigation. There are three components of a true Brady violation: The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). To establish prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate that the suppressed evidence is material. The test for materiality is whether there exists a reasonable probability that the jury verdict would have been different had the suppressed information been used at trial. Id. at 289, 296, 119 S.Ct. 1936. In other words, the question is whether the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. Id. at 290, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)). In this case, the circuit court was correct to deny relief on Smith's Brady claims. As we explain below, even those documents that meet the first two prongs of Strickler are not material; thus, the State's failure to disclose them does not violate Brady.
Smith argues that the circuit court erred in determining that a document showing that Melvin Jones, an eyewitness to the murder, and Derrick Johnson, Smith's codefendant, met in jail was not material under Strickler. Smith claims the document demonstrates that Jones and Johnson collaborated before trial to implicate Smith as the shooter. At retrial, Jones testified that as he walked home that evening, he witnessed the murder, and he identified Smith as the killer. Jones and his wife lived within a block of the murder scene, and both testified that within a short time after the murder, Jones arrived home and told her he had witnessed it. The previously undisclosed internal report shows that in September 1983, the prosecutor requested an investigation into whether Jones and Smith had any contact in jail. [4] The prosecutor's handwritten note reflected that the two were never together and that Johnson first saw Jones on July 11 in a holding cell before a preliminary hearing. At that time, Jones showed Johnson a map of the crime scene and said that he or it would help Johnson at trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court determined, and in fact the State conceded, that the first two prongs of the Strickler test were met. That is, the State failed to disclose this evidence that could have been used for impeachment. The court, however, determined that Smith failed to show that this evidence casts the trial in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. We agree. At most, Johnson's statement acknowledging contact was of limited value to support a theory of collusion between Johnson and Jones. First, the evidence from the evidentiary hearing and trial demonstrated that Johnson and Jones did not know each other before the murder and did not discuss the facts of the case during their brief meeting. In fact, Johnson was so unnerved by the encounter with this stranger that he asked to be removed from the cell. Further, the State did not provide Jones with a deal in exchange for his testimony. In addition, at retrial, the defense challenged Jones's credibility in light of his felony convictions and his efforts to make a deal in exchange for his testimony. Smith's theory of defense was that he was not in the cab that night and that Jones and Johnson were lying. The evidence at retrial, however, showed that on the day of the murder, Smith tried to sell a gun to Carolyn Mathis and later that evening told Regina Mathis that he was going to hustle some money because he had none. Before going out on the night of the murder, Smith showed a gun to his friend James Matthews, who in turn showed it to his live-in girlfriend, Priscilla Walker. Smith told Matthews he was going out to get some money that evening. Later that evening, Smith was at a nightclub, where Ernest Rouse saw him place a revolver under a turntable in the disc jockey booth and later retrieve it. Jones and Johnson saw the handgun and saw Smith fire the fatal shot. After the murder, in the early morning hours, Smith returned to his friends' home and admitted to both Matthews and Walker that he had shot someone. To Walker, he said that he shot a cab driver who would not give him any money. He told Matthews he was scared and needed a place to stay. Within twelve hours after the murder, Smith robbed two Canadian tourists, using a handgun. Finally, Smith's uncle testified that his revolver was missing. The descriptions of the gun Smith had immediately preceding, during, and after the murder matched his uncle's gun, which was missing. In addition, a bullet from the victim was consistent with the bullets from Smith's uncle's ten-year-old box of bullets. Finally, Smith made a call from a restaurant telephone, and his fingerprint was found on the phone. A request for a cab was made on that phone at 12:28 a.m. on March 21, 1983, and Smith and Johnson were seen entering the cab that arrived shortly thereafter. Accordingly, the undisclosed evidence of a brief jail contact does not meet the materiality prong of Brady.
Smith argues that the State violated Brady by failing to disclose information in police reports and other documents and that the failure to disclose them undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial. Smith first alleges error regarding the State's failure to disclose that Jones initially was listed as a suspect in the murder. The evidence showed that Jones was so listed shortly after the murder because he lived within a block of the crime scene and had outstanding warrants for his arrest. We find that the evidence is neither exculpatory nor impeaching. See Wright v. State, 857 So.2d 861, 870 (Fla.2003) (rejecting claim that information contained in police files concerning other possible suspects and other criminal activity in the same neighborhood was Brady material that had to be disclosed), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 961, 124 S.Ct. 1715, 158 L.Ed.2d 402 (2004); Carroll v. State, 815 So.2d 601, 620 (Fla.2002) (As noted by the State, the prosecution is not required to provide the defendant all information regarding its investigatory work on a particular case regardless of its relevancy or materiality.). Further, even if it should have been disclosed, it was not material under the Strickler. The bases for Jones's early listing as a possible suspect were known to Smith, and the jury was informed of them as well. Failure to disclose this information does not undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. Smith next argues that the State failed to disclose a police report demonstrating the police contacted Jones's wife, Mellow Jones, in their house-to-house canvassing of the neighborhood both immediately after the murder and a few hours later, with negative results each time. He alleges that the report constituted valuable impeachment evidence. This claim was not raised below and thus is not preserved for our review. In his postconviction motion, Smith claimed generally that counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Mrs. Jones with police reports. He did not claim the documents were not disclosed or allege facts contained in them that would serve as impeachment. The circuit court was correct to summarily dismiss this conclusory claim. Although Smith's newly formulated claim is not preserved, we point out that the police report is neither exculpatory nor impeaching. Contrary to Smith's claim, the report does not contradict the testimony of either Mr. or Mrs. Jones. In his third subclaim regarding nondisclosure, Smith argues that the State failed to disclose a handwritten note of August 9, 1989, (after the first trial but before the retrial) on which he was entitled to question Jones at trial. Written by a prosecutor in the first trial, the note indicates that Jones telephoned her, saying that to prevent him from reuniting with his wife, his daughter had recently falsely accused him of sexually abusing her several years before. He feared arrest and wanted to take a polygraph and have his daughter take one as well. We agree with the circuit court's denial of this claim. See Carroll, 815 So.2d at 620 (stating that prosecution is not required to provide the defendant all information regarding its investigatory work on a particular case regardless of its relevancy or materiality). The note does not provide exculpatory evidence or impeachment material. The note was not relevant either to the retrial or to Jones's motivation to provide testimony. Next, Smith asserts that the circuit court erred in determining that a prosecutor's internal investigation synopsis dated April 4, 1983, did not have to be disclosed and was not material under Strickler. In the document, the prosecutor summarized the testimony of David McGruder, a restaurant employee who saw Smith make a phone call and get in the cab. The prosecutor noted that McGruder was unable to pick Smith out of a photopack. We find that the State should have disclosed the document, but hold this evidence was not material. See Young v. State, 739 So.2d 553, 560 (Fla.1999) (holding that information in state attorney's notes of witness interviews constituted evidence favorable to defense subject to disclosure but was not material to Young's murder conviction). When the prosecutor dictated his synopsis, the police had not yet shown McGruder a photopack actually containing Smith's picture. McGruder did not identify Smith's picture until April 8. That was the first photopack that included Smith's picture. Further, at retrial Smith impeached McGruder on his tardy photopack identification, and the jury heard McGruder's confusing testimony regarding his uncertain identification of the photo. Finally, Smith argues that the State did not disclose a police report about Jones's polygraph test, which Smith could have used to impeach Jones at trial. [5] The circuit court found that Smith did not rebut the State's evidence that such a report was disclosed and further did not demonstrate that polygraph tests were admissible at trial as impeachment evidence. See Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766, 787 (Fla. 2004) (As for the polygraph tests, their results would not have been admissible at trial without the consent of both parties.); Walsh v. State, 418 So.2d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 1982). We agree with the circuit court that Smith failed to establish materiality.
Smith next claims that in several instances the State intentionally deceived or misled the defendant and the trier of fact in violation of Giglio, 405 U.S. at 150, 92 S.Ct. 763. To establish a Giglio violation, it must be shown that: (1) the testimony given was false; (2) the prosecutor knew the testimony was false; and (3) the statement was material. Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 505 (Fla.2003). The third prong of the test is not identical to the materiality prong of the Strickler test for a Brady violation. Instead, on the issue of materiality or prejudice, the question is whether there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the jury's verdict. In other words, the State has the burden to demonstrate that the false testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith argues that the prosecutor's investigatory notes indicating that codefendant Johnson and eyewitness Jones once encountered each other in a holding cell demonstrates that Jones and Johnson gave false testimony and that the State knew this and failed to correct it. Smith alleges, however, that Jones gave the perjurious testimony in his deposition taken before the first trial and that both Jones and Johnson testified falsely at the first trial. At retrial, however, neither Jones nor Johnson was questioned about even the possibility that they colluded on their testimony. Smith has thus failed to show that any of the retrial testimony was false and that the State failed to correct it. Accordingly, Smith's Giglio claim is unsubstantiated and we affirm the trial court's denial of relief. In his second Giglio claim, Smith urges that the State allowed Jones to testify falsely at retrial regarding the deal Jones made with the State in exchange for his testimony and how much time he served as part of the deal. First, as the circuit court correctly found, the claim was insufficiently pled. Second, it is refuted by the record. There is no evidence that the State gave Jones a deal regarding his unrelated felony charges to obtain his trial testimony, and Smith has not shown any of Jones's testimony to be false. Smith thus failed to establish the elements of a Giglio claim. Finally, Smith alleges that the circuit court failed to give cumulative consideration to his Giglio claims. As explained above, Smith failed to demonstrate that any false or misleading testimony was given at retrial. We find no error in the court's cumulative error analysis.