Opinion ID: 3194677
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ferguson’s Graduation-Date Lie

Text: Virginia attempts to show that Ferguson withheld material evidence by pointing to his lie—told at her trial and previous trials—that he graduated from The Ohio State University in -7- Case Nos. 14-3905/3906, LeFever v. Ferguson 1972 when he in fact graduated in 1987. She argues that had Ferguson disclosed this lie to her before trial, including that he had testified falsely in other trials, she could have destroyed his credibility, thereby undermining confidence in the outcome of her trial. But Virginia overlooks several key considerations. First, Ferguson told the same lie at every trial: the date he graduated. And as he reminds, absolute immunity shields his testimony at Virginia’s trial—even lies. Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497, 1505 (2012); Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329–31, 341–45 (1983). Virginia thus tries to bootstrap Ferguson’s failure to disclose his lies at other trials into a Brady claim for failure to disclose material impeachment evidence at her trial. But ultimately her claim relies on the lie told at her trial—one that was immunized. Second, even had Virginia known that Ferguson lied at previous trials about his graduation date, those lies provide little impeachment value given Ferguson’s otherwise strong credentials as a toxicology expert at the time of Virginia’s trial. For example, Ferguson had been performing chemical and toxicology analysis and testifying as an expert witness for over 20 years by the time of Virginia’s trial in February 1990. Additionally, at the time of Virginia’s trial Ferguson had obtained his undergraduate degree, even though forensic toxicologists need not possess a college degree to work in Ohio. Exposing the lie he told about the year he graduated, therefore, would have made little difference in assessing his credibility. Third, Ferguson’s lie about his graduation date leaves unscathed the scientific analysis underlying his conclusions. Had Virginia tried to impeach Ferguson for lying about his graduation date, his analysis of facts and data would have remained unimpeached. Indeed, Virginia makes no suggestion that Ferguson performed invalid or erroneous scientific testing while working on her case. -8- Case Nos. 14-3905/3906, LeFever v. Ferguson Virginia points us to Westerfield v. United States, 483 F. App’x 950, 952, 955 (6th Cir. 2012), in which we found a detective’s failure to disclose that he perjured himself—at the criminal trial of the plaintiff’s co-defendant—material under Brady when the detective’s testimony at the plaintiff’s criminal trial provided the only evidence of an element necessary to convict the plaintiff. Relying on Westerfield, Virginia argues that Ferguson’s perjury must be material evidence under Brady. But here, despite Ferguson’s graduation-date lie, ample evidence remained to conclude that Virginia poisoned William and, therefore, to support her murder conviction. For example, Ferguson’s lie in no way undermines the underlying data or toxicology analysis that he performed to conclude how various toxins entered William’s body. As another example, Ferguson possessed the credentials to interpret the data and to perform the various analyses that he used to reach the conclusions to which he testified. Because Ferguson’s graduation-date lie leaves confidence in the outcome of Virginia’s criminal trial intact, nondisclosure of that evidence caused Virginia no prejudice and thus constitutes no Brady violation.