Opinion ID: 765955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Brady v. Maryland Error

Text: 24 Finally, Tapia asserts that the prosecution wrongly suppressed a statement by Thomas Shea (Shea), a jailhouse informant, that Domino, also convicted for these crimes, admitted to shooting both Hernandez and Reyes. Tapia contends this statement was exculpatory and that by withholding it the prosecution violated its Brady v. Maryland obligations. Under Brady, evidence must be disclosed if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985). A reasonable probability does not require a showing that a different verdict would have resulted, but that in [the] absence [of the evidence] [defendant] received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434. 25 We agree with the district court's conclusion that the Shea statement, if it did anything, implicated Tapia as well as Domino in the murders, and thus no Brady violation occurred. The statement supports a theory that both Tapia and Domino shot both victims. Insofar as ambiguities in the statement might be construed to support a theory that only Domino shot one or the other of the victims, the statement does nothing to undermine the conspiracy and aiding and abetting theories under which Tapia was also charged. The statement does not meet the reasonable probability threshold and does not undermine confidence in the verdict. See id. 26 Because, as discussed above, Tapia's allegations as to the content of the tape, if proven, would not entitle him to relief, he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Turner, 63 F.3d at 815. We further find that the district court's refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on the contents of the tape was not an abuse of discretion. See Villafuerte, 111 F.3d at 633. 27 AFFIRMED.