Opinion ID: 1012703
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Lab Report

Text: During Chandler’s trial, both the prosecution and the defense were in possession of a letter purportedly written by Wilson.11 The letter stated that Wilson had never spoken to a district attorney or the court concerning Chandler, that Wilson would not testify at trial, and that, if questioned, Wilson would say that he lied concerning pending charges. J.A. 330. A lab report dated July 13, 1993—during Chandler’s trial—stated that there was sufficient similarity between the letter and known samples of Wilson’s writing to warrant a degree of belief that Wilson wrote the letter. Id. at 329 (emphasis omitted). Wilson denied writing the letter both prior to trial and during the MAR hearing. Chandler did not attempt to make any use of the letter during trial. The MAR court rejected Chandler’s Brady claim regarding the nondisclosure of the report, concluding that the report did not have significant impeachment value. Chandler maintains that the State should have turned over the lab report because its disclosure could have prompted defense counsel to obtain further analysis which might have connected Wilson to the let10 Chandler argues that the interpretation of the sentence was a matter for the trial jury. Even if this is so, the interpretation of the statement by the MAR court amounts to a predictive judgment regarding how a reasonable jury would construe the statement. 11 The provenance of the letter and how it came to be in the parties’ files are mysteries. CHANDLER v. LEE 13 ter more conclusively. See Maynard v. Dixon, 943 F.2d 407, 418 (4th Cir. 1991). Even if this is so, Chandler has failed to demonstrate prejudice because there is no evidence that further analysis would have conclusively established Wilson as the author of the note. Additionally, it is questionable whether such analysis would be admissible to impeach a denial of authorship by Wilson. See N.C. R. Evid. 608(b) (Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, . . . may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.); United States v. Westmoreland, 312 F.3d 302, 311 n.5 (7th Cir. 2002) (noting that the admission of expert testimony corroborating a witness’ denial of writing a letter violated Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b)), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 2094 (2003). We therefore conclude that the rejection of this claim by the MAR court is entitled to deference under § 2254(d)(1).