Opinion ID: 692054
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exculpatory Nature of the Evidence

Text: 91 The second element of a Brady claim requires proof the evidence in question was exculpatory, or favorable, to the defendant. In this regard, it is worth noting that  'because impeachment is integral to a defendant's constitutional right to cross-examination, there exists no pat distinction between impeachment and exculpatory evidence under Brady.'  Ballinger, 3 F.3d at 1376 (quoting Buchanan, 891 F.2d at 1443); accord Hughes, 33 F.3d at 1252. This is especially true [w]here a witness' credibility is material to the question of guilt. Fleming, 19 F.3d at 1330; see also Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154-55, 92 S.Ct. at 766. As Justice Blackmun stated in Bagley: 92 Impeachment evidence, ... as well as exculpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 [92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104] (1972). Such evidence is evidence favorable to an accused, Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 [83 S.Ct. at 1196], so that, if disclosed and used effectively, it may make the difference between conviction and acquittal. Cf. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 [79 S.Ct. 1173, 1177, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217] (1959) (The jury's estimate of the truthfulness and reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, and it is upon such subtle factors as the possible interest of the witness in testifying falsely that a defendant's life or liberty may depend). 93 473 U.S. at 676, 105 S.Ct. at 3380. 37 In sum, then, the fact that a particular piece of evidence is probative only for purposes of impeachment is not a defense to a Brady claim because  '[i]mpeachment evidence merits the same constitutional treatment as exculpatory evidence.'  Abello-Silva, 948 F.2d at 1179 (citation omitted).