Opinion ID: 1009453
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Benjamin Carr

Text: For the first time in his federal habeas petition, Bramblett claimed that the State withheld information regarding the possible involveBRAMBLETT v. TRUE 19 ment of Benjamin Carr in the murders. In support of this claim, Bramblett submitted affidavits from Robert and Judith Stinnett, longtime friends of Carr’s. According to Judith’s affidavit, Carr contacted her in 1995 or 1996 and offered to ‘ice [Robert’s former employer] like the family on Virginia Avenue.’ J.A. 36, 37. Judith took this statement to mean that Carr claimed responsibility for the Hodges murders; she made this connection because Carr had told her that he had had an argument with Blaine Hodges during a period when both worked for the post office. Judith mentioned her conversation with Carr to a friend who was a Vinton Police officer. On the assumption that Carr’s statement to Judith was exculpatory, the State’s failure to disclose it constitutes cause for Bramblett’s default of this claim.15 There was no prejudice, however. Carr’s statement is, at best, equivocal, and is thus inculpatory of himself (and exculpatory of Bramblett) only by inference. In light of the strong evidence against Bramblett, it is highly unlikely that any reasonable jury would draw such an inference, much less use it as a basis to acquit Bramblett. Cf. Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1, 8 (1995) (per curiam) (stating that, in light of overwhelming case against defendant, Brady violation could not be established by mere supposition).16