Opinion ID: 77758
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Muszynski Letter

Text: 48 While not the focus of his appeal, Jennings does refer to a separate piece of impeachment evidence that gave rise to a Brady claim in the state courts. In a letter written to a state attorney in 1985, Muszynski requested the appointment of counsel because of his involvement in the Jennings case: 49 I was interviewed and left a calling card by Wayne D. Porter, Investigator for your Office in reference to a murder case of a six year old child which had been sexually abused. 50 In order for me to be able to communicate with your office for any possible assistance you may require of me I would appreciate if you would have an attorney appointed for me so that I will not infringe on any of my Fifth Amendment rights, being a layman, and that all discussions would be handled through said attorney representing me. 51 Jennings V, 782 So.2d at 858 n. 6. The letter was not disclosed at trial, and Jennings contends that its contents reveal that Muszynski envisioned a quid pro quo exchange of legal representation for his testimony. Like the other impeachment evidence discussed above, Jennings argues that this letter undermines the credibility of Muszynski's testimony and its value in establishing the HAC and CCP aggravating factors, as well as the absence of any mitigating circumstances. 52 The Florida Supreme Court dismissed this claim without discussion in Jennings IV, 583 So.2d at 322. In the subsequent appeal, the court noted that the revived claim was procedurally barred because it had been previously rejected, but it also addressed the merits to conclude that the letter did not constitute Brady material because it does not establish a reasonable probability of achieving a different result. Jennings V, 782 So.2d at 858 n. 6. Specifically, the court found that, because the letter contained only a request for counsel in order to avoid incriminating himself, Muszynski's letter does not evidence that he was seeking (or that the State was offering) an improper benefit that would lead Muszynski to fabricate testimony. Id. The letter self-evidently supports this conclusion. While disagreeing, Jennings does not explain how this conclusion is contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. An independent search has uncovered no Supreme Court decision that reaches an opposite conclusion on materially indistinguishable facts. Nor do we find that the state court's conclusion is an unreasonable application of the Bagley materiality standard. 53 For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the denial of Jennings's habeas petition based on the claimed Brady violations. 12