Opinion ID: 2806764
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence Concerning Jennifer

Text: Next, Jerry argues that the nondisclosure of “police notes on the interview with Jennifer . . . were even more important to the defense.” In his brief, Jerry maintains that the notes from the police interview with Jennifer, who did not testify at trial, would show that Linda “concocted a story and then went to W[hitney’s] family in an attempt to get W[hitney] to make allegations against Jerry to assist in her divorce.” Essentially, Jerry believes the police notes would prove his theory of the case: that Linda lied to benefit during the divorce and that Jerry had made inappropriate advances only toward Jennifer, when she was an adult. But this logic is several steps removed from what the notes themselves indicate. The police notes establish who Jennifer is and that Jerry purportedly made several inappropriate advances toward her, including: telling her she had “nice legs when wearing a skirt,” commenting on knowing where she had been throughout the day, calling Jennifer’s home and speaking only if she answered, and offering “to meet her in the work parking lot.” Jerry’s argument centers on one line of the police notes, which states that Jennifer “told [her husband] who had a conversation w[ith] Jerry[. Jennifer] was then accused of coming onto Jerry by Linda.” Jerry believes that this establishes that Linda knew of Jerry’s inappropriate behavior toward Jennifer long before the divorce proceedings. Therefore, the argument goes, Linda falsely testified that she learned of Jerry’s advances toward Jennifer for the first time when the divorce was initiated; further, Linda was also lying about her reason for contacting Whitney’s parents, which sparked the entire case. At trial, Linda testified that Jennifer told her some “disturbing” information about Jerry, which prompted Linda to contact Whitney’s parents. Linda’s testimony at trial was not that the information about Jennifer was “new” per se, although that fact could reasonably be implied. However, even if such evidence undermines Linda’s testimony, Jerry does not bother to explain how the document would have been admissible or even helpful at trial, except to “impeach” Linda. Yet, Linda could not be impeached by Jennifer’s statements, and “withheld information No. 13-2404 Bales v. Bell Page 9 is material under Brady only if it would have been admissible at trial or would have led directly to admissible evidence.” See Gumm, 775 F.3d at 363. Furthermore, defense counsel could have questioned Linda about whether Jennifer’s allegations were new at the time she and Jerry began their divorce.3 Instead, defense counsel questioned Linda’s motives, without questioning the timing of Jennifer’s accusations. In any event, the single line from the police notes does not rise to the level of being “material” because there is no “reasonable probability that,” had the police notes been disclosed to Jerry, “the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickler, 527 U.S. at 280. The very fact that defense counsel could have asked Jerry or Linda about whether Jennifer’s accusations were new, but chose not to do so, indicates that the evidence is not material for Brady purposes. Moreover, Linda was cross-examined extensively about her true motives, and any further questioning would have been cumulative so as to render it immaterial. See Byrd, 209 F.3d at 518. Finally, the police notes could have harmed Jerry more than they would have harmed Linda’s credibility because the notes would highlight a third woman to have made accusations against Jerry for his alleged inappropriate behavior.