Opinion ID: 772156
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of jurisdiction3

Text: 36 The State argues that the district court erred by failing to consider all of the evidence regarding jurisdiction that was introduced at trial. The State claims that the location and condition of Palmer's body differed importantly from the location and condition of Currier's body. The State argues that these facts together with the incline, the terrain, the fence and the foliage in the area, and the fact that the jury was permitted to view the scene where the bodies were found, adequately supported a finding of jurisdiction. 37 This argument fails on several levels. First, the district court was clearly aware of the evidence regarding the location and condition of Palmer's body when it was found. All of that evidence is described in the district court's opinion. 38 Second, the location of Palmer's body was not in dispute--the crucial jurisdictional question was where Palmer was murdered, not where her body was found. Given that her body was found near Currier's (within 20 to 60 feet) and that no one suggested or argued that Currier was murdered in Idaho, the location of her body does not strongly suggest that she was murdered in Idaho. The State has not explained how the distance of 20 to 60 feet between the two bodies, the differences in their condition, the foliage and so forth, or the jury's view of the scene conclusively, or even strongly, supports jurisdiction in Idaho. 39 Third, materiality under Brady is in any event not evaluated under a sufficiency of the evidence test. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434-35. That is, the defendant need not demonstrate that after discounting the inculpatory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, there would not have been enough left to convict. Id. Rather, the defendant only needs to show a reasonable probability that the trial would have resulted in a different verdict had the evidence been disclosed. Id. (stating that one proves a Brady violation by showing that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict). It is true that if the verdict is supported by overwhelming evidence of guilt, then undisclosed exculpatory evidence that undermines only a small part of the prosecution's case may not be sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. But, for the reasons explained above, the evidence that the State pointsto regarding jurisdiction is far from overwhelming. 40 The district court found that Dr. Brady's testimony was instrumental in establishing jurisdiction, and the State has not challenged that conclusion. Because the district court also found that the notes, or evidence that they could have led to, would have contradicted and undermined Dr. Brady's testimony at trial, it concluded that confidence in the outcome of the trial had been undermined. The citation of other evidence regarding jurisdiction does not contradict these findings; the State's argument therefore fails. 41