Opinion ID: 1012703
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Attendance at Parole Revocation Hearing

Text: Four days after Wilson’s initial contact with law enforcement officers concerning the Poore murder, Special Agent Perry appeared at 7 The MAR court concluded that the question did not tend to demonstrate that Wilson’s testimony was false, but did not specifically rule concerning the obligation of the prosecution to disclose the fact that Wilson had asked the question. 10 CHANDLER v. LEE Wilson’s parole revocation hearing and informed the parole board that Wilson had provided information concerning the case. Following his appearance, Special Agent Perry wrote a report that was included in the District Attorney’s files for the prosecution of Chandler. During a pretrial hearing, the District Attorney informed the court that an individual . . . who may be a witness in this case . . . ask- [ed] that he be given some consideration before the parole board. That individual, the relief prayed for was not granted by the parole board. But the state did, through its agents go to the parole board and ask that it be done. Tr. of Motions Hearing, Apr. 19, 1993, at 14. At trial, Special Agent Perry testified that he had appeared before the parole board and had informed the board that Wilson had provided information related to the Poore murder. And, Wilson testified that he had asked Special Agent Perry to appear at the hearing and that he hoped Perry’s appearance would benefit him. Chandler maintains that the State violated Brady by failing to disclose the report because its existence—and the fact that it was placed in the District Attorney’s files for the prosecution of Chandler— shows that Agent Perry regarded his attendance at the parole hearing for Mr. Wilson as part of his duties for the Chandler case. Prelim. Br. of Petitioner-Appellant Frank Ray Chandler at 44 [hereinafter Appellant’s Br.]. Therefore, Chandler maintains, the report had impeachment value as to the motivations and expectations of Mr. Wilson. Id. We conclude that the failure to disclose the report did not violate Chandler’s constitutional rights.8 All of the information found in the report concerning Special Agent Perry’s appearance before the parole board was revealed at trial through Perry’s own testimony. And, the fact that the report was placed in the Chandler prosecution file is not material in light of Perry’s testimony that he informed the parole 8 The MAR court did not specifically address Chandler’s Brady challenge to the failure to disclose the report; we therefore consider the matter de novo. CHANDLER v. LEE 11 board that Wilson had provided information concerning Poore’s murder. Chandler also maintains that the report should have been disclosed because it indicated that the sheriff of Surry County—where Wilson’s forgery charges were pending—attended the hearing. Chandler argues that the sheriff’s presence at the hearing created in Wilson an expectation that he would receive assistance on those charges in exchange for his testimony. There is absolutely no evidence supporting the existence of such an expectation, however. And, the mere fact that the sheriff was present at a parole revocation hearing conducted within his own jail does not, alone or in conjunction with the other suppressed evidence, create a reasonable probability that the jury would have either rejected Wilson’s testimony or reached a different conclusion regarding Chandler’s guilt.