Opinion ID: 164600
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence

Text: Mr. Ives argues he “was denied his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because the prosecutor suppressed material exculpatory evidence.” The allegedly exculpatory evidence consists of (1) a medical report allegedly stating that the victim’s hymen was intact in 1987, and (2) a letter received by Child Welfare Services after the trial from a mental health care professional who had examined the victim. We review each document in turn. “[S]uppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to -24- punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). We determine materiality by “whether there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of [the trial] ... would have been different had the State disclosed this information earlier.” Knighton v. Mullin, 293 F.3d 1165, 1172-73 (10th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 930 (2003). The first document identified by Mr. Ives is a medical report prepared following a physical examination of the victim in response to her first claims of abuse against Mr. Ives in 1987. Mr. Ives argues the report conclusively establishes he could not have had sexual intercourse with the victim prior to 1987 because the report states the victim’s hymen was intact at the time of the examination. Thus, Mr. Ives argues the report is exculpatory because it renders impossible the victim’s allegations Mr. Ives had sexually abused her from 1986 to 1987 and casts “grave[] doubt” on the victim’s other allegations. Mr. Ives’ description of the medical report is inaccurate. Instead of conclusively reporting the victim’s hymen was intact, the report simply states the victim’s “[h]ymen was thought to be intact.” Further, immediately preceding this uncertain remark, the medical report contains a section entitled “Past Medical History.” This section notes the victim was examined in June 1985 and concludes that at that time “her [h]ymen was not intact.” The report also states that at the -25- 1987 exam the victim had “red, purple blotchy bruises on her inner thighs.” In looking at the information contained in the entire report, the report does little to damage the victim’s credibility and does not conclusively establish the victim had not engaged in sexual intercourse prior to the 1987 examination. Consequently, Mr. Ives’ Brady claim with respect to the medical report is without merit because the report is neither exculpatory nor material. The second piece of evidence Mr. Ives claims the prosecution wrongfully withheld is a letter written by Dr. Carmen Warren-Chioco after the conclusion of the criminal trial. The letter Dr. Warren-Chioco sent to Child Welfare Services expressed her concern for the victim’s “current drug abuse, manipulativeness, oppositional defiance and continuing borderline pathology.” Mr. Ives argues the letter is material because it establishes the victim’s erratic behavior was not the result of post-traumatic stress disorder caused by sexual abuse, but the result of her oppositional defiance disorder. Although Mr. Ives concedes the prosecution had no obligation to turn over this letter because it was written after the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Ives believes “because Child Welfare Services was closely involved in the criminal case and the letter was written immediately after the trial, the prosecution had to have known that its own agents, in an ongoing fashion, were aware of [the victim’s] numerous, impeaching mental impairments.” -26- After reviewing the entire letter, we, like the magistrate judge and the district court, conclude that nothing in the letter shows the prosecution or its agents had any information about the victim’s alleged oppositional defiance disorder prior to or during trial. Having concluded the prosecution did not withhold exculpatory evidence, we deny Mr. Ives’ request for habeas relief based on Brady v. Maryland.