Opinion ID: 591438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: suppressed exculpatory evidence

Text: 22 In order to obtain habeas relief on his claim of improperly suppressed exculpatory evidence, Cornell must show: (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to him; and (3) the evidence was material to the issue of guilt. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). With regard to the first two prongs of the test, the state courts found that the prosecution did suppress the October 6, 1976, statement from Jody Seidenkranz and the September 29, 1976, statement from Bryce Oliver and that that evidence was favorable to Cornell's defense. We accept those findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 6 23 Suppressed exculpatory evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). The Supreme Court of Iowa concluded that the statements from Seidenkranz and Bryce were not material because there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different. Cornell, 430 N.W.2d at 386. The supreme court reasoned that the only use for Seidenkranz's statement would have been to impeach Albert and that Albert's testimony was impeached through the use of several prior inconsistent statements. Id. The court further noted that Albert's acquiescence in Cornell's statements could easily be explained by threats made by Cornell against Albert, which Albert had testified to at trial. Id. With regard to the statement by Bryce Oliver, the Supreme Court of Iowa reasoned that the statement would have impeachment value because Bryce had denied at trial threatening Crow with the razor scraper. Id. During his testimony, Cornell had testified concerning the threat made by Bryce against Crow. Id. The court also noted that this evidence would have bolstered Cornell's theory that Bryce killed Crow. Id. The court concluded, however, that a reasonable probability did not exist that the exclusion of Bryce's statement would have changed the result of the trial. Id. 24 A state court's determination regarding materiality under Brady is a mixed question of law and fact which is not entitled to the presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See, e.g., Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299, 1306 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1011, 108 S.Ct. 711, 98 L.Ed.2d 661 (1988); Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593, 610 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 962, 107 S.Ct. 458, 93 L.Ed.2d 404 (1986). After considering this matter de novo, we agree with the Supreme Court of Iowa that the suppressed evidence was not material. 25 The sole use of Seidenkranz's statement would have been to further impeach Albert. Albert was extensively cross-examined by counsel with his numerous previous inconsistent statements. The postconviction trial court found that Cornell's attorney had compiled numerous inconsistent statements of Albert Oliver on virtually every important point of his anticipated testimony and had prepared an elaborate cross-examination for Albert Oliver, and that his planned impeachment of Albert Oliver was presented to the jury through a thorough cross-examination. Cornell, No. 3453, slip op. at 4-5. A reading of the murder trial transcript confirms those findings. Further, Albert testified that he was afraid of Cornell because Cornell had threatened to kill him if he told anyone. The jury was aware that Albert did not tell anyone of Crow's murder until several days after it happened. We note the following testimony by Albert: 26 Q. When you got up to your mom's place, what did you do? 27 A. ... [W]e got out of the jeep and I just walked on up and so did Bobby and she asked where Crow was and Bobby said that he got mad and got out of the jeep and had stole his gun. 28 Q. Did you talk to Bob anymore in the week about this incident with Mr. Crow? 29 A. He kept on coming over to my house and asking everybody if they had seen Crow, and everybody just kept on telling him no; and he just told me to remember what he'd told me. 30 Q. What do you mean, remember what he told me? 31
32 Trial tr., vol. I at 41-42. 33 This testimony demonstrates that the jury was aware that Albert had initially acquiesced in Cornell's version of the events due to his fear of Cornell. Although the record is less than entirely clear, we find that the incident with Albert's mother, Alberta Garner, is probably the same incident referred to by Jody Seidenkranz (Albert's sister) in her statement. This additional item of cumulative impeachment material does not raise a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. 34 Special Agent Pontious's report of his September 29, 1976, interview with Bryce Oliver states the following: 35 The reporting agent questioned BRYCE OLIVER regarding a possible threat he had made towards KENNETH CROW prior to the time ROBERT CORNELL, KENNETH CROW and ALBERT OLIVER left for San Antonio, Texas. 36 BRYCE went on to state that approximately four days before they left for Texas ... he and KENNY became involved in some type of argument at which time he took out a razor scraper which he carried in his pocket and made threats towards KENNY however, he stated that this was not unusual and that there was no intent in the threat. 37 At trial, Cornell testified that he was present at the argument between Bryce and Crow and that Bryce had pulled a razor knife and threatened to cut Crow up. Bryce testified at trial as follows: 38 Q: Did you have an argument with [Crow] shortly before he went to Texas? 39 A: Yes. 40 .... 41 A: We got in an argument because there had been a break in at Industrial [Janitorial Services] and he said that Eric and I were trying to set him up for it, and make him look like he did it; and we had an argument about it. 42 Q: This is the argument you called a friendly argument? 43 A: I have arguments with friends of mine all the time, but as long as it ain't a fist fight or something, I feel it's just an argument between friends. 44 .... 45 Q: You threatened him at the time? At the time you had the arguments, didn't you threaten him?A: I don't recall. 46 Trial tr., vol. III, at 12-13. At his pretrial deposition, Bryce had testified as follows: 47 Q. Did you have a knife with you that day? 48 A. Yes. 49 Q. Did you pull that out? 50 A. No. If I pull a knife on somebody I'm going to use it, I'm going to carve them up. I'm not going to threaten nobody, it will be action. 51 Q. Did you threaten him that day with a knife? 52 A. I threatened to bust his head. 53 Deposition of Bryce Oliver at 118, as read during the February 18, 1985, evidentiary hearing at 51. 54 We first note that at trial Bryce did not deny threatening Crow. He testified that he did not recall whether or not he had. We also note that counsel did not impeach Bryce with his pretrial deposition testimony that he had threatened to bust Crow's head. The impeachment value of Bryce's statement to Special Agent Pontious is minimal. Further, although this evidence would have supported Cornell's theory that Bryce killed Crow, it does not conclusively prove either that Bryce actually killed Crow or that Cornell did not kill Crow. Finally, this evidence would not have affected the credibility of Albert's testimony. Accordingly, we find that there is not a reasonable probability that the disclosure of Bryce's statement would have affected the outcome of the trial.