Opinion ID: 721475
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Suppression of Exculpatory and Impeachment Evidence

Text: 55 In Count Two, McMillian alleges that Tate, Ikner, and Benson withheld exculpatory and impeachment evidence in violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court found that McMillian had presented sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact as to whether Tate, Ikner, and Benson intentionally withheld several pieces of exculpatory and impeachment evidence from the Morrison prosecutor. The district court rejected defendants' claims of qualified immunity, holding that intentionally withholding exculpatory or impeachment evidence from the prosecutor with no reason to believe that the prosecutor had or knew of the evidence violated clearly established law under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 56
57 Brady protects an accused's due process right to a fair trial. Id. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1197. In Brady, the Supreme Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Id., 373 U.S. at 87-91, 83 S.Ct. at 1197-98. Brady requires disclosure of both exculpatory and impeachment evidence that is material. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-54, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). Evidence is material if its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, ----, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1566, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). 58 The Supreme Court has not explicitly addressed the disclosure duties of the police and other investigators under Brady. This court has noted, however, that investigators have no duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense. Kelly v. Curtis, 21 F.3d at 1552. 13 The Constitution imposes the duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense on the prosecutor. Id. See also Walker v. City of New York, 974 F.2d 293, 299 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 961, 113 S.Ct. 1387, 122 L.Ed.2d 762 (1993). 14 Investigators satisfy their obligations under Brady when they turn exculpatory and impeachment evidence over to the prosecutor. Walker, 974 F.2d at 299; Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 995 (7th Cir.1988). If they have reason to believe that the prosecutor already has the exculpatory and impeachment evidence, though, investigators have no duty to disclose the evidence. Kelly, 21 F.3d at 1552. 59 On appeal, neither Tate, Ikner, nor Benson disputes that an investigator has a duty under Brady to turn exculpatory and impeachment evidence over to the prosecutor. Nor do they dispute that the evidence that they allegedly suppressed was Brady material. Instead, Tate argues that he had reason to believe that the prosecutor knew about the exculpatory and impeachment evidence because Ikner, the prosecutor's investigator, knew of the evidence. Ikner and Benson argue that Brady did not require them to turn the evidence at issue over to the prosecutor in the circumstances of this case. 15 Ikner and Benson also argue that they could not have known, when they acquired the evidence, that the evidence would turn out to be exculpatory. 60 In arguing that he had reason to believe that the prosecutor was aware of the exculpatory and impeachment evidence, Tate relies on our decision in Kelly v. Curtis, 21 F.3d 1544. Plaintiff in Kelly sued three police detectives under § 1983 for illegal detention, among other claims. Plaintiff had spent a year in jail on drug charges that eventually were dropped. He alleged that the detectives concealed from the prosecutor a lab report revealing that the substance on his possession was not cocaine. The district court denied the detectives' motion for summary judgment, holding that the detectives had a legal obligation to ensure that the judge or prosecutor was aware of all exculpatory evidence. Id. at 1549. We reversed, holding that the police have no duty to disclose exculpatory evidence when they have reason to believe that the prosecutor already is aware of the evidence. Id. at 1552. In Kelly, the detectives had reason to believe that the prosecutor was aware of the lab report because the report listed the district attorney's office as a recipient and the state lab had a practice of sending a copy directly to the prosecutor. Id. 61 Tate argues that he had even more reason to believe that the prosecutor was aware of the exculpatory and impeachment evidence than the detective in Kelly because Ikner, who was part of the prosecutor's office, knew of the evidence. We agree that a prosecutor's investigator's awareness of exculpatory or impeachment evidence usually will give other investigators reason to believe that the prosecutor is aware of the evidence. But Tate cannot avail himself of that argument, for he allegedly conspired with Ikner to withhold the evidence from the prosecutor. Thus, far from having reason to believe that the prosecutor was aware of the evidence, Tate allegedly knew that the prosecutor was not aware of the evidence. Kelly, therefore, is inapplicable to this case. 62 Ikner and Benson argue that they did not violate Brady because the exculpatory and impeachment evidence was acquired during the Pittman murder investigation rather than during the Morrison investigation. Thus, they argue, the evidence properly was left in the Pittman file rather than in the Morrison file. This argument is meritless. Ikner and Benson were investigating the Pittman murder contemporaneously with the Morrison murder. McMillian and Myers were charged in both murders. Regardless of which murder was being investigated at the precise moment the evidence was acquired, Ikner and Benson had an obligation under Brady to give evidence that was favorable to McMillian in the Morrison murder to the Morrison prosecutor. 16 63
64 Tate, Ikner, and Benson are protected by qualified immunity unless their actions violated clearly established law. Pre-existing law as of 1987 and 1988, when they acted, must have made it obvious to every like-situated, reasonable government agent that withholding the exculpatory and impeachment evidence from the Morrison murder prosecutor violated federal law in the circumstances. Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1150. Citing the Fifth Circuit's decision in Geter v. Fortenberry, 849 F.2d 1550, 1559 (5th Cir.1988), the district court held that in 1987 and 1988 a police officer had a clearly established duty under Brady to not intentionally withhold exculpatory or impeachment evidence from the prosecutor. 65 We agree with the Fifth Circuit that clearly established law in 1987 and 1988 prohibited the police from concealing exculpatory or impeachment evidence. See Geter, 849 F.2d at 1559. 17 Brady and its progeny made clear that an accused's due process rights are violated when the prosecution fails to disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence to the defense, regardless of whether the prosecutor himself acted in bad faith or even knew of the evidence. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. at 153-54, 92 S.Ct. at 766. Our case law clearly established that an accused's due process rights are violated when the police conceal exculpatory or impeachment evidence. Freeman v. State of Georgia, 599 F.2d 65, 69 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1013, 100 S.Ct. 661, 62 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980). 18 We had explained: 66 The police are also part of the prosecution, and the taint on the trial is no less if they, rather than the State's Attorney, were guilty of the nondisclosure ... The duty to disclosure [sic] is that of the state, which ordinarily acts through the prosecuting attorney; but if he too is the victim of police suppression of the material information, the state's failure is not on that account excused. 67 Id. at 69-70 (citations omitted). See also Ross v. Hopper, 716 F.2d 1528, 1534 (11th Cir.1983) (holding that any information obtained by law enforcement officers in course of investigation must be attributed to prosecutor for purposes of Brady violation); United States v. Antone, 603 F.2d 566, 569-70 (5th Cir.1979) (imputing knowledge of state investigators to federal prosecutors in determining whether there was Brady violation). Thus, pre-existing law in this circuit clearly established that withholding Brady material from the prosecutor, and thus preventing its disclosure to the defense, violates an accused's due process rights. 19 68 Our conclusion that Tate, Ikner, and Benson's duties under Brady were clearly established does not end the inquiry. It remains to be determined whether a reasonable officer in Tate, Ikner, and Benson's position would know, when they acted, that the evidence withheld from the prosecutor was material, that is, that withholding the evidence would undermine confidence in the outcome of McMillian's trial. For if a reasonable officer would not know that the exculpatory and impeachment evidence was material, he would not know that what he is doing violates federal law in the circumstances. See Lassiter, 28 F.3d at 1149. 69 The standard of materiality at the time Tate, Ikner, and Benson acted is the same standard applicable today. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. at ---- - ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1565-66. Evidence is material and therefore must be disclosed if there is a reasonable probability that, if the evidence is suppressed, the result of the proceeding will be different. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1565 (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)). A reasonable probability of a different result is shown when the suppression of evidence would undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1566 (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. at 678, 105 S.Ct. at 3381). In evaluating materiality, suppressed evidence must be evaluated collectively, not item-by-item. Id. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1567. 70 The district court held that several pieces of withheld evidence were clearly exculpatory. 20 However, the district court did not ask whether every reasonable official in the position of Tate, Ikner, and Benson would understand that withholding those particular pieces of evidence would undermine confidence in the outcome of McMillian's trial. The court viewed the evidence with the benefit of hindsight, knowing what evidence actually was presented at trial, and agreed with the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals that the evidence withheld was material. But Tate, Ikner, and Benson did not have the benefit of knowing exactly how the totality of the evidence would play out at trial. It is from their perspective that the district court should have analyzed whether the evidence was material, and we remand for the district court to do so. 21