Opinion ID: 732905
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Violations of Brady v. Maryland

Text: 15 Donovan also claims that he should have been granted a new trial because the undisclosed evidence was discoverable under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 16 In Brady, the Supreme Court held that due process requires disclosure of any evidence that is both favorable to an accused and is material either to guilt or to punishment. Id. at 87. Evidence favorable to the accused 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.'  Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1565 (1995) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985)). The defendant must demonstrate that he was denied a fair trial 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. Id. at 1566; see United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F.3d 311, 316 (7th Cir.1996). In analyzing a Brady claim, we do not consider the suppressed evidence item-by-item, but rather we must determine whether the suppressed evidence, viewed collectively, undermines confidence in the verdict. See Kyles, 115 S.Ct. at 1567. 17 We agree with the finding of the district court that the cumulative effect of the Brady violations alleged by Donovan does not undermine the confidence in the verdict against Donovan. (R. 117, at 13.) As the court noted, even if each of the allegedly withheld documents had been disclosed to the defense, the outcome of the trial would not have changed because the documents, when taken together, constitute[ ] only minor and insignificant bits of evidence. Id. at 14. The jury heard ample testimony at trial to question the credibility of both Young and Kizel, and the undisclosed documents add little to what the jury already knew. The jury was informed, for instance, that Young had been a frequent and longstanding user of cocaine and that she had prostituted herself to obtain drugs. Similarly, the jury knew about Kizel's role in the conspiracy, and therefore his status as a major or minor drug dealer would not have significantly affected his credibility. Furthermore, Kizel's testimony at trial essentially repeated the description contained in the storage facility document. When considered cumulatively, the undisclosed evidence does not undermine confidence in the jury's verdict.