Opinion ID: 617036
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State's failure to disclose exculpatory material

Text: John Duncan, a principal witness for the state, had a lengthy criminal history. As part of its efforts to gain his cooperation in the first trial, in 1979, the prosecution promised to assist Duncan with a pending, unrelated California criminal proceeding. In impeaching Duncan's credibility, the defense was able to question him at length about his criminal record and the prosecution's promises of assistance, but the defense did not know that a prosecutor and detective in 1979 had actually written letters on Duncan's behalf to California authorities. Schad's most significant challenge to his conviction is the prosecution's failure to disclose these letters as impeachment material. Schad asserts that the state's actions violated his due process rights as set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). The state has conceded that it should have disclosed the letters under Brady, so the Brady issue is whether Schad was prejudiced by the omission. We agree with the district court that the omission does not justify habeas relief because it resulted in little or no prejudice, given the extensive impeachment material already available to the defense. Duncan eventually testified in both trials that while Schad was being detained prior to trial in 1979, Duncan visited him to talk about the theft of the Cadillac, and Schad made several incriminating statements: he asked Duncan to destroy Grove's credit cards, and said that he would deny being in any area of Arizona or the state of Arizona, particularly Tempe, Arizona and Prescott, Arizona. In order to obtain Duncan's testimony and assistance with the Schad investigation, an investigative officer, Detective Halterman, had told Duncan he would write a letter to the judge presiding over Duncan's pending California criminal case. Moreover, the day before Duncan was set to testify at Schad's first trial in 1979, the prosecutor at that trial wrote to the California Community Release Board, stating that Duncan was an extremely important witness for the State of Arizona who had been very cooperative and deserve[d] any consideration that can be given, including an early release, if possible. The prosecutor wrote a similar letter a few weeks later to the California judge presiding over Duncan's prosecution, stating that Duncan was an important witness who was of material assistance to the prosecution in Schad's case, and requesting that Duncan's sentence be reviewed and if possible, his sentence be modified in light of his contribution to criminal justice. Before the second trial in 1985, defense counsel unsuccessfully moved to suppress Duncan's testimony. Duncan testified at that trial that Detective Halterman promised to write a letter on his behalf, but stated he did not know whether Halterman actually sent one. Halterman testified that he did offer to write a letter on Duncan's behalf, but stated he did not remember whether he actually sent a letter. Duncan further testified that he did not ask the prosecutor in Schad's first trial for any special treatment, although he did tell the prosecutor he knew of people in the state prison that have been released early due to the fact of a state prisoner being a witness in a major or semi major crime. Duncan stated that he did not receive early release or any other lenient treatment in exchange for his testimony at Schad's first trial. At the close of the second trial, the prosecution still had not disclosed the letters so the defense could use them to impeach Duncan. The defense was, however, able to impeach Duncan's credibility with other evidence of his lengthy criminal history, including the fact that he was currently serving a sentence for theft. Duncan admitted the advantages he asked for and some he obtained in exchange for his involvement in the Schad investigation. Detective Halterman stated on cross that although he could not remember whether he sent a letter to California authorities on Duncan's behalf, he recalled promising to do so, and probably did send a letter, further impeaching Duncan's credibility. Through this impeachment, the defense established Duncan had a motivation to testify falsely. The letters themselves would have provided some documentation of his motivation, but would not have provided a new or further motivation. It is not now disputed that the letters could have been used to impeach Duncan. The prosecution's duty to disclose material, potentially exculpatory evidenceincluding impeachment evidenceto a criminal defendant was established in Brady, 373 U.S. at 86, 83 S.Ct. 1194. The state violates its obligations under Brady, and denies a criminal defendant due process of law, where the following three elements are met: (1) the evidence in question was favorable to the defendant, meaning that it had either exculpatory or impeachment value; (2) the state willfully or inadvertently suppressed the evidence; and (3) the defendant was prejudiced by the suppression. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999). The sole dispute here concerns the question of prejudice. The state's failure to disclose the letters written on Duncan's behalf was prejudicial to Schad if there [was] a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (citation omitted). We conclude the state's admitted failure to turn over the letters was not prejudicial. In the first place, the letters provided no independent basis for impeaching Duncan. We are less likely to find the withholding of impeachment material prejudicial in cases in which the undisclosed materials would not have provided the defense with a new and different form of impeachment. In Barker v. Fleming, 423 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir.2005), for example, we held that the prosecution's failure to disclose evidence of a witness's four prior convictions was not prejudicial because the undisclosed evidence was duplicative of impeachment already pursued at trial. We explained that the evidence would not have provide[d] `the defense with a new and different ground of impeachment.' Id. at 1097 (quoting Silva v. Brown, 416 F.3d 980, 989 (9th Cir.2005)). We have also applied that test to grant relief where the undisclosed evidence would have provided a new basis for impeachment. In Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570 (9th Cir.2005), we held that the prosecution's failure to disclose an immunity deal with its key witness did prejudice the defendant, where the impeachment pursued at trial went to the witness's criminal history and participation as a getaway driver in the defendant's offense. The undisclosed Brady information was that the key witness had received immunity for his testimony; this provided an independent motive for the witness to lie and would have made his critical, uncontroverted testimony less credible. Id. at 580. We held that the undisclosed promise of immunity was material, and therefore prejudicial, because it constituted a wholly different kind of impeachment evidence from the lines of impeachment pursued by the defense at trial. Id. This case is like Barker, where the undisclosed evidence related to the same motives to lie as evidence already known to and utilized by the defense. Here the jury knew that the prospect of obtaining assistance with the California case provided an incentive to lie. Moreover, Duncan was also impeached by his extensive criminal record, apart from the California case. In addition, in this case each of the three letters was written in connection with Duncan's assistance at Schad's first trial in 1979, so that the letters would have shed little light on Duncan's motivation to testify at the second trial six years later. Duncan had already enjoyed any benefit the letters prompted, and did not receive any further assistance for his testimony in 1985. Finally, and most important, the circumstantial evidence demonstrating Schad's guilt was powerful, and Schad did not offer any significant evidence to rebut the strong inference of guilt arising from that evidence. In light of the evidence against Schad, any additional impeachment value of the letters would not have changed the jury's verdict. Schad is not entitled to relief on his Brady claim because of the lack of prejudice resulting from the prosecution's failure to produce the actual letters written pursuant to a promise of assistance to Duncan that, along with the history of Duncan's other transgressions, was fully known to the defense. In a related argument, Schad asserts that the state committed prosecutorial misconduct by permitting Duncan to testify falsely in 1985 that he did not receive any assistance from the state in exchange for his cooperation. Schad relies on Napue, 360 U.S. at 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, in which the Supreme Court held that the state violated a defendant's right to due process by doing nothing to correct a witness's false testimony that he received no promise of consideration from the prosecutor in exchange for his cooperation. To prevail on a Napue claim, a habeas petitioner must show that (1) the testimony (or evidence) was actually false, (2) the prosecution knew or should have known that the testimony was actually false, and (3) that the false testimony was material. United States v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir.2003). Under Napue, false testimony is material, and therefore prejudicial, if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972, 984 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (citation omitted); see also id. at 978 ([I]f it is established that the government knowingly permitted the introduction of false testimony reversal is virtually automatic.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, it is not entirely clear that Duncan lied. Although there is some indication in the record that Duncan may at some point have learned that Detective Halterman wrote a letter on his behalf, because the letter was referred to during a California proceeding in Duncan's case, it is not clear that Duncan remembered this letter in 1985 and thus lied on the stand. Even assuming he did, there is no evidence that the state knew or should have known that his testimony was false. Finally, the record before us does not reflect that the California authorities acted on Halterman's and the prosecutor's requests to benefit Duncan. Duncan's testimony that he received no assistance in his California case was not necessarily false even if he knew and remembered the letter.