Opinion ID: 6321839
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Khalilah Cook Mejors

Text: The facts of this claim are substantially similar to the facts of the newly discovered evidence claim related to Mejors. The only additional fact is that shortly after the shooting, Mejors told police that she was not wearing her prescription glasses when she witnessed the shooting. However, this information did not appear in any police reports, and the State only inquired about her vantage point, not her vision, during trial. Sheppard argues that the State knowingly concealed information of Mejors’s nearsightedness because police knowledge is imputed to the prosecutor. We agree with the circuit court that, even if Sheppard could show that the State withheld favorable evidence about Mejors’s nearsightedness so as to violate Brady and that the State knowingly presented testimony that was false under Giglio, Sheppard would still not be entitled to relief. Mejors’s testimony was cumulative, and her nearsightedness would not discredit her overall testimony, which was consistent with the testimony of other witnesses. Even presuming that Mejors’s testimony about her vantage point was false within the meaning of Giglio for omitting that she was not wearing her prescription glasses, the error was harmless beyond a - 51 - reasonable doubt, as there is no reasonable possibility it contributed to the conviction. See Ponticelli, 941 So. 2d at 1088. Also, even assuming the State’s suppression of favorable evidence, having failed under the more “defense friendly” materiality prong of Giglio, Sheppard cannot meet his burden to show “a reasonable probability that the jury verdict would have been different had the suppressed information been used at trial” as required to establish materiality under Brady. Smith, 931 So. 2d at 796. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of relief.