Opinion ID: 5648768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: Cunningham argues that Ohio violated Brady by failing timely to turn over police interviews of two testifying witnesses. We conclude that this claim is partially procedurally defaulted and partially meritless. At trial, eyewitnesses Dwight Goodloe and James Grant testified. Defense counsel moved the trial court to review in camera a police report summarizing an interview with 15Wogenstahl addresses Ohio Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(B), not Rule 11.06(A). See Wogenstahl, 668 F.3d at 322. Rule 26(B) governs applications to reopen filed by defendants in all criminal cases, not just defendants in death-penalty cases. See OHIO APP. R. 26(B). The provisions are otherwise identical; they include the same ninety-day limit. Compare id., with OHIO S. CT. PRAC. R. 11.06(A). We therefore apply Wogenstahl’s analysis to this case. Nos. 11-3005/20-3429 Cunningham v. Shoop Page 46 Goodloe, R. 192-4 (Goodloe Rep.) (Page ID #5295–97), and two police reports memorializing interviews with Grant, id. (Grant Reps.) (Page ID #5140–50). Finding that Goodloe had testified consistently with his interview, the trial court did not supply the Goodloe report to defense counsel. R. 194-2 (Trial Tr. at 1037) (Page ID #10226). The trial court, however, found sufficient differences between Grant’s testimony and his interviews and allowed the defense to use the reports during cross-examination. Id. at 1296 (Page ID #10500). Defense counsel, however, never mentioned the Grant reports during cross. Id. at 1298–305 (Page ID #10502– 09). In his state postconviction petition, Cunningham cited Brady in two claims for relief; he assailed Ohio for failing to turn over the Goodloe and Grant reports ahead of trial. Cunningham explained that defense counsel could have used the interviews to impeach or undermine Goodloe and Grant. R. 192-4 (2003 Postconviction Pet.) (Page ID #5072–74, 5083–85). The Ohio Court of Appeals concluded that res judicata prevented it from reviewing Cunningham’s Brady arguments. See Cunningham, 2004 WL 2496525, at . The state appellate court reasoned that these Brady subclaims could have been fairly determined within the confines of the trial record and thus should have been raised on direct appeal. See id. Alternatively, the Ohio Court of Appeals concluded, the Brady claims were meritless. See id. at –12. Cunningham preserved his two Brady subclaims in his federal habeas petition. R. 19-5 (Habeas Pet. at 53) (Page ID #100). In his postconviction petition, Cunningham supplied two attachments for his argument that the State improperly withheld the Goodloe report—the report itself and Goodloe’s testimony at trial. R. 192-4 (2003 Postconviction Pet.) (Page ID #5074, 5109, 5135–36, 5295–97). Because this subclaim was based solely on the trial record, the Ohio Court of Appeals correctly invoked res judicata in refusing to hear this subclaim. See Hill v. Mitchell, 400 F.3d 308, 314 (6th Cir. 2005). We reach a different conclusion for the Grant subclaim. To support this claim, Cunningham attached to his postconviction petition the two Grant reports and Grant’s testimony at trial. These, of course, were part of the trial record. R. 192-4 (2003 Postconviction Pet.) (Page ID #5085, 5109, 5140–50). But Cunningham also attached Jackson’s investigator’s report, Nos. 11-3005/20-3429 Cunningham v. Shoop Page 47 which, again, was generated posttrial. That report laid out postverdict interviews with six jurors and an alternate, several of whom stated that Grant’s testimony swayed them to convict. Id. (Page ID #5085, 5109, 5121–32; 5140–50). Because Cunningham relied on evidence outside the trial record for this subclaim, the Ohio Court of Appeals incorrectly invoked res judicata in refusing to consider Cunningham’s assertion about the Grant reports. We may therefore review the merits of this subclaim. See Hill, 400 F.3d at 314. We apply § 2254(d)(1) deference to the Ohio Court of Appeals’s merits decision. The State violates the Constitution when it withholds evidence favorable to a defendant that is material to his guilt or punishment. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; see also United States v. Bencs, 28 F.3d 555, 561 (6th Cir. 1994). A delay in turning over evidence contravenes Brady only if the delay itself is prejudicial. See Bencs, 28 F.3d at 561. Here, the prosecution did produce the Grant reports; any prejudice arose from the timing of the handover. Even though defense counsel may have been better prepared to cross-examine Grant had the reports been turned over before (rather than during) trial, Cunningham’s lawyer failed to request a continuance to review the reports. Cf. Joseph v. Coyle, 469 F.3d 441, 472 (6th Cir. 2006). Indeed, when the trial court asked defense counsel if he was ready to cross-examine Grant, the lawyer answered in the affirmative. R. 194-2 (Trial Tr. at 1296) (Page ID #10500). Given these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the delay prejudiced Cunningham.