Opinion ID: 157009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Police report suggesting struggle

Text: 62 One of the investigating officers, Det. Cpl. G.V. Moreland, prepared a supplementary offense report which contained the following description of Mr. Buckley: 63 The victim's shirt had a tear in the area of the buttonhole for the top button. This tear appeared that the shirt had been ripped open, and the buttonhole had been ripped all the way through and was no longer operable. Victim also showed signs of a possible struggle in that he had what appeared to be a fingernail scrape on his right cheek and another small cut on the right side of his neck. 64 Report, Pl's Ex. 20, R. Vol. II at Tab 11. This report was apparently never disclosed to the defense. 65 The district court held that the failure to disclose this report to the defense was a Brady violation. We agree, given its relevance to Mr. Newsted's defense. Thus, as did the district court, we turn to whether there is a reasonable probability that, had the report been disclosed to defense counsel, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433-34, 115 S.Ct. 1555. 66 The district court carefully detailed, as have we, all the evidence contradicting Mr. Newsted's version of events. We also note that no other investigating officer testified to or reported indications of a struggle. 67 Moreover, the forensic pathologist, Dr. M.F. Merchant, who performed the autopsy on Mr. Buckley, testified to the jury about the abrasions on Mr. Buckley's neck, and he stated twice that they could have been the result of an altercation or a scuffle. Tr. Part II at 537, 542. Thus, the marginal additional information that one officer observed that Mr. Buckley's shirt looked like it had been sharply pulled at the neck does not create a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different result. We therefore affirm the district court's conclusion that this Brady violation caused Mr. Newsted no prejudice. 68