Opinion ID: 2763624
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence Pertaining to Other Suspects

Text: The undisclosed investigative reports contained multiple tips and witness statements incriminating other individuals. Investigators amassed considerable evidence suggesting that Roger Cordray might have been responsible for the murder–––including numerous reports that Roger Cordray had confessed to the crime. Witnesses told police that Cordray was known to sleep in the abandoned building where Aaron’s body was found, and one witness, George Putteet, told police that he had seen Aaron in the vicinity of the abandoned building around 10:30 p.m. on the night of the murder. Putteet further stated that a group of unidentified individuals “were messing with drunks in the alley,” including Cordray, and were “calling him names [and] getting him to chase them.” (R. 135-2 at 1123.) Investigators received several reports that Cordray had confessed to numerous people that he had murdered Aaron, and further, that he had bragged about it and was “glad Aaron was dead.” (R. 135-2 at 1101; id. at 1102.) One witness reported that another man “beat up” Cordray after Cordray said that he and a friend had killed Aaron. (Id. at 1119.) Yet another witness reported that Cordray threatened a woman named Christine Robertson that he would harm her if she told anyone about a coat that belonged to him that was discovered in the abandoned building. Anthony Steele and Theresa Wright-Steele told police that Cordray had approached them and said, “I did it. I killed the little kid.” (Id. at 1105.) Steele and WrightSteele further reported that Cordray’s hands and knuckles were “all scraped up,” and, although Cordray was drunk and high on Valium at the time, they believed him when he said that he had killed Aaron. (Id. at 1104-09.) Bies’ counsel was never made aware that Cordray was a suspect, or that he had been linked to the case in any way. No. 12-3431 Bies v. Sheldon Page 15 The State also withheld a good deal of evidence implicating a man named Raymond Moore. Police received numerous reports connecting Moore to Aaron’s murder. One witness saw Moore entering the abandoned building around 7:00 p.m. on the night of the murder, around the same time that Bies and Gumm were seen in the adjacent park. Moore told the police that he knew Aaron and had looked for him for several hours after being asked to help search by a police officer around 9:00 p.m.; however, Aaron had not been reported missing until after 11:00 p.m. In addition, Moore had apparently lived in the abandoned building at some point, and Aaron’s uncle, William Raines, told police that he noticed Moore acting strangely and that he seemed to be avoiding Aaron’s mother. Although Cordray and Moore were the most notable alternative suspects, the undisclosed police files are replete with references to other individuals who may have had some involvement in Aaron’s murder. For example, a witness reported that a man named Reggie Hetsler approached a fifteen-year-old boy at a bus stop in Cincinnati and said that “he killed and raped the little boy at 8th and State along with his brother.” (R. 135-2 at 1126-27.) Other suspects included Garland Inman––a man who had previously been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for the sexual assault of several family members. Inman was seen near the scene of the crime on the night of Aaron’s murder. Claude Justice, the subject of a “crime-stoppers” tip, was reported to have used the abandoned building where Aaron’s body was found for sex. Several witnesses believed that a man named Luther Hatton had been involved in Aaron’s murder because he had a violent criminal history, had been seen near the abandoned building, and mysteriously disappeared after a night of drinking around 10:00 p.m. on the night of the murder. Defense counsel was not made aware of any of these suspects or the evidence connecting them to the crime. At trial, defense counsel did not set forth a compelling alternative narrative of Aaron’s murder––in part because counsel was not aware of the existence of any other suspects and was not privy to the evidence implicating those suspects. b. Evidence Undermining the State’s Theory of the Case On top of the evidence pertaining to other legitimate suspects, the State also failed to disclose evidence that undermines the State’s narrative of the crime. First, the State failed to disclose numerous witness statements that placed Aaron at a local ice cream stand as late as No. 12-3431 Bies v. Sheldon Page 16 midnight on the night of the murder. Second, the State failed to disclose the statement of a witness who told investigators that he had seen Aaron in the abandoned building in the past. This evidence undermines the State’s theory that Aaron would not have entered the building unless coerced and casts further doubt on the State’s narrative of the crime. E. Materiality of the Undisclosed Evidence The record in this case unquestionably establishes that the State possessed and suppressed evidence that was favorable to the accused; the only issue in dispute is whether the evidence was “material.” Evidence is material for purposes of Brady if the undisclosed evidence “could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 435. The Supreme Court has emphasized that a defendant is not required to show that the disclosure of the evidence would have ultimately led to an acquittal. Id. at 434-35. In fact, a defendant is not even required to show that he “would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence[.]” Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627, 630 (2012). Rather, he must show “only that the likelihood of a different result is great enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.” Id. at 629; see also United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985) (adopting and applying the “prejudice” standard from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)). To that effect, the Supreme Court has made clear that it is not necessary that “every item of the State’s case would have been directly undercut if the Brady evidence had been disclosed.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 451 (granting habeas relief where the “evidence remaining unscathed” would not have amounted to “overwhelming proof” of the defendant’s guilt). “Bagley materiality . . . is not a sufficiency of evidence test. A defendant need not demonstrate that after discounting the inculpatory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, there would not have been enough left to convict.” Id. at 434-35; see also Strickler, 527 U.S. at 290. In considering whether the failure to disclose exculpatory evidence undermines confidence in the outcome, “the omission must be evaluated in the context of the entire record.” United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112 (1976) (footnote omitted). As the Supreme Court observed in Agurs, “if the verdict is already of questionable validity, additional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 113. The No. 12-3431 Bies v. Sheldon Page 17 Supreme Court’s precedent mandates that we “undertake a careful, balanced evaluation of the nature and strength of both the evidence the defense was prevented from presenting and the evidence each side presented at trial.” Boss v. Pierce, 263 F.3d 734, 745 (7th Cir. 2001) (citing Kyles, 514 U.S. 419); see also United States v. Jernigan, 492 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). When the State fails to turn over numerous pieces of favorable evidence, as it did in this case, the proper focus of Brady’s materiality inquiry is on the cumulative effect of the suppressed evidence on the outcome of the trial. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436-37 (holding that suppressed evidence should be “considered collectively, not item by item”).8 Withheld information is material under Brady only if it would have been admissible at trial or would have led directly to admissible evidence. Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1, 6 (1995). Considering the quality and quantity of the evidence that the State failed to disclose in this case, the potential for that evidence to have affected the outcome of Bies’ trial is inescapable. Given the strength of the exculpatory evidence that was suppressed by the State, and the relative weakness of the State’s case against Bies, the failure to disclose the evidence unquestionably put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 441-54; Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S. 867, 870 (2006); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 703 (2004). On its face, the nondisclosure of the identities of the other suspects—–two of whom were reported to have confessed to the murder—–was an egregious breach of the State’s Brady obligations. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; Kyles, 514 U.S. at 447; Jamison, 291 F.3d at 390-91 (granting habeas relief where the State suppressed evidence pertaining to other suspects). While the State is not necessarily required to disclose every stray lead and anonymous tip, it must disclose the existence of “legitimate suspect[s],” D’Ambrosio v. Bagley, 527 F.3d 489, 499 (6th 8 The district court assessed each item of suppressed evidence individually, and found that the evidence pertaining to “other suspects” was Brady material, while the remaining evidence was not. Bies, 2012 WL 1203529, at -25. Consequently, the district court “grant[ed] the [Brady claim] in part, as to the ‘other suspects’ subclaim, and [denied] it in part, as to the remainder.” Id. at . This analysis was incorrect. The Supreme Court has instructed that, rather than assess each item individually, we should evaluate whether, considered collectively, the failure to disclose all of the evidence created “a reasonable probability that . . . the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickler, 527 U.S. at 280. No. 12-3431 Bies v. Sheldon Page 18 Cir. 2008), especially when such information has been specifically requested by the defendant, as it was in this case. “Withholding knowledge of a second suspect conflicts with the Supreme Court’s directive that ‘the criminal trial, as distinct from the prosecutor’s private deliberations, [be preserved] as the chosen forum for ascertaining the truth about criminal accusations.’” Jernigan, 492 F.3d at 1056-57 (quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 440). Even armed with only the evidence implicating Roger Cordray, Bies’ defense counsel would have been able to construct a plausible alternative narrative of the crime and raise reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. Defense counsel could have established, through admissible eye-witness testimony, that a group of people, which may have included Aaron, was taunting Cordray near the abandoned building around 11:00 p.m. on the night of the murder. Eye-witnesses place Aaron in the same vicinity at approximately the same time. Cordray, who was known to sleep in the abandoned building, later confessed to numerous people that he had murdered Aaron.9 After the murder, a witness noticed that Cordray’s knuckles were scraped, and the police identified “some similarities” between Cordray’s palm print and the print found at the crime scene. Finally, the police never uncovered any evidence exonerating Cordray; rather, they eliminated Cordray as a suspect apparently because they simply believed him when he denied any involvement in the crime. Taken together, these facts demonstrate that Cordray had the means, motive, and opportunity to murder Aaron. These facts, had they been disclosed, would have provided a compelling counter-narrative to the State’s theory of the case and could have created a reasonable doubt as to Bies’ guilt in the minds of the jurors. 9 Cordray’s confessions are likely to have been admissible at trial, either as prior inconsistent statements under Ohio Rule of Evidence 613 if Cordray had testified, or as statements against interest under Rule 804(B)(3) if Cordray had not appeared or had refused to testify. Cordray’s confessions are supported by sufficient “corroborating circumstances” to fall within the ambit of Rule 804. First, Cordray’s confessions were apparently spontaneous, and were not coerced or procured while in police custody. Cf. State v. Yarbrough, 767 N.E.2d 216, 235 (Ohio 2002) (hearsay statement was supported by “corroborating circumstances that render [the] statement worthy of belief” where the speaker was “speaking to his wife, not to police; he was at home, not in custody; his statement was spontaneous, and he had nothing to gain . . . .”). Moreover, Steele and Wright-Steele told police that they believed Cordray’s confession. Furthermore, Cordray had been seen in and around the building where Aaron’s body was found, his hands appeared injured after the murder, and there were “some similarities” between his palm print and the print found at the crime scene. Taken together, these facts would have provided sufficient “corroborating circumstances” to permit the admission of Cordray’s hearsay confessions. See State v. Landrum, 559 N.E.2d 710, 720 (Ohio 1990) (finding corroborating circumstances when an individual spontaneously confessed shortly after a murder). No. 12-3431 Bies v. Sheldon Page 19 In addition, the introduction of the evidence amassed against Cordray, along with the evidence amassed against Raymond Moore, Reggie Hetzler, and other potential suspects whom investigators simply decided to stop pursuing, “would have raised opportunities to attack . . . the thoroughness and even the good faith of the investigation.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445. Defense counsel could have used this evidence to “attack[] . . . the investigation as shoddy,” and lessen the credibility of the State’s case against Bies. Id. at n. 13. Although the suppression of this evidence alone could have sufficiently tainted the trial, the witness statements reporting Aaron alive later in the evening and placing him in the abandoned building on prior occasions, considered collectively with all of the other suppressed evidence, see Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436-37, would have further weakened the State’s case against Bies. Although the State never established a definitive timeline of Aaron’s movements on the night of the murder, it procured testimony that Aaron was last seen around 7:00 p.m., and presented that testimony alongside evidence that Bies and Gumm were last seen in the park adjacent to the abandoned building at 7:00 p.m. The suggestion that Bies and Aaron were last seen at approximately the same time undoubtedly reinforced the State’s fragile case against Bies. By suppressing evidence that numerous witnesses had seen Aaron later that evening, and presenting only uncontradicted evidence that Aaron was last seen at 7:00 p.m., the State strengthened its case against Bies. The undisclosed contradictory evidence suggesting that Aaron was in fact alive much later in the evening could have been used by the defense to disrupt the State’s timeline and narrative of the crime. The capacity for the undisclosed evidence to have affected the outcome of Bies’ trial becomes even more apparent when viewed in light of the paltry evidence that the State did present. See Agurs, 427 U.S. at 112 (instructing that undisclosed evidence “must be evaluated in the context of the entire record”). The investigating officers never discovered any physical evidence linking Bies to the crime. Bies’ shoe treads and palm prints did not match those found at the crime scene; there was no DNA evidence recovered from the crime scene; officers did not find any incriminating evidence on the defendant’s person; and there were no eye-witnesses to the crime. No. 12-3431 Bies v. Sheldon Page 20 Instead, the State relied on three pieces of evidence: First, Bies was seen in a park near the abandoned building around 7:00 p.m. on the night of the murder. The relevance of this fact is clearly dubious given the numerous witnesses who saw Aaron much later that night—evidence which was never disclosed to the defense despite defense counsel’s specific Brady request. Second, a jailhouse informant, Steven Clark, testified that Bies had confessed to him while they were imprisoned together at the Hamilton County Justice Center. However, Clark’s credibility was thoroughly undermined on cross-examination, when he was questioned about his pervasive mental health problems and criminal history, including his most recent arrest for corruption of a minor and gross sexual imposition. Given that Clark was a jailhouse informant whose credibility was prominently called into question, his testimony was not particularly strong evidence. As the Supreme Court has acknowledged, “[j]urors suspect informants’ motives from the moment they hear about them in a case, and they frequently disregard their testimony altogether as highly untrustworthy and unreliable.” Banks, 540 U.S. at 702 (quotation marks omitted). Finally, and most importantly, the State relied on Bies’ alleged confession to the murder. Undoubtedly, a confession “is strong evidence of his guilt,” Harbison v. Bell, 408 F.3d 823, 834 (6th Cir. 2005), but there are numerous reasons why a jury would have discounted Bies’ alleged statements to the police, especially if they were presented with a compelling alternative theory of the crime. First of all, Bies’ alleged confession was neither recorded nor overheard by any impartial witness. The only “evidence” of the alleged confession is the self-serving testimony of the investigating officers. Bies disputes their testimony and denies making any incriminating statements during the final interview. He also denies requesting that the final interview not be recorded. In all three of Bies’ prior recorded statements, he fervently denied participating in the assault and staunchly disclaimed responsibility for the murder. Second, Bies is intellectually disabled. He has an IQ in the 0.4th percentile, “significant deficits in intellectual and adaptive functioning,” and the communication skills of a ten-year old. (R. 161-1 at 1596.) The Supreme Court has warned that defendants with intellectual disability are particularly prone to give false confessions. Hall, 134 S. Ct. at 1993; Atkins, 536 U.S. at 320-21; see also Morgan Cloud et al., Words without Meaning: The Constitution, Confessions, and Mentally Retarded Suspects, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 495, 511-12 (2002) (noting that No. 12-3431 Bies v. Sheldon Page 21 intellectually disabled individuals are “unusually susceptible to the perceived wishes of authority figures” and have “a generalized desire to please”). Even if the jury believed that Bies did in fact make incriminating statements as alleged, they had good reason to question the legitimacy of his confession. The detectives testified at trial about their strategy of cycling through unrecorded and recorded interrogation periods, giving Bies information that they had purportedly obtained during the course of their investigation while the recorder was off, and trying to get Bies to confirm the information when the recorder was turned back on. (See J.A. Vol. 3 at 774) (“We talked to [Bies] prior to starting the recording for the first time . . . and then we recorded the statement. After recording that statement, we talked to him again for a period of time making him aware of the facts. That was not recorded. After he had given us the facts, we then made another recorded statement. And on the third one, after we had gone through the same thing we had done on the two previous ones . . .”). The jury also heard the recorded statements in which the detectives asked leading questions to suggest the answers they desired and heard testimony that Bies was eager to “help” with the investigation. (See, e.g., J.A. Vol. 3 at 697) (during the drive from Kentucky to Ohio, Bies “initiated the conversation every time, as to maybe this would help, maybe this would help, maybe this would help, to that effect.”) Moreover, Bies denied any involvement in Aaron’s murder until, after a lengthy off-therecord conversation in which the detectives “made him aware of the facts,” Bies told them that he had seen Gumm take Aaron into the building and later found the boy dead. (Id. at 1616-26.) At the end of this statement, Bies seemed confused about the extremely serious nature of the murder investigation and the significance of what he had said, telling the detectives that he was willing to help them out further as soon as he could clear up a minor charge in Indiana. (Id. at 1625.) During the videotaped walk-through of the crime scene, Bies was confused about which building was which and gave vague details about the crime––some of which were not consistent with the physical evidence. He also used uncharacteristically advanced vocabulary to describe certain details, suggesting that he was merely repeating things that the officers had told him. (See, e.g., id. at 866) (describing the weapon as having “rivets”). No. 12-3431 Bies v. Sheldon Page 22 In light of these considerations, Bies’ alleged statements to the police are far from overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Bies had a questionable capacity to understand what was happening to him, and he repeatedly appeared eager to please the officers by offering them information. Although he described the crime scene in some detail, he did so only after having several lengthy off-the-record conversations with police, in which the police “ma[de] him aware of the facts.” (J.A. Vol. 3 at 744.) The only time Bies allegedly implicated himself in Aaron’s murder was unrecorded, and Bies denies ever making such a statement. To be sure, a jury could have accepted that Bies’ confession was genuine notwithstanding these problems; however, if the jury had also been presented with evidence that implicated other individuals in the murder and was inconsistent with the State’s and Bies’ own accounts of the crime, it may very well have determined that Bies’ alleged confession was unreliable. In this case, as in Kyles, “not every item of the State’s case would have been directly undercut if the Brady evidence had been disclosed.” 514 U.S. at 451. “It is significant, however, that the . . . evidence remaining unscathed would . . . hardly have amounted to overwhelming proof” of the defendant’s guilt. Id. Considering the evidence collectively, it is painfully clear that the result of the trial would likely have been different had the suppressed evidence been disclosed to the defense. See Strickler, 527 U.S. at 280; Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436-37. At the very least, the State’s failure to turn over this evidence can “reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.’” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 435. Supreme Court precedent compels this conclusion. Therefore, we agree with the district court that habeas relief is warranted. II. The Admission of Bies’ Custodial Statements Bies raises various other trial issues in his petition for habeas relief. For example, he contends that his custodial statements were improperly introduced into evidence and alleges that his inexperienced trial counsel performed deficiently in various ways. Having decided that Bies’ Brady claim warrants habeas relief, we decline to consider at this time whether the Ohio courts unreasonably applied “clearly established Federal law” such that habeas relief would be appropriate on any of the remaining claims. “Our decision affirming the grant of habeas corpus, No. 12-3431 Bies v. Sheldon Page 23 unless there is a new trial, obviates any question as to error in the prior trial.” Jamison, 291 F.3d at 392 (recognizing that “[w]e avoid unnecessary determination of constitutional questions” and dismissing remaining habeas claims as moot); see also Smith, 132 S. Ct. at 631 (declining to consider additional arguments after holding that habeas relief was appropriate on the basis of one of petitioner’s Brady arguments). Nevertheless, we recognize that the challenged interrogation and surrounding circumstances were highly suspect and extremely inadvisable. Persons with intellectual disability “have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others.” Atkins, 536 U.S. at 318; see also Hall, 134 S. Ct. at 1993. In light of these communicative and social impairments, the Supreme Court has recognized that defendants with intellectual disability are particularly prone to give false confessions. Id. (citing Atkins, 536 U.S. at 320-21); see also Morgan Cloud et al., Words without Meaning: The Constitution, Confessions, and Mentally Retarded Suspects, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 495, 511-12 (2002) (noting that intellectually disabled individuals are “unusually susceptible to the perceived wishes of authority figures[,]” and have “a generalized desire to please”); Welsh S. White, What is an Involuntary Confession Now?, 50 Rutgers L. Rev. 2001, 2044 (1998) (stating that “mentally handicapped suspects are ‘especially vulnerable to the pressures of accusatorial interrogation’”). This serious concern could have been effectively eliminated if the detectives had made a few simple yet critical changes in the way that they conducted their investigation. After observing cues indicating Bies’ diminished mental capacity, such as his inability to spell “Allen” High School, the detectives should have questioned Bies’ ability to knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights, and should have utilized appropriate interrogation techniques in order to ensure the admissibility of custodial statements. “When a suspect suffers from some mental incapacity, such as . . . [intellectual disability], and the incapacity is known to interrogating officers, a lesser quantum of coercion is necessary to call a confession into question.” Hill v. Anderson, 300 F.3d 679, 682 (6th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The detectives’ practice of turning off the tape recorder periodically throughout the questioning––leaving the Court to simply guess what was said off-the-record––makes it No. 12-3431 Bies v. Sheldon Page 24 exceedingly difficult to determine what information Bies offered organically and what was “contaminated” by the detectives. See Richard A. Leo et. al., Bringing Reliability Back in: False Confessions and Legal Safeguards in the Twenty-First Century, 2006 Wis. L. Rev. 479, 521 (2006) (observing that “[a] suspect who did not commit the crime will not possess personal [nonpublic] knowledge of the crime details unless . . . the police have “contaminated” the suspect through education about the crime scene facts during the interrogation process”). Even without knowledge of the medical reports concerning Bies’ diminished mental capacity, the detectives observed behavior over the span of their twenty-four hour interrogation that should have led them to question Bies’ mental capacity. Under the circumstances, the officers’ uninhibited use of leading questions, off-the-record “fact-feeding,” failure to adequately explain Bies’ Miranda rights, and alleged failure to re-advise Bies of his rights after long breaks in questioning heighten the risk that Bies’ confession was false or coerced, and call into question the admissibility of his custodial statements. We have serious doubt that these statements could be admitted at trial without infringing upon Bies’ due process rights.