Document: 547 U.S. 867 (2006) YOUNGBLOOD v. WEST VIRGINIA No. 05-6997. Supreme Court of United States. Decided June 19, 2006. *868 PER CURIAM. In April 2001, the State West Virginia indicted petitioner Denver A. Youngblood, Jr., on charges including abduction three young women, Katara, Kimberly, and Wendy, two instances sexual assault upon Katara. The cases went to trial in 2003 Circuit Morgan County, where a jury convicted Youngblood counts assault, brandishing firearm, one count indecent exposure. conviction rested principally testimony women that they were held captive by friend his, statements Katara she was forced at gunpoint perform oral sex evidence consistent with claim about disposal certain physical their encounter. sentenced combined term 26 60 years' imprisonment, 25 those years directly attributable sexual-assault convictions. Several months after being sentenced, moved set aside verdict. He claimed an investigator working his case had uncovered new exculpatory evidence, form graphically explicit note both squarely contradicted State's account incidents supported Youngblood's consensual-sex defense. note, apparently written Kimberly taunted for having been "played" fools, warned them girls vandalized house brought them, mockingly thanked performing said have shown state trooper investigating allegations against Youngblood; allegedly read but declined take possession it, told person who produced it destroy it. argued suppression this violated federal constitutional obligation disclose favorable defense, support *869 argument he referred citing applying Brady Maryland, 373 83 (1963). court denied trial, saying provided only impeachment, not exculpatory, evidence. did discuss or its scope, expressed view attached no importance because failed give prosecutor could now be faulted failing share counsel. See App. C Pet. Cert. (Tr. 22-23 (Sept. 25, 2003)). A bare majority Appeals affirmed, finding abuse discretion part court, without examining specific claims associated alleged 217 W. Va. 535, 548, 618 S.E.2d 544, 557 (2005) (per curiam). Justice Davis, dissenting opinion Starcher joined, unambiguously characterized trooper's instruction discard as violation. Va., 550-552, S. E. 2d, 559-561. dissenters concluded indicating engaged consensual suppressed material, id., 550, n. 6, S.E.2d, 559, 6 (citing Kyles Whitley, 514 419, 435, 437-438 (1995)), odds chief witnesses (Katara, Wendy) also entirely defense encounters consensual, 551-552, 560-561. then filed petition writ certiorari. violation occurs when government fails materially accused. U.S., 87. This has duty extends impeachment well States Bagley, 473 667, 676 (1985), turn *870 over even is "known police investigators prosecutor," Kyles, U. S., 438. 437 ("[T]he individual learn any known others acting government's behalf case, police"). "Such material `if there reasonable probability that, disclosed result proceeding would different,'" Strickler Greene, 527 263, 280 (1999) (quoting supra, 682 (opinion Blackmun, J.)), although "showing materiality does require demonstration preponderance disclosure resulted ultimately defendant's acquittal," 434. reversal required reasonably taken put whole such different light undermine confidence verdict." Id., 435. clearly presented Court, see Brief Appellant 31765 (Sup. Ct. Va.), pp. 42-47, 44-45, 50, 51 2003)); 13, 17 29, 2003). And, noted, justices discerned significance issue raised. If reach merits better benefit views full issue. We, therefore, grant certiorari, vacate judgment remand further proceedings inconsistent opinion. It so ordered. JUSTICE SCALIA, whom Thomas joins, dissenting. Lawrence Chater, 516 163 (1996) curiam), we greatly expanded our "no-fault V & R practice" (GVR) *871 beyond traditional bounds. 179 (Scalia, J., dissenting). At time, I remarked "[t]he power `revise correct' error become void suspicion" error, 190 Marbury Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 175 (1803); alterations omitted). And predicted "`GVR'd clarification ___'" "become common order, drastically altering role Court." 185. Today, vacating simply "[i]f issue," ante, 870, brings prediction fulfillment. Lawrence, identified narrow circumstances which could, understanding appellate jurisdiction (or least entrenched practice), justify lower court's first identifying error: "(1) intervening factor arisen [e. g., legislation recent Court] legal bearing decision, (2) where, context governed Michigan Long, 463 1032 (1983), below needed assure jurisdiction, (3) (in acknowledgment established practice, though necessarily agreement validity) respondent appellee confesses below." 191-192 (dissenting opinion). Needless say, today's novel GVR order falls into none these categories. There change law might bear judgment. Our doubt, 870; Frazier, 162 935, 942, 5, 253 534, 538, 5 (1979) (petitioner's properly motion trial). confessed errornot broadest supportable theory what constitutes justifying vacatur. See, e. Alvarado States, 497 543, 545 *872 (1990) (Rehnquist, C. dissenting) (vacating Solicitor General "`analysis,'" judgment); Stutson 193 curiam) position before Appeals, relied; discussed 184-185 dissenting)); Department Interior South Dakota, 519 919, 921 "the Government, lost below, wishes try out position"). Here, vacates remands nothing. Instead, remarks tersely "better" benefit" petitioner's claim, should eventually decide case. Ante, 870. thus purports conscript judges write essentially amicus brief already decided, facilitate possible review some later time. all clear why much address claim. True, often prefer reasoned opinions considerationthough may summary disposition. 186 But length (indeed, greater than appears many decisions agree review), meritorious. 549-552, 558-561 (Davis, joined Starcher, Since sometimes judgments opinion, side issue, need sides here. To tell truth, obvious sense revisit *873 issue: suspects erred, chance GVR-in-light-of-nothing will induce mind remand, sparing us trouble correcting suspected error. noteworthy invoke flabby standard adopted namely, whether "a decision rests premise reject if given opportunity consideration," 167. That (there relevant event create probability) possibility alter considered created Court's itself. this, meets usual, outcome-neutral criteria granting certiorari forth Rules 10(a)(c), attract notice appealed from Those whose viewed legitimate, intervening-event orders polite directives reverse themselves. Sharpe 712 F.2d 65, 67 (CA4 1983) (Russell, ("Once again, think mistaken gentleness indefiniteness command. seeking gentle is, submit, mistaking expected do"). How more suspicion justified nothing statement reconsider (much mob enforcer suggest make protection payments). Even suspect reasons outright thisan overcrowded docket, reluctance correct misapplication stated rule law," Rule 10, particular case) neo-Victorian desire keep lurid phrases "graphically note," *874 868, Reports. justifies tutelary schoolboy made do homework again." 185-186 nature system Constitution laws States," 178, courts are constitutionally distinct tribunals, independently authorized issues law. They not, treat today, creatures agents body," 178-179. erred wish ourselves accordance exercise jurisdiction. particularly ironic inaugurates "GVR-in-light-of-nothing" practice court. no-fault origins "in situations calling special deference owed federalism." 179. We used allow effect Ibid. Missouri ex rel. Wabash R. Co. Public Serv. Comm'n, 273 126 (1927)). Likewise, other legitimate category GVRto ensure own jurisdiction"originate[d] needs 181. reason convenience, fail observe, positively flout "special . courts," Like Ouroboros swallowing tail, ingested original justification. Chief Marshall wrote Madison "[i]t essential criterion revises corrects cause instituted ." Cranch, 175. best, unprecedented "opinion, arguably correct, [is] incomplete unworkmanlike," *875 189 dissenting)which Members agreed illegitimate basis GVR, 173 worst, implied threat backed own, holding. suppose available reaffirm elaboration. Or instead enter discussion producing either reaffirmance revision latter course encourage stimulate jurisprudence. Verb. sap. For reasons, respectfully dissent. KENNEDY, grant, vacate, my assent. administrative interpretation consider. 174. today procedure issuing development. 166-167. issuance explanation Scalia explains, p. 870 opinion), improper contrary precedents,

Category: 0