Document: 408 U.S. 786 92 S.Ct. 2562 33 L.Ed.2d 706 Lyman A. MOORE, Petitioner,v.State of ILLINOIS. No. 69—5001. Argued Jan. 18, 1972. Decided June 29, Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, See 93 87. Syllabus Moore, who was convicted murder and sentenced to death for the shotgun slaying a bartender at Lansing, Illinois, tavern, claimed that he denied fair trial due process because State failed make pretrial disclosure several items evidence helpful defense, correct false testimony one Powell, succeeded in introducing into not weapon. The disclosed consisted statement by Sanders Moore known him as 'Slick' had first met some six months before killing, documents established man others area 'Slick.' Powell testified observed did introduce diagram that, claims, illustrates could see shooting. Supreme Court rejected claim been suppressed left uncorrected, held properly admitted weapon Moore's possession when arrested suitable commission crime charged. also attacked imposition penalty noncompliance with standards Witherspoon v. 391 510, 88 1770, 20 776. Held: 1. evidentiary (other than diagram) on which bases his suppression relate Sanders' misidentification identification, others, person made incriminating statements Ponderosa Tap. These are material under standard Brady Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 10 215. does support contention knowingly permitted remain violation Napue 360 264, 79 1173, 3 1217, since show it impossible Pp. 794—798. 2. previously raised therefore is this Court, any event introduction constitute federally reversible error. 798—800. 3. sentence may be imposed Moore. Furman Georgia, 238, 2726, 346. P. 800. 42 Ill.2d 73, 246 N.E.2d 299, reversed part remanded. James J. Doherty, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Thomas Immel, Springfield, respondent. Elmer Gertz Willard Lassers, American Civil Liberties Union, Illinois Division, Committee Abolition Capital Punishment. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 This state case, jury, comes here from Illinois. grant certiorari, 403 953, 91 2280, 29 864 (1971), limited three four questions presented concern nondisclosure defense allegedly exculpatory possessed prosecution or police; admission weapon; rejection eight veniremen voiced general objections capital punishment. third issues respectively focus application 215 (1963), 776 (1968). 2 * Petitioner 1964 first-degree Bernard Zitek. appeal abeyance while petitioned court post-conviction relief. After hearing January 1967, petition denied. denial consolidated conviction sentence. With justice dissenting another participating, affirmed judgments. 299 (1969). II homicide committed April 25, 1962. facts important: 4 victim, Zitek, operated bar-restaurant village southeast Chicago. Patricia Hill waitress there. Donald O'Brien, Charles Mayer, Henley were customers. 5 Another bar called Tap located Dolton, It owned Robert Fair. William Joyce bartender. One Fair's customers Virgle Sanders. 6 A Third Wanda Del's Delbert Jones operator. Leon Thompson patron. 7 Westmoreland Country Club Wilmette, about 50 miles north Lansing. manager there Herbert Anderson. 8 B. On evening 25 Zitek tending place Shortly p.m. two men, moustache, entered ordered beer. admonished pair times using profane language. They continued their profanity and, shortly, ejected them. About an hour later carrying entered. He laid shot killed gunman ran out, pursued patrons, escaped automobile. 9 C. At positively identified men returned She she clear close view her working Zitek's ejection killing later. D. second in-court identification customer Powell. time playing pinochle enter shoot Zitek; after shooting Moore; outside stopped momentarily, turned, shouted, 'Don't come further I'll you, too.' 11 E. 27, days murder, there, 'Slick,' remarked 'open season bartenders' 27. moustache. asked ride Harvey, owner, Fair, agreed give them ride. 12 F. Fair requested given ride; during journey referred 'Barbee'; said 'something like, 'Well, if we hadn't trouble we'd have all right." 13 G. bartender, Joyce, tavern 27; same time; arranged companion 14 thus apparent positive identifications slayer having present Dolton Sanders, Joyce. 15 H. Six slaying, early morning hours October 31, 1962, Chicago police officer 1957 Ford Two fled scene. 'staked out' car, moustached man, Jerry Barbee, they approached vehicle. automobile proved Barbee. fully loaded sawed-off 16-gauge car.1 introduced trial.2 conceded gun so weapon, State's ballistics technician, called, would testify waddings taken body came, opinion, 12-gauge shell. 16 I. Anderson witness. hired waiter 24 (the day murder); club records indicated special party 25; paid until sometime between midnight. club's effect. Each these witnesses nevertheless remember seeing night, but absent substantial period time. worked afternoon when, according Dolton.3 17 Zitek's, eject 25th, Although restaurant homicide, O'Brien drunk III 18 Prior trial, moved written furnish existing witnesses. hearing, argued, here, evidence, unknown produced fact, State: 19 30, gave 'about ago' tavern. Testimony Lieutenant Turbin Lansing Police Department revealed FBI report Leavenworth Penitentiary March 4, That November 1961. copy prosecuting attorney asserted recall seen trial. statement, is, raided looking Jones, tavern's operator, identify arrested, whether advised raid His testimony, however, stricken ground pertained innocence guilt admissible upon collateral review. 21 secured files picture Watts assigned task finding Watts. search unsuccessful. asserts attempt find cross-examination chief hearing. 22 photographed police. photograph shown Thompson, patron Del's. told 'didn't, best my knowledge, resemble I knew' 'the Slick know.' Defense counsel through course neither nor prosecutor disclaimer. 23 start alleged bragging incident officers accompanied courtroom knew 30—40 pounds heavier wear glasses. responded, you know how jailhouse beans are.' contends remark concluded. card players statement. back Officer Koppitz drew sketch seating arrangement table. shows corners table pointed north, south, east, west. Cardplayer placed southwest side. feet door southwest. argues contradicts Powell's argues, five items, comply request witnesses; produce other contradicting 'slick'; defense. 26 favorable record its entire file counsel, no made. 80—81, N.E.2d, 304. submits alternative specific 'indispensable prerequisite' exonerating expected existence. 27 In petitioner found guilty jury death. summation Brady's guilty, argued should return verdict 'without punishment.' allow examine codefendant's extra- judicial statements. Some produced, another, codefendant actual withheld notice conviction. proceeding, Maryland Appeals law, remanded case retrial issue affirmed. 'that accused violates where either punishment, irrespective good faith bad prosecution.' U.S., 87, 1196—1197. 28 heart holding prosecution's face production request, Important, then, (a) (b) evidence's character (c) materiality evidence. There conduct measured. witness (Hill, Fair) doing immediately tendered. inquiry only question. making 30 discloses, states, Ill.2d, 80, 304, submitted prosecutor, has recollection file. therefore, noted 31 We constitutional requirement complete detailed accounting investigatory work case. Here, elusive lead abandoned eyewitnesses presence found. Unquestionably, now concedes,4 error prior incarceration conclusion instance mistaken identity. But mistake 27.5 'Sanders' effect spoke itself significantly, all, impeached. Indeed, buttressed operator both whom elaborated description providing ride, trip, reference 'Barbee',' 32 items—that subsequently 'Slick'; lieutenant, unsuccessfully, Watts; looked Moore—are exactly category. quite naturally go off initial None serves impeach way killer, Barbee accompanying time, additional undisputed Harvey. conclude, light guilt. 34 remaining relates Mayer's police.6 seated entrance thus, necessarily toward sat table, 1217 (1959). 35 principal Napue's accomplice then serving crime. testified, response received promise consideration testimony. promised consideration, nothing witness' failure false, even though went credibility Miller Pate, 386 1, 87 785, 690 (1967), Alcorta Texas, 355 28, 78 103, (1957). 36 persuaded false. indicate direction facing position bartender; moment bid game hand down walked in. nearby seat Furthermore, warned he, too, might shot. 37 summary, background somewhat confusing, most insignificant factor. encountered difficulty, served destroy two-witness assailant, three-witness Tap, obtained 38 adhere principles Napue, hold embraces those principles. IV 39 over objection connection charged, inadmissible law.7 During closing argument stated used kill Zitek,8 companion, kind people use shotguns.'9 40 arrest, 'suitable charged . showing used.' 78, 303. claims gun's process. 41 Of course, law subject review here. claim, appears us. disclose, courts. event, unable conclude shotgun's deprived guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment. shotgun, constructive 31. suffered wounds expect fired range. itself, details wounds, such cannot say presentation irrelevant inflammatory ground. V 43 Inasmuch today ruled statutes violative Eighth Amendments, 346, unnecessary us consider standards. Witherspoon, 523 n. 21, S.Ct., 1777 specifically, 'Nor, finally, today's render invalid conviction, opposed sentence, case' (emphasis original). death, imposed. 44 judgment, insofar imposes reversed, supra, proceedings. 45 MARSHALL, DOUGLAS, STEWART POWELL join, concurring part. 46 courts divided court. holds violated principle must vacated, upholds underlying agree majority join Part petitioner's violate Amendment.1 47 But, believe failing disclose certain well assistance 48 length relating circumstances developments As complicated reiterated Rather, emphasized seem me particularly important added omitted Court's opinion. 49 interrelated defenses against charge murder—alibi misidentification. Petitioner's theory scene saw confusing someone else. Only affirmatively assailant. Hill, victim's bar, customer. Aside related murder. 51 problem eyewitness become follows: 52 'The defendant (indicating) came shotgun. sitting along wall. standing door. west.' Abs. 32. 53 discovered investigated contained indicating opposite never available counsel.2 54 aso contradicted Hill. actually killing. O'Brien's greatly undercut retaliatory motive attributed petitioner.3 55 Because contradictory persons crucial key regard Tavern, (whom 'Slick') also, '(s)omething it's open bartenders something like that.' 44. recognized being And owner friend short automobile, end mentioned 'trouble bartender.' 52. 56 learned Tavern. notes, specified, federal prison definitely Christmas released custody When confronted spoken 296. impeached post-trial approximately lighter remembered being. 294. 57 corroborated reason involved scuffle Thompson. altercation, remained different people. Finally, scuffled. 58 fact familiar Watts, very much makes suspected murderer lieutenant him. Jones' hope suspect. 59 indicates bragged true Tavern before, drinking afternoon. remains look alike. 60 urges reveal meeting earlier corroborative answers saying material. evident foregoing merely absolutely critical. myself agreement Schaeffer's dissent Court: 61 defendant's rests entirely developed seriously impeached, indeed destroy, Sanders's Had facts, unwilling act Far more following up useless leads discussions immaterial witnesses.' Certainly material, destroyed (was) Consequently, non-disclosure fundamental fairness constitution. .' 88—89, 308.4 62 information concerning error, immaterial. considered together suppressed, contributed 63 Even petitioner, demand complain nondisclosure. disingenuous best. 64 discovery possessing relevant 5. explaining why broad motion made, 'We want circumvent possibility gets stand says, 'Yes, statement,' Attorney 'But no, don't our possession,' say, 'It's Orlando Wilson (Superintendent Police, Ill.), Chief Lansing." 8. motion, supply Ibid. Based representation, Never implication guarantee dependent repeated requests each prosecutor's certainly covered clearly demanded things took bound testified. Hence, hard imagine what sort Moreover extensive wished exculpatory. valuable office flagging importance impos(ing) duty careful check files.' United States Keogh, F.2d 138, 147 (CA2 1968). 65 view, (1959), require reversed. establishes Amendment 'when State, although soliciting allows uncorrected.' Id., 269, 1197. requires new 'irrespective Supra, can doubt relied 'false' sense incomplete misleading. 66 Both 301, 315. Thus, actively prepare discussed location While possession, informed everyone sitting. 323. No ever communicate 67 Moreover, throughout Turbin, assisting prosecution. aware diagram, remind 68 possesses exonerate criminal affirmative information. frivolous ignored, disclosed. 69 Obviously burden shoulders required responsible directly bringing justice. essence law. tries insure fair. 'A citizen right dealing government, Vitarelli Seaton, 359 535, 968, 1012, entails treating government unit rather amalgam separate entities.' § & E Contractors, Inc. States, 406 1411, 1417, 658 (1972). entity spokesman Government.' Giglio 405 150, 154, 763, 766, 104 (1972).5 Santobello New York, 404 257, 262, 495, 499, 427 (1971); Barker Wingo, 407 514, 2182, 101 70 My reading existed help it, difference whatever aided himself. consciously uses prosecutorial team, conceal himself disclose. unconscionable permit adduce demonstrating without requiring bear responsibility producing innocence. recounted armed robbery July People 399, 401 402, 220 443, 444—445 (1966), cert. denied, 389 861, 112, 128 (1967). revolver arrest shoulder holster inadmissible. alibi 406, 447. Brief Respondent 4; Tr. Oral Arg. 28. observes, post, 804, 'When (Moore's imprisonment Leavenworth), (Moore) Tavern.' misreading question answer were: 'Q. tell on, policeman Attorney's Office fellow, Federal knew? 'A. If he's jail, man.' Abstract Record Contrary assertion Mayer 803 809, transcript granted recites furnished counsel. Curiously, possible 20—21. Later again humane type weapon' appropriate person. harder seems to. uncontradicted bearing was, gun, whereas gun. Despite bill particulars, everything obfuscate highly improper. judge confused thought admitted. point said, 'There wrong defendant, will people, apprehended gun.' (Abs.), 65. meant imply sufficient prove surely erred. precisely intended, prejudicial introduced, relationship explained weapons identical closest balance, enough warrant improperly misled nature it. true, followed assailant street, got closer murderer. strength lay opportunity observation committed. Footnote implies turned record. drawn original police, recopied reproductions All indications reproduced. adduced: file, 244—249; lawyers represented swore 307, 328; sure 324. Since officer's prosecutor's, contents. infra, 809. drunk. beyond victim perfectly sober. Later, especially drank heavily became intoxicated. Judge Friendly fails whose high value attention, 'almost definition material.' ex rel. Meers Wilkins, 326 135 1964). undisclosed doubted. based primarily bar. often viewed suspicion juries. McGowan, Constitutional Interpretation Criminal Identification, Wm. Mary L.Rev. 235, 241—242 (1970). serious question: indeed, premised large Coupled (see 803), adequate observe named defense's recent decision Kastigar 441, 1653, 212 (1972), immunity co-extensive Fifth privilege self-incrimination, prosecutors actions enlisted aid

Category: 3