Legal Document

427 U.S. 97 96 Supreme Court Reporter 2392 49 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 342 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Linda AGURS. Number 75-491. Argued April 28, 1976. Decided June 24, Syllabus Respondent was convicted of second-degree murder for killing one Sewell with a knife during fight. Evidence at the trial disclosed, Inter alia, that Sewell, just before killing, had been carrying two knives, including which respondent stabbed him, he repeatedly stabbed, but herself uninjured. Subsequently, respondent's counsel moved new trial, asserting discovered prior criminal record (including guilty pleas to charges assault and deadly weapon, apparently knife) would have tended support argument acted in self-defense, prosecutor failed disclose this information defense. The District denied motion on ground evidence Sewell's not material, because it shed no light his character already apparent from uncontradicted evidence, particularly fact court stressing inconsistency between self-defense claim while unscathed. Appeals reversed, holding material its nondisclosure required jury might returned different verdict received. Held : prosecutor's failure tender defense did deprive fair as guaranteed by Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment, where appears requested gave rise inference perjury, judge remained convinced guilt beyond reasonable doubt after considering context entire record, judge's firsthand appraisal thorough entirely reasonable. Mooney versus Holohan, 294 103, 55 340, 79 L.Ed. 791; Brady Maryland, 373 83, 83 1194, 10 215, distinguished. Pp. 103-114. (a) A does violate constitutional duty disclosure unless omission is sufficiently significant result denial defendant's right trial. 109-110. (b) Whether or procedural rules authorizing discovery everything influence be desirable, Constitution demand such broad discovery; mere possibility an item undisclosed aided defense, affected outcome establish "materiality" sense. (c) Nor measured moral culpability willfulness; if suppression results error, prosecutor. Pacific KF135 P2 110. (d) proper standard materiality applied case, omitted creates otherwise exist, error has committed. 112-144. 167 U.S.App.D.C. 510 Federal Reporter, 2nd 1249, reversed. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Edwin Judge Bradley, respondent. Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 After brief interlude inexpensive motel room, James causing death. She murder. question us whether provide certain background about deprived her under rule Marand, 215. 2 answer depends (1) review facts, (2) significance request (3) prosecution's volunteer exculpatory should judged. 3 * At 4:30 Page m. September 1971, respondent, who there before, registered man wife. They were assigned room without bath. wearing bowie sheath, carried another pocket. Less than hours earlier, according testimony estranged wife, $360 cash person. 4 About 15 minutes later three employees heard screaming help. forced entry into their disclosed top struggling possession knife. knife; bleeding hand grasped blade; witness trying jam blade chest. separated summoned authorities. departed comment they arrived. dead arrival hospital. 5 Circumstantial indicated parties completed act intercourse, then gone bathroom down hall, struggle occurred upon return. contents pockets disarray dresser money found; may inferred took fight started when re-entered saw what she doing. 6 On following morning surrendered police. given physical examination revealed cuts bruises any kind, except needle marks upper arm. An autopsy several deep stab wounds chest abdomen, number slashes arms hands, characterized pathologist "defensive wounds."1 7 offered evidence. Her sole made attorney initially attacked knife, actions all directed toward saving own life. theory based screamed help arrived, knives violence-prone person.2 It 25 elect foreman return verdict. 8 Three months filed further evidenced violent character; defense; recent Columbia Circuit clear admissible even known defendant.3 included plea charge weapon 1963, 1971. Apparently both weapons knives. 9 Government opposed motion, arguing absence appropriate request; readily discoverable advance hence kind "newly discovered" justifying trial; that, events, material. motion. rejected Government's do so,4 assumed admissible, held expressed conviction knives; stressed 11 reversed.5 found lack diligence part misconduct case. held, however, received.6 12 decision represents departure Court's holding; we believe incorrectly interpreted requirement due process, reverse. II 13 arguably applies quite situations. Each involves discovery, prosecution unknown 14 In first situation, typified 791, demonstrates case includes perjured knew, known, perjury.7 series subsequent cases, consistently obtained knowing use fundamentally unfair,8 must set aside likelihood false could judgment jury.9 line cases placed primary reliance those strict materiality, involve prosecutorial misconduct, more importantly corruption truth-seeking function process. Since since reason veracity witnesses, test followed necessarily applicable second illustrated itself, pretrial specific extrajudicial statements Brady's accomplice, Boblit. This Boblit's noting specifically statement "material."10 analysis indicates implicit concern suppressed 16 degree. add words "without capital punishment" verdict, sentenced deny involvement deliberate testified Boblit, rather he, actually strangled decedent. version event corroborated confessions Boblit despite admittedly adequate request. 17 sentence affirmed appeal,11 judgment, post-conviction proceeding, alleged State violated rights suppressing confession. relief largely felt confession inadmissible Maryland disagreed;12 ordered issue punishment. withholding guile," process valid theories 18 granted certiorari consider contention violation vitiated proceeding.13 affirmed, separate receive punishment innocence. ruling issue. For reason, latter former. And guilt, lacking 19 like same made.14 Indeed, yet decided obligation made. Before addressing question, appropriate. 20 specific. notice exactly desired. Although is, course, unlimited prosecutor, subject matter indeed substantial basis claiming exists, require respond either furnishing submitting problem judge. When receives relevant request, make response seldom, ever, excusable. 21 many counsel. situation all, possibly ask "all material" "anything exculpatory." Such really gives better If general derive obviously hands But so clearly supportive innocence produce, equally arise focus desirability precise definition potential harm defendant, conclude difference merely now decide, all. third applies, therefore embraces only "Brady 22 We so, duty. III 23 are scope authorized Rules Criminal Procedure, wisdom amending enlarge rights. dealing mandated Amendment Constitution. Our construction will apply comparable Fourteenth trials state courts. 24 arises principal contexts. First, perhaps course well, decide what, anything, voluntarily submit Second, defendant Logically times. requiring aside; absent violation, breach disclose. Nevertheless, practical post-trial Because inevitably imprecise standard, can seldom predicted accurately until complete, prudent resolve doubtful questions favor disclosure. reiterate critical point, sufficient 26 affect jury's That approaches "sporting justice" expressly Brady.15 "might" improper trivial consideration well giving legitimate guilt. way discharge allow complete files routine practice. 27 surely much. While expressing representatives "suppress evidence," former Chief Traynor California pointed out "they report sua sponte learn witnesses." re Imbler, 60 Cal.2d 554, 569, 35 Cal.Rptr. 293, 301, 387 6, (1963). recently noted "no detailed accounting police investigatory work case." Moore Illinois, 408 786, 795, 92 2562, 2568, 33 706.16 helped 28 culpability, willfulness, prosecutor.17 highly probative file, presumed recognize overlooked it. Cf. Giglio States, 405 150, 154, 763, 766, 31 104. Conversely, purpose served simply inept believed vital 29 As recognized situations value elementary fairness requires request.18 though sovereign prosecute accused earnestness vigor, always faithful client's overriding interest "justice shall done." He th"servant law, twofold aim escape suffer." Berger 295 78, 88, 629, 633, 1314. description illuminates governs 30 hand, available submitted places category neutral source satisfy severe burden demonstrating newly probably resulted acquittal.19 usual State's source, special serve cause justice. other suggestion routinely deliver file counsel, cannot treat every error. follows order time unable characterize harmless customary harmless-error standard. Under present reviewing "conviction sure jury, very slight effect." Kotteakos 328 750, 764, 66 1239, 1248, 90 1557. Unless regarded automatic impose higher defendant. 32 reflect our justice finding guilt.20 permissible supported establishing doubt. means evaluated record.21 additional evince considered, justification questionable validity, relatively minor importance create describes courts appear actual although phrased language.22 also full recalled detail. Stressing particular incongruity aggressor multiple unscathed condition, unqualified guilty. contradict cumulative sheath pocket motel. 34 arrest give doubt, satisfied reasonable, hold Amendment. Accordingly, Reversed. 36 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 37 today holds limited makes once having existence narrowly defines "material" embraced meaningful content. 38 governing observes: 39 "(T)he acquittal [the generally Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. evidence1]. justice." Ante, 111 (footnote omitted). 40 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions agree completely. 41 Court, however seemingly forgets these precautionary comes involving neither perjury nor information. commits holds, "if exist." 112. discussion clear, challenging entitled relief, view, withheld mind. thus imposed least "severe" as, than,2 faces Rule Surely able say mind (the standard), "probably acquittal" standard). short, spite saluty precaution, treats withholds differently source. "prosecutor's reduced status, borrow words, significance." 111. 42 One most basic elements tending show innocence, fully aired jury; particularly, zeal convict suppress exonerate him. See 810, 2575, 706 (1972) (opinion Marshall, J.). fundamental notion pose irreconcilable conflict reminds us, "must 'justice done.' " No served, advanced, favorable contrary, fulfills responsibility airs command. 43 recognize, often continues whose progresses, conscientious fail appreciate some items Keogh, 391 138, 147 (CA2 1968). considerations, finality judgments, preclude granting considerations rigid intends small cases. 44 today's ruling, information, With respect, completely odds assuring brought attention. little, any, incentive conscientiously determine contain helpful reinforces natural tendency overlook close concealment. 45 More fundamentally, usurps trier explicitly establishes respect prosecution. fate sealed long mind, regardless men disagree import regardless, how "close" be.3 46 asserts harsh "courts language." 113 There assertion. None cited suggests sustained remains guilt.4 prevailing view federal indications consistent different. essentially following: chance developed skilled induced minds enough jurors avoid conviction, aside.5 unlike Court's, reflects recognition determination terms impact certainty.6 47 approves virtually identical described reflecting view. "the perjury," jury." Ibid. lesser appropriate, states, primarily contradicting witnesses called "involve(s) process." corrupted directly contradictory example Fortas serves illustrate point. "(L)et assume possesses blood victim, type match victim. Let related State." Giles 386 66, 100, 87 793, 737 (1967) (concurring judgment). unquestionably corrupts entitlement ought face elicited Id., 99-101, 809-810. 48 derives "reasonable likelihood" Napue 360 264, 1173, 1217 (1959), 104 (1972). standards applied, involved. Giglio, co-conspirators testifying against defendants falsely, questioning received promises stemmed affecting overall credibility see Napue, supra, 269, 1177, denying contrary insistence, treatment desire deter misconduct. reasonably expect imposing lower threshold imposes certainly broader contradicts deliberately suppresses again, relates 50 Leaving open appropriately misconduct,7 conviction. Appeals, affirm judgment. alcohol level slightly below legal intoxication. Moreover, clerk wife said "would knife"; Mrs. making statement. dispute registered. Burks, 152 284, 286, 470 432, 434 "THE COURT: What you saying? How don't know exists. essence Brady. Are status law indicating fingerprints taken . assaulted somebody turn defendant's, counsel? "MR. CLARKE: No, Your Honor. aspect this, knowingly puts testimony. correct am talking You anything nothing got there. exculpatory. Defense doesn't misinformed Suppose your mouth? Honor "But becomes less point else Government, notice." App. 147-149. 1249 (1975). disposed direct appeal appeals orders motions leave withdraw enable substitute counsel's representation ineffective inadmissible. action challenged appeal, find necessary pass validity ground. think obtain demonstrate ineffectiveness. majority active judges Circuit, members panel, panel's decision, refused rehear en banc. petitioner's "which used prosecuting authorities impeached refuted him." U.S., 110, S.Ct., 341. allegations, true, unfairness justify collateral attack "It deemed hearing contrived through pretense truth depriving liberty deception presentation perjured. contrivance procure imprisonment inconsistent rudimentary demands obtaining intimidation." 112, 342. Pyle Kansas, 317 213, 63 177, 214; Alcorta Texas, 355 78 9; 1217; Miller Pate, 1, 785, 690; 104; Donnelly DeChristoforo, 416 637, 94 273, 216. quoting 271, 1178. "We violates punishment, irrespective good faith bad prosecution." 87, 1196. concerned willful misbehavior focused resulting nondisclosure. discussions development Note, Prosecutor's Constitutional Duty Reveal Defendant, 74 Yale L.J. 136 (1964); Comment, Disclose, U.Chi.L.Rev. 112 220 Md. 454, 154 Atlantic (1959). 226 422, 174 (1961). "The petitioner began. proceeding commence again stage overreached. sentence. Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 545, 81 735, 760. saved competent Culombe Connecticut, 367 568, 621, 1860, 1037." Brief Petitioner 490, O.T. 1962, 6. U.Chi.L.Rev., Supra, n. 10, 115-117. "In unanimous 'could appellant offense degree.' read admissibility sporting flouted done admitted stricken record. raise strategy dignity deprival bifurcated (cf. Williams New York, 337 241, 69 1079, 93 1337) denies him Equal Protection Amendment." 90-91, 1198 concurring 98, 809, 737, stated: "This convictions reversed repetitious, cumulative, embellishing facts presented court, purposes preparation communicate preliminary, challenged, speculative information." controlling consideration: Irrespective principle Holohan society misdeeds avoidance unfair accused." (Emphasis added.) nature conduct Brady, hypothetical fingerprint fired fatal shot. evaluating See, E. g., Ashe 288 725, 733 (CA6 1961); Thompson, 493 305, 310 (CA9 1974), cert. denied, 419 834, 95 60, 60; Houle, 490 167, 171 1973), 417 970, 3174, 1141; Meyers, 484 113, 116 (CA3 1973); Heald 175 878, 883 (CA10 1949). C. Wright, Practice Procedure § 557 (1969). argued ability prepare Defense, (1964). unacceptable determining reasons. encompass incriminating knowledge useful planning approach adequacy State, component refers evidentiary charge. "If, example, eyewitnesses crime told definitely perpetrator hesitate reverse resting eyewitness. fifty eyewitnesses, forty-nine identified neglected reveal other, badly needed glasses misty evening crime, looked something glimpse, different." 125. Stout Cupp, 426 881, 882-883 1970); Peterson 411 1074, 1079 (CA8 1969); Lessard Dickson, 394 90-92 1968), 1004, 89 494, 469; Tomaiolo, 378 26, 1967). commentator way: "As discussed previously, earlier enunciated: raised guilt; reversal." Materiality Requests: Aids Defining Disclosure, 59 Iowa L.Rev. 433, 445 (1973). Prosecutor Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, Col.L.Rev. 858 (1960). produce retrial. Kahn, 472 272, 287 Rodriguez, 437 940, 942 (CA5 1971); Curran, 465 260, 264 (CA7 1972). 148 Friendly implies adopts rejects. To emphasize harshness rule, determined finally entertain end rather, (one prosecution) "entitled" jury. 881 1970), habeas quoted introduced, reached result." 883. indication language intended fact, would, obviously, dispose suggested. 1074 1969), appeared showing "was 'material' defense." 1079. 88 determinative "could hardly being much force inexorable array circumstances defendant) surrounded." 91. noted, "likely (difficulty)" 92. Finally, 1967), "material defendant." 28. Morell, 524 550, 553 1975); Ogden Wolff, 522 816, 822 Woodcock Amaral, 511 985, 991 (CA1 1974); Miller, 499 736, 744 Shuler Wainwright, 491 1213, 1223 F.2d, 287; Clark Burke, 440 853, 855 Hamric Bailey, 390, 393 (CA4 Friendly, writing 825 1969). stating court's conclusion hypnosis witness, observed: reluctance, considered belief district judge, lived years, left 'convinced correctness verdict.' We, exposure otherwise. test, concerning ourselves whether, serious attack, added item, been, not." 832 presence presumably, leads permitting important received, "seldom, excusable." 106. seem follow obvious escaped attention, treated manner precisely 553; 744; 146-147.

Classification Label: 3