Court Opinion

ID: 9485845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:31:35.714754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:23.703708
License: Public Domain

PAUL J. KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from Part IV of the opinion and would reverse. The photo in question is not exculpatory, and when placed in the context of this lengthy trial, it does not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome. After an evidentiary hearing on November 26, 1985, involving many of the same witnesses, VIII R. 943-44 (district court memorandum), 957-61 (summary of hearing), and arguments, VIII R. 927-42, the state district court denied Mr. Ballinger’s motion for a new trial based on the photo*1377graph. The state district court made the following findings:
1. It has not been shown that the photo ... submitted by the Defendant, would probably change the result if a new trial is granted.
5. [The photo] is mainly cumulative when considered with other photos used at trial and the testimony of other witnesses.
6. The photo ... as to plastic over a bathroom window and uncertainty as to plastic over the bedroom window in question is mainly impeaching or contradictory.
VIII R. 945-46.
The state court of appeals affirmed the district court on this point:
A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence should not be granted unless the new evidence fulfills the following requirements, among others: it will probably change the result if a new trial is granted and it must be not merely cumulative, impeaching, or contradictory. State v. Volpato, 102 N.M. 383, 696 P.2d 471 (1985). In light of the mass of evidence presented at the first trial regarding the question of whether Rizzo could see out of the window (Tr. of first trial at 1523-25, 1586, 1608-09, 2094-96, 2313-15, 2335, 2430-31 ...), the trial court was correct in its ruling. The foregoing transcript references show that there was much testimony on the subject of seeing out the window, including whether or not the window was covered with plastic, with credible evidence on both sides of the issue. The photo at issue would not have added much.
VIII R. 973.
Mr. Ballinger prevails on his Brady claim “only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Materiality and the possible effect of the withheld evidence under Brady is a mixed question of fact and law, rather than a basic, primary or historical fact to which we would owe deference to state court findings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See Chaney v. Brown, 730 F.2d 1334, 1346 (10th Cir.1984).
Notwithstanding our lack of deference, it is apparent that the New Mexico courts have come to a very different conclusion about the photograph applying a standard (new trial based on newly discovered evidence) very similar to that required by Bagley. In my view, the conclusion by the New Mexico courts is correct concerning the value of this photograph. The evidence was controverted concerning whether plastic rendered the window opaque, thereby precluding Rizzo from seeing outside, or merely translucent. This photograph tells us nothing about whether Rizzo actually could have observed Mr. Bal-linger leading Ueeker away that afternoon. At best, it is merely cumulative impeachment evidence.
While the photo was taken within days of discovery of the victim’s body, it is difficult to tell whether the bedroom window is covered with plastic because a tree branch and a shadow largely obscure the window. That the photograph might be material with enhancement, Ct. Op. at 1376, seems speculative and the “mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense” does not make it material. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109-10, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2400-01, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). Even imputing the nondisclosure of this photo to the prosecutor, which is belied by the record, this very ambiguous impeachment evidence simply is not “clearly supportive of a claim of innocence,” such that any prosecutor should have brought it to the attention of the defendant. Id. at 107, 96 S.Ct. at 2399.
The purpose of the Brady rule is fairness — we should affirm the federal district court only if “the omission deprived the defendant of a fair trial.” Agurs, 427 U.S. at 108, 96 S.Ct. at 2399. Mr. Ballinger’s trial was fair despite the absence of the photograph. The jury was aware of Rizzo’s immunity, his “dowsing” to find the body and the possibility that he lied about whether plastic was on the window. In addition to testimony by seven witnesses, the jury saw subsequent *1378photographs in which plastic had been torn off the window, but the nailing strips remained. The issue was argued before the jury. It is unlikely that the addition of this photograph would settle the issue, let alone “destroy[] [Rizzo’s] credibility.” Ct.Op. at 1376.
Whether the result in this case would have been different with the addition of the photograph must be addressed in the context of the entire record. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 112, 96 S.Ct. at 2401-02. There is ample testimony in the record establishing that the defendant had quarrelled with the victim (his business partner) for many years and threatened to kill the victim on a regular basis and in public. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime; this is a circumstantial evidence case which plainly implicated both Mr. Ballinger and Rizzo, and the jury probably so concluded.
I would reverse with instructions to deny the writ.