Is Supreme Court sending signal on Brady violations?
The Supreme Court reversed a conviction this week on a Brady violation. The case Smith v. Cain is another one of Louisiana - and presents a claim that probably would have been dismissed a few years ago.
Smith was convicted of killing five people during an armed robbery. There was only witness who was able to identify Smith, who he said was the first person through the door. After he was convicted and his appeal was denied Smith filed a writ of habeas corpus in State court, which was also denied. The writ was based in part of the failure to disclose notes from the investigating officer; those notes indicated that he talked with the witness on the night of the offense and he could not provide a description of the assailants, and also talked with him several days later and was told he could not identify anyone. The Supreme Court found those notes were material, and were significant enough to reverse the conviction.
The decision was 8-1, with Judge Thomas dissenting. In his dissent he set out the other evidence, which he claimed would have negated the impact of the investigator's notes. The other evidence is not that different from other cases where the court has denied relief. There was another investigator who testified that the witness gave a description although he could not remember exactly what it was. The investigator who made the notes also testified that the witness gave a description, which was brown skin person with short haircut, who had lots of gold of teeth. The witness had been shown several line-ups and did not identify anyone. When he was finally shown one with Smith he identified him immediately, stating he would never forget that face. At trial he also identified him, saying it was the same mouth and the same teeth.
The inquiry in any Brady case is whether the evidence was material - which requires the defendant to show a "reasonable probability" the result would have been different. In this case, the issue is whether the notes would be enough to discredit the identification. There's no doubt its a subjective decision, and I think this case shows the courts may be looking at such claims differently.
It wouldn't take long to find a number of cases with similar - if not more compelling facts - where relief has been denied. So what's the difference? I would like to think that it is the result of a shift in attitude and perception. Several years ago courts refused to believe prosecutors withheld evidence. Now they have no problem accepting that it happens. - the question is how often. Perhaps it's also a recognition that the State shouldn't be rewarded for breaking the rules.
Whatever the reason, it's a welcome change. More still needs to be done - especially in the area of holding prosecutors accountable. But you have to start somewhere, and granting relief on Brady claims is a great place to start at.
