Kelley v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections
377 F.3d 1317, 2004 WL 1637062, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 15249 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The state's suppression of evidence favorable to the accused only violates due process under Brady v. Maryland if the evidence is material, meaning there is a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have changed the outcome of the proceeding. Evidence that is merely cumulative or whose substance is already known and utilized by the defense is not material.
Facts:
- Irene Maxcy and her lover, John Sweet, conspired to murder Irene's husband, Charles von Maxcy.
- Sweet contacted William Bennett, who arranged for Andrew von Etter and William H. Kelley to carry out the murder for a fee.
- On October 3, 1966, Charles von Maxcy was stabbed multiple times and shot to death at his estate in Sebring, Florida.
- A couple of weeks later, Sweet traveled to Boston and paid the remaining $15,000 balance for the murder.
- After the murder, Sweet began harassing Irene Maxcy for more money, causing her to go to the authorities and implicate Sweet in exchange for immunity.
- In 1981, Sweet, facing numerous criminal charges in Massachusetts, offered to provide information implicating Kelley in the Maxcy murder in exchange for immunity in Massachusetts.
- William H. Kelley was arrested for the Maxcy murder in June 1983, approximately seventeen years after the crime occurred.
- By the time of Kelley's arrest, his alleged accomplice, Andrew von Etter, and the middleman, William Bennett, were both deceased.
Procedural Posture:
- William H. Kelley's first trial for first-degree murder in Florida state court ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury.
- Following a second trial, a jury convicted Kelley of first-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to death.
- Kelley, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Florida Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment. The State of Florida was the appellee.
- Kelley's petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.
- Kelley filed a Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief in the state trial court, which denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing.
- Kelley appealed the denial of his 3.850 motion to the Florida Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower court's decision.
- Kelley then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- The district court, after holding its own evidentiary hearing, granted the writ of habeas corpus, vacating Kelley's conviction and sentence on the grounds of Brady violations and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Secretary for the Department of Corrections (the State), as appellant, appealed the district court's grant of habeas relief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Kelley is the appellee in this proceeding.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state's failure to disclose evidence violate a defendant's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland when the suppressed evidence is cumulative impeachment material or when its exculpatory substance is already known and effectively used by the defense at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Tjoflat, J.
No, the state's failure to disclose the evidence did not violate the defendant's due process rights. For a Brady violation to occur, the suppressed evidence must be material, meaning its disclosure would create a reasonable probability of a different outcome. Here, the withheld evidence was either cumulative, its substance was already known and argued by the defense, or it was not exculpatory. The court reasoned that each piece of withheld evidence, whether considered individually or collectively, failed the materiality test. The defense already knew about and extensively cross-examined the state's key witness, John Sweet, regarding his numerous immunity deals and history of perjury. Similarly, the defense knew that Kelley's fingerprints were not found at the crime scene and argued this fact to the jury. Because the defense was able to present the substance of the suppressed information to the jury, there is no reasonable probability that having the physical documents would have changed the verdict. The court also reversed the district court's grant of relief on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds, holding that the specific claim regarding counsel's reliance on a disbarred investigator was procedurally defaulted because it was never properly raised in state court.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the high threshold for establishing materiality under the Brady doctrine. It clarifies that the simple failure to disclose favorable evidence is not a per se constitutional violation; the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the evidence would have altered the trial's outcome. The decision emphasizes that cumulative impeachment evidence or information whose substance is already known to the defense is unlikely to meet this standard. Furthermore, the opinion serves as a strong precedent on the specificity required to exhaust ineffective assistance of counsel claims for federal habeas review, preventing petitioners from raising new factual bases for a general claim of ineffectiveness for the first time in federal court.
