Smith v. Cain
565 U.S. 73, 132 S.Ct. 627, 181 L.Ed.2d 571 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Brady v. Maryland, evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different. When an eyewitness's testimony is the only evidence linking a defendant to a crime, undisclosed prior statements by that witness that directly contradict their trial testimony are material.
Facts:
- Juan Smith was charged with killing five people during an armed robbery.
- A single witness, Larry Boatner, testified at trial, identifying Smith as the first gunman to enter the home.
- Boatner testified that he was face to face with Smith and had '[n]o doubt' about his identity.
- No other witnesses or physical evidence implicated Smith in the crime.
- On the night of the murders, Boatner told the lead investigator, Detective John Ronquillo, that he 'could not... supply a description of the perpetrators other then [sic] they were black males.'
- Five days later, Boatner told Ronquillo that he 'could not ID anyone because [he] couldn’t see faces' and 'would not know them if [he] saw them.'
- These statements, contained in Ronquillo's notes, were not disclosed to Smith's defense team before trial.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Juan Smith with five counts of first-degree murder in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, a state trial court.
- A jury convicted Smith on all five counts.
- The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court denied review.
- Smith sought postconviction relief in the state trial court, arguing a Brady violation after obtaining police files.
- The state trial court rejected Smith’s Brady claim.
- The Louisiana Court of Appeal and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied review of the postconviction ruling.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the denial of postconviction relief.
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 the prosecution's failure to disclose a police detective's notes, which contain statements from the sole eyewitness that directly contradict his trial testimony identifying the defendant, violate the defendant's due process rights under Brady v. Maryland because the evidence was material?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
Yes. The prosecution's failure to disclose the detective's notes containing the eyewitness's contradictory statements violates the defendant's due process rights because the evidence was material. Under Brady, evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have led to a different result, meaning a likelihood sufficient to undermine confidence in the trial's outcome. Here, Boatner's testimony was the only evidence linking Smith to the murders. His undisclosed prior statements that he could not identify any perpetrators directly contradict his confident in-court identification. This impeachment evidence is plainly material because it casts serious doubt on the credibility of the sole witness against the defendant. The state's speculative arguments about why a jury might have disregarded the undisclosed statements do not restore confidence in the verdict.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. The undisclosed statements were not material because there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the evidence been disclosed. Materiality must be assessed in the context of the entire record, which shows that Boatner provided consistent descriptions of the perpetrator on other occasions, including at the police station just hours after the crime. He also confidently identified Smith in a photo array after a careful, months-long process. The impeachment value of the undisclosed statements is mitigated by the traumatic circumstances and the existence of other corroborating evidence of the identification. The majority improperly shifts the burden to the state; Smith failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome, considering the cumulative effect of all the evidence.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the materiality standard under Brady v. Maryland, particularly in cases relying on a single eyewitness. The Court clarifies that when the prosecution's entire case rests on one witness's credibility, evidence that directly impeaches that witness is almost definitionally material. This decision provides a crucial check on convictions based on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony, emphasizing that the 'reasonable probability' test is met when confidence in the verdict is undermined, not only when an acquittal is proven to be more likely than not. It will likely make it easier for defendants in similar situations to obtain postconviction relief based on withheld evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Smith v. Cain