Turner v. United States
198 L. Ed. 2d 443, 137 S. Ct. 1885, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4041 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government's failure to disclose evidence favorable to the defense violates the Due Process Clause only if the evidence is "material," meaning there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different, thereby undermining confidence in the trial's outcome.
Facts:
- On October 1, 1984, Catherine Fuller left her home to go shopping in Washington, D.C.
- Around 6 p.m. on the same day, William Freeman found Fuller’s body inside an alley garage, having been robbed, severely beaten, and sodomized.
- The government’s theory of the crime was that Fuller was attacked by a large group of individuals, including petitioners Timothy Catlett, Russell Overton, Levy Rouse, Kelvin Smith, Charles and Christopher Turner, and Clifton Yarborough.
- Calvin Alston and Harry Bennett confessed to participating in the group attack and cooperated with the government by testifying against the petitioners in exchange for leniency.
- Melvin Montgomery testified that he saw petitioners Overton, Catlett, Rouse, Charles Turner, and others in a park, heard someone say they were 'going to get that one' while Overton pointed to Fuller, and then saw them cross the street in her direction.
- Maurice Thomas testified that he witnessed the attack, identified some petitioners as participants, and later overheard petitioner Catlett say they 'had to kill her' because 'she spotted someone he was with.'
- Carrie Eleby and Linda Jacobs testified that they heard screams coming from an alley, approached a group of boys beating someone near a garage, and saw some petitioners participating in the attack.
- Petitioner Clifton Yarborough provided a videotaped statement to detectives describing his participation in a large group that forced Fuller into the alley, robbed, assaulted, and dragged her into the garage.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 22, 1985, a grand jury indicted Timothy Catlett, Russell Overton, Levy Rouse, Kelvin Smith, Charles Turner, Christopher Turner, and Clifton Yarborough, along with several others, for the kidnaping, robbery, and murder of Catherine Fuller in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.
- The jury in the D.C. Superior Court convicted the seven petitioners and codefendant Steve Webb, while acquitting codefendants Alfonso Harris and Felicia Ruffin.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed petitioners’ convictions on direct appeal but remanded for resentencing.
- The trial court in D.C. Superior Court resentenced petitioners to the same amount of prison time.
- Beginning in 2010, petitioners initiated postconviction proceedings in the D.C. Superior Court, seeking to vacate their convictions or be granted a new trial based on newly discovered, previously withheld evidence, arguing it was favorable and material under Brady.
- After a 16-day evidentiary hearing, the D.C. Superior Court rejected petitioners' Brady claims, finding none of the undisclosed information material.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's decision, concluding that the withheld evidence was not material under Brady.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the D.C. Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence withheld by the government from the defense "material" under Brady v. Maryland if, when evaluated in the context of the entire trial record, there is not a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have changed the outcome of the trial, even if it could have supported an alternative defense theory?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No, the withheld evidence is not material under Brady because there is not a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have changed the outcome of the trial. The Court affirmed the lower courts' conclusion that the withheld evidence was "too little, too weak, or too distant from the main evidentiary points to meet Brady’s standards" when evaluated "in the context of the entire record." The government's case was strongly built on the theory of a group attack, corroborated by numerous witnesses including Alston and Bennett (who confessed and testified for leniency), Yarborough (who implicated himself in a similar account), Thomas (an eyewitness who identified petitioners), Eleby and Jacobs (who saw petitioners participate), and Montgomery (who saw petitioners target Fuller). To establish a different outcome, petitioners’ alternative "single attacker" theory would have required the jury to disbelieve all these accounts. Furthermore, the undisclosed impeachment evidence regarding Porter, Eleby’s PCP use, Jacobs’ vacillation, and Thomas’ aunt’s statement was largely cumulative of impeachment evidence already presented at trial and was deemed insufficient to "undermine confidence" in the jury's verdict. The evidence about Ammie Davis and James Blue was also considered unreliable given Davis's demeanor and prior false accusations.
Dissenting - Justice Kagan
Yes, the withheld evidence was material under Brady because it would have significantly recast the trial and created a reasonable probability of a different outcome. Justice Kagan argued that the government prevented the defendants from presenting a unified "alternative perpetrator" defense by withholding crucial information. This information included: 1) the identity of James McMillan, who was seen acting suspiciously near the crime scene, had a history of assaulting and robbing women in the same neighborhood, and later committed a similar murder; 2) Willie Luchie’s statement about hearing groans from inside the small, closed garage, which would have suggested one or two perpetrators rather than a large group; and 3) substantial impeachment evidence discrediting the government's investigation and its key witnesses. Such impeachment evidence included the fact that a main witness, Eleby, was high on PCP when identifying participants and had asked a friend to lie, and that police delayed investigating claims about another possible perpetrator, James Blue. This unified defense, combined with the inherent weaknesses of the government's witnesses (e.g., cooperating witnesses, witnesses under the influence of PCP, a child witness contradicted by his aunt, and a lack of physical evidence), could have led one or more jurors to harbor a reasonable doubt, thus undermining confidence in the guilty verdicts.
Analysis:
This case underscores the high bar for establishing materiality under Brady v. Maryland, particularly when the government's case relies on a cohesive and extensively corroborated narrative. The majority's decision reaffirms that courts must evaluate the withheld evidence against the entirety of the existing trial record, suggesting that even potentially exculpatory or impeaching evidence may not be deemed material if the prosecution's evidence is perceived as overwhelmingly strong or if the withheld evidence is seen as merely cumulative. Conversely, the dissent highlights how undisclosed evidence, even if individually weak, could collectively transform the defense's strategy and the jury's perception of the entire case, thereby creating a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
