Andrew Thomas v. Bruce Westbrooks
849 F.3d 659
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1997 an armored truck driver, James Day, was shot; Andrew Lee Thomas, Jr. was later identified as the shooter and convicted in federal court; after Day died, Tennessee tried and convicted Thomas of felony murder and sentenced him to death.
- Angela Jackson, Thomas’s girlfriend, was the pivotal eyewitness who placed Thomas at the scene and connected him to co-defendant Anthony Bond and circumstantial evidence; her testimony was central to the State’s case.
- After the federal trial but before the state prosecution, the FBI paid Jackson $750; that payment was in the federal file provided to state prosecutors but was not disclosed to Thomas at the state trial.
- At trial Jackson repeatedly denied receiving any reward or payment for her testimony; the prosecution did not correct or disclose contrary evidence in the file.
- Thomas exhausted state remedies and petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief, and Thomas appealed, arguing Brady and prosecutorial-misconduct claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation for nondisclosure of $750 FBI payment to key witness | Thomas: suppression of payment was favorable, suppressed, and material because Jackson was the pivotal witness and payment would impeach her bias | State: payment immaterial because other evidence and prior impeachments made it cumulative; prosecutors lacked "actual" knowledge | Reversed: nondisclosure was a Brady violation; payment was material and deprived trial of fairness |
| Prosecutorial misconduct for allowing false testimony about payment | Thomas: prosecutor knowingly allowed Jackson to deny receiving money and failed to correct perjured testimony | State: knowledge limited to imputed knowledge; denies actual knowledge of perjury | Not decided on merits; majority notes Giglio allows imputed knowledge under agency law but grants relief on Brady grounds |
| Materiality standard applicable to Brady claim | Thomas: material if verdict not worthy of confidence absent suppressed evidence | State: frames materiality as sufficiency or cumulative impeachment | Court: applies Kyles/Strickler standard—material if absence undermines confidence in verdict; finds materiality satisfied |
| Right to impeach for pecuniary bias versus other impeachment | Thomas: evidence of payment is distinct impeachment on pecuniary bias and not cumulative of other attacks on credibility | State: argues existing impeachment made payment cumulative and immaterial | Court: payment was different in kind and highly relevant; not merely cumulative—material for Brady |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable, material evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady includes impeachment evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality tests whether verdict is worthy of confidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady three-part framework: favorable, suppressed, material/prejudice)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor responsible for subordinates' knowledge of deal/payment affecting witness credibility)
- Robinson v. Mills, 592 F.3d 730 (6th Cir. 2010) (failure to disclose informant payment was material impeachment evidence and warranted habeas relief)