Browning v. Trammell
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9185
10th Cir.2013Background
- Browning was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Oklahoma for the killings of Harry and Teresa Hye and the wounding of Cenessa Tackett.
- Tackett, Browning’s key trial witness, had undisclosed severe mental illness symptoms that could affect credibility.
- Tackett’s mental health records were later disclosed in federal proceedings, prompting a Brady-based due process challenge.
- The district court granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus requiring disclosure or retry, finding the records favorable and material to Browning.
- Oklahoma courts held Tackett’s psychotherapist-patient privilege protected the records and found no material Brady information after in-camera review.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that Tackett’s mental health records were favorable and material; and that a traditional deference standard applied under §2254(d) to review the state court decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Oklahoma ruling proper on Brady disclosure? | Browning contends the records were favorable and material. | Browning argues the psychotherapist-patient privilege barred disclosure and no material Brady evidence existed. | Brady materiality favored Browning; records were material and should have been disclosed. |
| Did the Brady claim get adjudicated on the merits for §2254(d) review? | Ritchie-based in-camera review constitutes merits adjudication, requiring deference. | Ritchie excludes defense counsel from disclosure decisions; no merits adjudication occurred under §2254(d). | The Brady claim was adjudicated on the merits; deferential review applied. |
| May the court consider post-verdict materials when evaluating Brady claims? | Record before the state court includes materials not available to the trial court which could affect outcome. | In Brady, consider only materials available to the state court at the time of its decision and pre-trial disclosure. | Analysis limited to the record before the state court; cannot rely on post-verdict materials for materiality. |
| Was Tackett’s mental-health evidence favorable and material under Brady? | Records show Tackett’s impairments and manipulation potential affecting credibility and theory of defense. | Other corroborating evidence beyond Tackett’s testimony reduces materiality. | Evidence was both favorable and material; could put the whole case in a different light undermining confidence in the verdict. |
| Did Tackett’s mental-health records alter the strength of the State’s corroboration? | Psychiatric issues could undermine Tackett’s credibility despite corroborating evidence. | Existing corroboration sufficiently supported the verdict; records not material. | Mental-health records would have mattered; they could have significantly affected the jury’s assessment of Tackett’s credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable evidence)
- Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (U.S. 2012) (favorable evidence and materiality framework for Brady)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality requires showing evidence could undermine confidence in verdict)
- Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (in-camera review of privileged information for Brady purposes)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (limits §2254(d)(1) review to record before state court)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (deference standard for §2254(d) proceedings; fair-minded jurists)
- Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (U.S. 2009) (pre-trial Brady rights; post-conviction testing is limited)