M2010-02447-CCA-R3-PC
Tenn. Crim. App.Oct 31, 2012Background
- Gilley charged with first-degree murder of his former girlfriend after a 1984 homicide was revisited in 2006.
- The victim’s body was found near a quarry; jeans found near the body contained DNA and semen evidence linking to Gilley.
- Witnesses described repeated jealous, violent conduct by Gilley toward the victim across years prior to her death.
- DNA and forensic evidence connected the jeans to proximity to the crime scene; a third-party confession and multiple eyewitness accounts supported guilt.
- Gilley was convicted at trial and sentenced to life; direct appeal affirmed; post-conviction relief denied after evidentiary hearing.
- The post-conviction court denied relief on three issues: Brady materials, ineffective assistance, and DNA testing requests; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady material regarding Mary Hunter Brown | Gilley sought notes suggesting a different account | State provided the notes via discovery/open file | Brady claim denied; no suppression; not material |
| Ineffective assistance for cross-exam of Brown and failure to call rebuttal witness | Counsel inadequately prepared and failed to secure rebuttal witness | No reasonable probability that outcome would change; testimony cumulative | Denied; no prejudice established |
| Request for further DNA analysis of Rustler jeans crotch | Additional DNA could show third-party involvement | Crotch semen was already tested; other DNA unlikely to be exculpatory | Denied; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (impeachment evidence materiality standard)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (due-process obligation to disclose favorable information)
- Trombetta v. California, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (standard for materiality in exculpatory evidence)
- State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185 (Tenn. 1992) (Tennessee Brady material test)
- State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (equality of direct and circumstantial evidence judicial treatment)
- State v. Grindstaff, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009) (standard for defeat of post-conviction findings on evidence basis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (materiality and standard for evidence)