David R. Desimone v. State of Iowa
2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 68
| Iowa | 2011Background
- DeSimone was convicted of sexual abuse in the third degree and sentenced as an habitual offender.
- The charged conduct occurred at DeSimone’s home in October 2004 during a party for his cousin.
- The victim, Samantha, was heavily intoxicated; her trial memory was inconsistent with hospital and police records.
- Burger King timecard and Nicole testimony allegedly contradicted Samantha’s account and were not disclosed to defense.
- Postconviction relief proceedings concluded no Brady violation; Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision, reversed the district court, and remanded for a new trial on the sexual abuse charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a Brady violation due to nondisclosure? | DeSimone argues suppression of Burger King timecard evidence favors him. | State contends adequate diligence and non-suppression; defense could have pursued but did not. | Yes; nondisclosure was a Brady violation. |
| Is the evidence favorable and material to guilt? | Timecard impeachment of Nicole undermines Samantha’s corroboration and credibility. | Timecard impeachment was not reasonably available; probative value uncertain. | Evidence was favorable and material to the issue of guilt; required reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (materiality requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (favorable evidence includes impeachment evidence)
- Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003) (materiality depends on probability of different outcome)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (duty to learn favorable evidence; suppression analysis)