Davis v. State, 2017 Ark. 9

In 1996 Willie Gaster Davis, Jr. was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, theft, and false imprisonment and sentenced to life; this Court affirmed his conviction.
Davis filed a pro se petition in 2007 seeking leave to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to pursue a writ of error coram nobis alleging Brady violations; that petition was denied.
In October 2016 Davis filed a second coram-nobis petition asserting (again) Brady violations based on: (a) hair-analysis reports allegedly withheld, and (b) seventeen cigarette butts collected at the scene that were not DNA-tested.
Davis claims the recently obtained crime-laboratory records (produced after separate litigation) show suppressed material evidence pointing to other persons at the crime scene.
The State argues Davis’s new claims are untimely, potentially abusive of the writ, and that the withheld items (if any) were not materially prejudicial given the totality of trial evidence linking Davis to the crime.
The Supreme Court denied leave to proceed: it found Davis failed to show withheld evidence would have created a reasonable probability of a different outcome and that he did not meet the stringent coram-nobis standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State suppressed Brady material (hair-analysis)	Davis: hair reports were withheld and are material to innocence	State: prior review showed no withholding proven; even if withheld, not outcome-determinative	Denied — Davis did not show suppression was material enough to undermine confidence in verdict
Whether cigarette butts collected but not tested constitute suppressed Brady evidence	Davis: 17 cigarette butts were withheld from testing and would show other persons at scene	State: Davis could have discovered this earlier; butts, even if present, wouldn’t affect guilt given other evidence and house condition	Denied — presence of butts would not raise reasonable probability of different verdict
Whether re-filing second coram-nobis is an abuse of the writ / whether new facts justify rehearing	Davis: newly obtained lab records supply new material facts warranting reconsideration	State: delay and prior opportunity to raise claim counsel against rehearing; court has discretion to limit renewals	Denied — court exercised discretion and found Davis failed to show cause or new facts sufficient to reinvest jurisdiction

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (suppressed evidence material if favorable evidence would affect outcome)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (three elements of Brady and "reasonable probability" standard)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (impeachment evidence falls within Brady)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (favorable evidence must put whole case in different light to undermine confidence)
State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397 (coram nobis is extraordinary remedy; presumption of validity of conviction)
Davis v. State, 330 Ark. 76 (affirming conviction; background and trial evidence relied on in coram-nobis analysis)