413 S.W.3d 40
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ferguson was convicted in 2005 of second degree murder and first degree robbery; Erickson testified as a co‑defendant and pled guilty to lesser charges in exchange for testimony.
- Erickson’s confession and Trump’s eyewitness identification were the central proofs; no physical evidence tied Ferguson to the crime scene.
- Ferguson filed Rule 29.15 post‑conviction motions; he alleged ineffective assistance and Brady violations; the trial court denied relief.
- On habeas review in Cole County, the court denied most claims but ordered an evidentiary hearing on three substantive issues, including Brady violations.
- The appellate court concluded Ferguson established a Brady cause‑and‑prejudice gateway based on an undisclosed Barbara Trump interview and granted habeas relief, vacating Ferguson’s convictions.
- The court instructed the State to elect whether to retry Ferguson within 15 days of mandate, or Ferguson would be discharged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Missouri may review a habeas petition independently as an original writ | Ferguson urges independent original writ review under Rule 91.05. | State argues review limited to certiorari of the Cole County judgment. | Appellate court may independently review as an original writ. |
| Whether a Brady violation occurred from undisclosed Barbara Trump interview | Trump interview impeachment and suppression undermined trial fairness. | No timely disclosure and materiality disputed; no Brady violation proven. | Brady violation established; undisclosed Barbara Trump interview was material and impeachment‑worthy. |
| Whether Ferguson showed cause and prejudice to overcome procedural default on Brady claim | Disclosures were external to defense; nondisclosure explained default. | Ferguson should have discovered via diligent investigation; default not excused. | Cause and prejudice established; review of Brady claim permitted. |
| Whether the undisclosed Trump interview was material under Brady | Interview impeachment of a key witness and could have altered trial dynamics. | Materiality not shown; impact on credibility uncertain. | Undisclosed Barbara Trump interview was material; cumulative nondisclosures undermine confidence in verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (federal Brady rule requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence.)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality of suppressed evidence undermines confidence in verdict.)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady disclosure and impeachment evidence considerations.)
- Engel v. Dormire, 304 S.W.3d 120 (Mo. banc 2010) (Brady materiality and cumulative nondisclosures leading to relief.)
- McElwain v. State, 340 S.W.3d 226 (Mo. banc 2013) (successive‑habeas and Brady considerations in Missouri.)
- Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) (cause for procedural default includes external objective factors.)
- Amrine v. Roper, 102 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. banc 2003) (gateway innocence/actual innocence standards for habeas relief.)
- Parker v. State, 198 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (Brady materiality and trial impact considerations.)