Background

• Gill petitions for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging Brady violations; state court proceedings revolved around probation violation for July 19, 2008 incident and related recantation by the victim, P.M.
• P.M. previously testified and provided an initial police statement; a later recantation statement was undisclosed at the probation hearing.
• District court accepted the recantation evidence and other materials, revoking Gill’s probation, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals remanded for clarity regarding the violated probation condition.
• The state court ultimately addressed Brady by noting the withheld recantation evidence was disclosed and considered, finding no prejudice and upholding the probation revocation.
• Gill also alleged withholding of photographs; the federal petition argues Brady violation and due-process concerns, but the court finds procedural default on the photograph claim.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (deference to state court corrections; federal review limited)
• Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (principles of exhaustion and return to state court)
• Collier v. Norris, 485 F.3d 415 (8th Cir. 2007) (deferential review of state court decisions in habeas petitions)
• Pederson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 2005) (three-factor Brady test (favorable, suppressed, prejudiced))
• United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (prejudice standard for exculpatory evidence in Brady context)
• Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (elaboration of Brady principles)
• Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (purpose of habeas corpus and review framework)
• Weeks v. Wyrick, 638 F.2d 690 (8th Cir. 1981) (jurisdiction and service considerations in habeas)