Gillispie v. Timmerman-Cooper, 835 F. Supp. 2d 482

Gillispie, convicted by jury in Ohio on nine counts of rape with firearm specs, three counts of kidnapping with specs, three counts of gross sexual imposition, and one count of aggravated robbery with a firearm spec; aggregate sentence 22–56 years.
State court denied suppression, suppression challenges, and denied motions for new trial; convictions affirmed on direct appeal, and later petitions denied or dismissed in state courts.
Gillispie raised Brady-related claims for failure to disclose surveillance/lead-elimination reports and related materials; the DNA-related and other post-conviction issues were pursued in various state courts.
Federal habeas petition was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; an evidentiary hearing was held; the court ultimately granted relief on the Brady claim and ordered release unless retrial occurs by a stated date.
AEDPA applies; the court assessed timeliness and concluded the Brady claim was timely due to the November 2007 discovery date, tolling during state petitions, and applicable § 2244(d) analysis.
The writ was granted on Ground for Relief 1, holding the State violated Brady by withholding material exculpatory/impeachment evidence; Ohio was ordered to release Gillispie unless retried by July 1, 2012.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady materiality of withheld reports	Gillispie argues withheld reports impeached MOORE’s investigation and should be Brady material	Gillispie contends reports were not material or exculpatory; defense could access through Fritz	Granted in part; materiality found; Brady violation established
Timeliness under AEDPA	Gillispie timely under §2244(d)(1)(D) due to newly discovered evidence	State argues time-bar or no timely discovery; dismissal	Not barred; limitations tolled; petition timely under AEDPA constraints

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (Supreme Court, 1985) (materiality of Brady evidence includes impeachment and exculpatory material)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court, 1995) (materiality assessed cumulatively; reasonable probability of different outcome)
D’Ambrosio v. Bagley, 527 F.3d 489 (6th Cir., 2008) ( Brady-like evaluation in post-conviction context; reliance on officer affidavits)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 2000) (unreasonable application of clearly established federal law standard)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (Supreme Court, 2003) (objective reasonableness in applying clearly established law; AEDPA standard)