Jack Hewson, Jr. v. James Key
683 F. App'x 578
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jack Hewson was convicted in state court; he filed a federal habeas petition claiming Napue and Brady violations.
- Hewson argued the prosecution failed to correct allegedly false testimony by cooperating witness Delao about sentencing benefits (Napue).
- Hewson also argued the State suppressed impeachment evidence about witnesses Oakes and Hoofman (Brady).
- The district court granted habeas relief; Warden Key appealed and Hewson cross-appealed the denial on the Brady claims.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of habeas relief de novo and reversed, rejecting both the Napue and Brady claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecution violated Napue by not correcting Delao’s alleged false testimony about receiving "three years off" for cooperation | Delao’s testimony was false or misleading and the prosecution had a duty to correct it | Delao’s statement was not shown to be false; any comment about not saving himself much was subjective and jury knew he received benefits | Court held no Napue violation: record did not show falsity or a misleading impression requiring correction |
| Whether the State violated Brady by withholding impeachment evidence about Oakes and Hoofman | Suppressed prior-criminal-history materials had impeachment value that could have affected the verdict | Allegedly suppressed materials were cumulative of impeachment used at trial and did not create reasonable probability of a different outcome given strong evidence of guilt | Court held no Brady violation: materials were cumulative and would not have changed the result |
| Standard of review applicable to habeas claims (AEDPA/de novo) | Hewson assumed de novo review; argued merit under either standard | Court noted claim fails under de novo and therefore also under AEDPA’s deferential standard | Court applied de novo (assumed) and concluded claim fails, so AEDPA review would also fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecution must not knowingly present false evidence or fail to correct false testimony)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
- Cheney v. Washington, 614 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (de novo review standard for habeas rulings)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (discussion of AEDPA and standards of review)
- Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (1957) (no Napue concern where jury was informed of witness’s benefits and not left with false impression)
- Reis-Campos v. Biter, 832 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2016) (cumulative-evidence analysis under Brady)
- Barker v. Fleming, 423 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) (Brady prejudice analysis)