Jardine v. DITTMANN
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18917
7th Cir.2011Background
- Jardine was convicted in Wisconsin in 1994 of sexually assaulting and attempting to kill a masseuse; sentenced to 60 years.
- Trial presented competing accounts: Grandhagen described violent gunpoint assault; Jardine offered a security-guard scenario with consent and an accidental shooting.
- A detective later admitted doctoring the crime-scene letter about prostitution; Jardine pursued post-conviction motions including a new-trial request and DNA testing.
- DNA testing revealed semen from other men on sheets and towels from Kady’s parlor; gun butt yielded no testable DNA.
- The district court summarily dismissed Jardine’s § 2254 petition, then granted a certificate of appealability on Brady-related claims; matter proceeded on the merits.
- Seventh Circuit holds that Brady does not reach all police misconduct and that the presented evidence was not material to the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there Brady violation regarding the gun evidence? | Jardine argues the gun was suppressed and exculpatory. | Dittmann contends there was no suppression of Jardine's own gun; evidence was not suppressed. | No Brady violation; gun evidence not suppressed. |
| Was the semen-stained evidence material under Brady? | Sheets/towels showed prostitution; could bolster Jardine’s credibility and negate motive. | Evidence was inadmissible under rape-shield and extrinsic-impeachment rules; not highly probative. | Not material under Brady; state-court materiality reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (federal due-process obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (materiality requires reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (omitted evidence must cast case in a new light to be material)
- United States v. Gray, 648 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2011) ( Brady requires suppression as to exculpatory evidence not otherwise available)
- Harris v. Kuba, 486 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. 2007) (prosecution not required to disclose defendant’s own property)
- United States v. Lee, 399 F.3d 864 (7th Cir. 2005) (prosecution did not suppress own items of defendant)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (deference to state court descriptions of state law in federal review)
- Sussman v. Jenkins, 636 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2011) (rape-shield and evidentiary rules affect admissibility in Brady claims)
- George v. Smith, 586 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2009) (federal review respects state-law evidence limits)
- Dunlap v. Hepp, 436 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2006) (consideration of probative value under state evidentiary rules)
- Hammer v. Karlen, 342 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2003) (rape-shield concerns and probative value of sexual history evidence)
- Redmond v. Kingston, 240 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2001) (probative value versus prejudice under Brady analysis)
- Pack v. Page, 147 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 1998) (evaluation of evidence materiality in Brady context)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (reasonable-doubt standard for federal review of state-court factual determinations)