873 F.3d 637
8th Cir.2017Background
- Three armed attackers shot and killed Freddie Chew; Jeffrey Shockley and Robert Stewart identified Juane Kennell and Christopher White as two attackers.
- Kennell and White were convicted in Missouri state court of first-degree murder, assault, and armed criminal action; convictions were upheld on direct and collateral review.
- Kennell filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition alleging Brady violations for nondisclosure of (a) a purported deal between the state and witness Jeffrey Shockley, (b) relocation payments to Shockley, (c) Shockley’s agreement to testify against his brother, and (d) information about recovery of Shockley’s gun and related disposition agreements after a separate car stop.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing, credited government witnesses, found no undisclosed quid pro quo agreements, and concluded either no Brady material was suppressed or any nondisclosure was not material.
- The court found Kennell likely had notice of the gun recovery and related arrest reports in state discovery (raising procedural-default issues) and that payments to relocate Shockley occurred over a year before trial and did not appear aimed at procuring testimony.
- Kennell appealed the denial of his § 2254 petition; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| State withheld agreement promising leniency to Shockley to secure testimony (Brady) | Kennell: prosecutor and witness had an understanding (documentary hints, notes, unsigned offers) that was undisclosed and favorable | State: no written or oral agreement existed; testimony and record show no quid pro quo and sentencing proceeded without any deal | No Brady violation; district court credited government witnesses and found no agreement existed |
| State failed to disclose relocation payments to Shockley | Kennell: payments suggest inducement and impeachment value | State: payments were for witness safety over a year before trial, not linked to testimony | Even if Brady material, nondisclosure not material; would not undermine confidence in verdict |
| State failed to disclose that Shockley agreed to testify against his brother | Kennell: shows readiness to testify for personal benefit | State: no evidence state offered or conditioned leniency for testimony against brother | No Brady violation; district court found no agreement existed |
| State suppressed info about recovery of Shockley’s gun and related arrest/report | Kennell: could have impeached Shockley’s claim he disposed of the gun; nondisclosure amounted to fabricated evidence | State: discovery file included arrest/report; Kennell had or should have had access in state proceedings (procedural default) | Claims defaulted for failure to fairly present to state court; district court’s factual finding that Kennell had notice of the report was not clearly erroneous; not reached on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose exculpatory/impeachment material)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (elements of Brady and materiality standard)
- Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885 (definition of materiality: reasonable probability that disclosure would change outcome)
- White v. Steele, 853 F.3d 486 (8th Cir. 2017) (Brady analysis and credibility findings in similar context)
- United States v. Librach, 520 F.2d 550 (8th Cir. 1975) (context on government payments to witnesses and inference of inducement may not follow)
- Wemark v. Iowa, 322 F.3d 1018 (8th Cir. 2003) (fair presentment requirement to avoid procedural default)