Maxwell v. Roe
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24432
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Maxwell was convicted in 1984 of two murders and one robbery based largely on jailhouse informant Sidney Storch's testimony and weak physical evidence.
- Storch, a known liar and former informant with a history of perjury, testified that Maxwell confessed, a claim later shown to be false.
- The prosecution's key evidence linked Maxwell to the Garcia and Jones murders primarily through Storch's testimony and a palm print on a bench near a victim's body, with other physical evidence conflicting or weak.
- Maxwell pursued federal habeas relief under AEDPA after exhausting state remedies; the district court denied relief, and Maxwell timely appealed.
- The California evidentiary hearing found Storch truthful; the federal court later concluded that finding was an unreasonable factual determination under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) and granted relief on due process grounds.
- The court held that the suppression of impeachment and deal-related information about Storch violated Brady v. Maryland, contributing to an unreliable trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Storch's false testimony violate due process? | Maxwell | Roe | Yes; due process violated; relief granted |
| Was Storch's impeachment evidence and Brady suppression material? | Maxwell | Roe | Yes; Brady violations; relief granted |
| Was Maxwell's petition timely under AEDPA gap tolling? | Maxwell | Roe | Timely; delay tolled AEDPA period |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (false evidence violates due process)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (materiality of false testimony)
- Hall v. Dir. of Corrs., 343 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2003) (jailhouse informant credibility; due process)
- Killian v. Poole, 282 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2002) (perjury by key witness and relief for false testimony)
- Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2002) (undisclosed benefits to informant are material)
- Kyles v. Whyley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality assessment for suppressed evidence)
- Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (U.S. 2006) (gap tolling in California habeas context)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (U.S. 2002) (timeliness in state's post-conviction review)