Miller v. United States, 14 A.3d 1094

Miller, age 17 at the time, was convicted by jury of assault with intent to commit murder while armed and eight related offenses; he was right-handed, the victim Jenkins was shot March 1, 2006; two eyewitnesses Taylor and Rollerson testified, but neither identified Miller as shooter; Brandon (driver) and Lindsey (passenger) were accomplices whose testimonies varied and who implicated Miller at grand jury and trial; the defense discovered a Lindsey video showing left-handed signature on a rights card and Taylor's grand jury testimony claimed left-handed shooting; the government belatedly disclosed Taylor’s grand jury testimony the night before opening statements; the trial court rejected the defense’s bid to reopen to introduce Lindsey’s video; Miller appealed arguing Brady v. Maryland violations and prejudice from late disclosure; this court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a Brady violation due to late disclosure of Taylor’s left-handed shooting testimony?	Miller argues government suppressed exculpatory Taylor grand jury testimony.	United States contends disclosures were timely; no suppression or prejudice.	Yes; late disclosure violated Brady.
Did the late disclosure prejudice Miller by preventing use of Lindsey’s left-hand signing video?	Late Taylor disclosure hindered recognizing Lindsey video’s significance.	Defense could have used video with timely disclosure; no suppression by government.	Yes; delay undermined defense and affected outcome.
Should the defense have been permitted to reopen to introduce Lindsey video after rest?	Reopening would have allowed use of left-handed signature video.	Court properly refused to reopen; potential prejudice to government.	Court abused discretion; reversal warranted.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence timely)
Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality of Brady evidence; reasonable probability of different outcome)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (standard for materiality and prejudice in Brady claims)
Edelen v. United States, 627 A.2d 968 (D.C. 1993) (timing of Brady disclosures and use at trial; Jencks issues)
Leka v. Portuondo, 257 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2001) (late disclosure and defense ability to use new evidence)
James v. United States, 580 A.2d 636 (D.C. 1990) (mid-trial Jencks disclosures; impact on defense right to present evidence)
Curry v. United States, 658 A.2d 193 (D.C. 1995) (timeliness of Brady disclosure; effect on defense)
Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (U.S. 2004) (prosecutorial duties under Brady; timing matters)