Montgomery v. Bobby, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17455

Montgomery was convicted of aggravated murder in Ohio (1986) and sentenced to death after a jury trial.”
“The district court granted a habeas writ solely on Brady grounds for non-disclosure of an exculpatory police report showing a potential live sighting of Ogle on March 12, 1986.”
“The Ohio appellate court rejected the Brady claim, holding the nondisclosure was not material.”
“AEDPA governs review: de novo on law, with highly deferential review of state court factual determinations.”
“The Sixth Circuit ultimately reversed the writ, concluding the Brady nondisclosure was not material.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady materiality standard applied	Montgomery: withheld report was material	State: nondisclosure not material under Brady	Brady materiality not met; no relief on Brady claim
Effect of juror bias and venue publicity	Montgomery: bias/ publicity denied fair trial	State: no manifest error; trial fair	Trial not constitutionally compromised on these grounds
COA expansion on plea-bargain evidence	Montgomery sought broader COA for additional Brady claims	State: not properly presented; not before district court	COA expanded claims denied; not reviewable on appeal

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution's suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due process when material)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (materiality requires favorable evidence to undermine confidence in the verdict)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality is about a reasonable probability of a different result in light of suppressed evidence)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA applying deference to state court decisions; 'contrary' and 'unreasonable application' standards)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA deference; highly deferential review for state court rulings; standard clarified)
Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350 (2011) (prosecutors' Brady obligations; disclosure requirement emphasized)