People of Michigan v. Ronald Anthony Dimambro Jr
155194
| Mich. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- Defendant Ronald Anthony Dimambro, Jr. was convicted; postconviction issues concerned suppression of 32 autopsy photographs by the prosecution.
- The Court of Appeals concluded suppression of the photographs was material under Brady and reversed/remanded on that basis (People v Dimambro, 318 Mich App 204 (2016)).
- The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal the Court of Appeals judgment on October 6, 2017.
- Justice Zahra dissented from the denial, arguing the Court of Appeals failed to assess materiality in relation to the totality of the trial evidence and may have relied on posttrial expert testimony different from trial testimony.
- Justice Zahra would have vacated the Court of Appeals’ materiality holding and remanded for reconsideration of whether the suppressed photographs, considered collectively and against all trial evidence, created a reasonable probability of a different result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression of 32 autopsy photos was Brady-material | Prosecutor sought review of Court of Appeals reversal, arguing no basis to find materiality warranting relief | Dimambro argued suppressed photos were favorable and material and would have undermined confidence in the verdict | Supreme Court denied leave to appeal; dissent would vacate COA materiality ruling and remand for totality analysis |
| Proper standard for Brady materiality | State implicitly argues COA decision was incorrect or not worthy of this Court's review | Defense relies on Brady/Bagley standard: reasonable probability of different result if evidence disclosed | Dissent emphasizes Chenault/Bagley totality test and that COA failed to apply it to all trial evidence |
| Use of posttrial expert testimony in Brady proceedings | State suggests appellate review should focus on trial record/result | Defense relied on expert testimony presented in posttrial proceedings to show photos' impact | Dissent questions using a different expert posttrial to show what would have happened at trial and urges consideration of what trial testimony would have been |
| Whether suppressed evidence must be considered collectively against all other evidence | State contends no need for further review here | Defense asserts suppressed photos must be viewed collectively and in context of all evidence to assess prejudice | Dissent stresses precedent requiring collective, totality analysis and remand for proper application |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial suppression of materially exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (evidence is material if there is a reasonable probability of a different result)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (suppressed evidence must be considered collectively and may undermine confidence in the verdict)
- Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009) (reiterates Brady materiality as reasonable probability that result would differ)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (materiality assessed in light of all other evidence)
- People v. Chenault, 495 Mich. 142 (2014) (Michigan adopts collective/totality approach to Brady materiality)
- Thomas v. Westbrooks, 849 F.3d 659 (6th Cir. 2017) (Brady materiality requires assessment in view of all relevant evidence)
- Henness v. Bagley, 644 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2011) (conviction-supporting evidence must be considered when assessing Brady prejudice)
- Towns v. Smith, 395 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 2005) (same principle regarding consideration of supporting evidence)