Richard Cobb v. Rick Thaler, Director
682 F.3d 364
5th Cir.2012Background
- Cobb convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death; federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. §2254; district court denied relief but granted COA on Brady claim.
- District court and Cobb focus on whether the state suppressed Brady material—William Thomsen’s letters—during Cobb’s trial.
- Thomsen was a jailhouse informant; two letters to the district attorney surfaced showing Thomsen’s potential incentives, but were not disclosed until late in trial.
- Open-file policy allowed Cobb access to co-defendant Adams’s files; Cobb did not review Adams’s file, but Adams’s counsel did.
- State court upheld that no suppression occurred and that Thomsen’s letters were immaterial; district court found this mixed but appellate court found both conclusions reasonable and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady suppression of Thomsen letter | Cobb | State | State did not suppress; reasonable diligence could rely on open-file policy |
| Materiality of Thomsen letter | Cobb | State | Letter immaterial; did not alter credibility or outcomes; not a Brady violation |
| AEDPA review and Article III | Cobb | State | AEDPA §2254(d) constitutional; not an improper expansion of federal power |
| Constitutional challenge to Brady standard in context | Cobb | State | Brady standard applied reasonably; no unreasonable application |
| Certificate of Appealability on other issues | Cobb | State | No COA on additional issues; foreclosed by precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (duty to disclose favorable evidence; materiality to guilt or punishment)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (impeachment evidence included in Brady duty)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (duty to disclose includes impeachment evidence; open-file representations)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (general Brady rule; leeway in case-by-case determinations)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (unreasonable-application standard requires
fairminded disagreement) - Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 1996) (discussion of congress and habeas jurisdiction limits; not essential but cited)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (unreasonable application of federal law; clearly established law standard)
- Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953) (historical basis for federal review of state convictions)