Shupe v. Pima County Adult Probation Department, 4:22-cv-00529

Earl Richard Shupe was convicted of one count of misdemeanor assault following a bench trial, stemming from allegations that he strangled his wife during a domestic dispute.
Shupe was sentenced to 12 months of supervised probation and mandatory domestic violence treatment; his conviction was affirmed by the Pima County Superior Court.
Shupe represented himself at trial and on appeal, raising multiple concerns regarding access to evidence and procedural fairness.
After exhausting his direct appeal, Shupe filed post-conviction relief petitions and initiated a federal habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while still serving his probation.
Magistrate Judge Ambri recommended dismissal of Shupe's federal habeas petition, finding several claims non-cognizable, procedurally defaulted, or meritless; the district judge reviewed de novo those portions objected to by Shupe.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of Exculpatory Evidence (run report, tape transcription, SD card, affair evidence)	Shupe claimed critical evidence was withheld or excluded, impeding his defense and violating Brady rights	State asserted Shupe did not prove existence/materiality of the evidence; no constitutional violation occurred	Court found speculation insufficient under Brady; no prejudice or error shown; claim denied
Use of Enlarged Photograph (prosecutorial misconduct)	Shupe argued the use of an enlarged photograph was misleading and constituted prosecutorial misconduct	State contended enlargement alone is not misconduct and evidence was not shown to be false or misleading	Court found no evidence of alteration or prosecutorial misconduct; enlargement not improper; claim denied
Trial Court's Arbitrary and Capricious Findings	Shupe alleged trial court rulings were arbitrary and procedurally flawed	State countered appeal lacked federal nature and was procedurally defaulted	Court agreed claim was procedurally defaulted; denied review
Religious Freedom Claim (mandated classes)	Shupe argued mandatory domestic violence classes violated religious freedom	State responded that argument was untimely or inapplicable	No relief granted; not a substantial constitutional violation

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose material, exculpatory evidence)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (criminal defendants have a constitutional right to a fair opportunity to present a defense)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (convictions obtained through knowingly false evidence violate due process)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas review is limited to violations of constitutional rights, not state law)