State v. Glover
2016 Ohio 2833
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1996 Glover, Johnson, and Wheatt (juveniles tried as adults) were convicted of the 1995 murder of Clifton Hudson; Harris was the sole eyewitness who identified Johnson as shooter at trial.
- Physical evidence at trial: gunshot-residue (AAS) positives on Wheatt’s hands and on the palm of Johnson’s left glove; lead particles found on the Blazer. Defendants maintained they were passengers/witnesses in the Blazer.
- Postconviction: earlier efforts to obtain a new trial (recanted ID; SEM/EDS challenges to AAS) failed or were reversed.
- In 2014 defendants obtained previously undisclosed East Cleveland police reports (obtained after a 1998 prosecutor letter instructing police to direct records to the prosecutor), which named two undisclosed eyewitnesses (Gary and Eddie “Dante” Petty) and contained statements from the victim’s brother (Derek Bufford) describing prior threats and a shooting from a grey Cavalier.
- Trial court found the state suppressed exculpatory/impeachment material in violation of Brady, concluded the suppressed evidence was material in cumulative effect, granted new trials; state appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Leave to file untimely new-trial motions | Defendants knew of Marino letter earlier and lacked diligence; leave untimely | Police reports were concealed by state; defendants unavoidably prevented from discovering evidence | Court: Leave properly granted — defendants unavoidably prevented; evidence in state control |
| 2. Whether undisclosed reports were suppressed under Brady | No suppression; discovery practices then (oral summaries) were acceptable; evidence not material | Reports contained exculpatory eyewitnesses and impeachment (Petty brothers, Bufford); state failed to disclose | Court: Suppression proven; police knowledge imputed to state; trial court credibility findings upheld |
| 3. Materiality — did suppressed evidence undermine confidence in verdict | State: collective trial evidence (Harris ID; GSR/AAS results; Blazer residue; defendants present) overwhelms suppressed material | Defendants: Petty brothers’ separate vantage, shooter from post office (not Blazer) and Bufford’s statements would undercut ID, GSR theory, and suggest alternate suspects | Court: Cumulative suppressed evidence creates reasonable probability of different result; new trials required |
| 4. Exclusion of state witnesses at evidentiary hearing | Excluded witnesses (Derek Bufford, investigator) would aid materiality showing; exclusion was arbitrary | Trial court properly excluded hearsay and avoided previewing new-trial testimony; exclusion harmless | Court: No abuse of discretion in excluding testimony; exclusion not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (constitutional duty to disclose material, favorable evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (impeachment evidence falls under Brady; materiality standard)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (cumulative effect of undisclosed evidence relevant to Brady materiality)
- Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (materiality defined as reasonable probability undermining confidence in outcome)
- State v. Johnston, 39 Ohio St.3d 48 (Ohio restatement of Brady/Bagley materiality standard)
- State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460 (Brady principles in Ohio context)
- State v. Geeslin, 116 Ohio St.3d 252 (deference to trial court credibility findings on postconviction matters)