338 A.3d 492
Del. Super. Ct.2025Background
- Marzette King and Randy Barber, both with prior felony convictions, were co-defendants charged with drug and firearm offenses after a search of a Wilmington residence revealed drugs and three firearms.
- Barber accepted a favorable plea deal resulting in probation, while King rejected a 25-year plea offer, went to trial, and received a 120-year sentence after conviction.
- The crux of the case at trial was whether King possessed the firearms; evidence linking him was largely circumstantial and based on DNA tests that were inconclusive or only weakly linked King to some of the guns.
- Prior to King’s trial, Barber told prosecutors he would testify that the guns were his and that he never saw King with any firearms, a fact the State did not disclose to King's counsel.
- The State did not call Barber as a witness and presented the narrative that King was the sole operator of a drug house, failing to mention Barber’s own drug dealing or his admissions regarding the guns.
- King filed a Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief, arguing that the State committed a Brady violation by withholding Barber’s exculpatory statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady Violation – Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence | No violation because Barber's statements were not credible or material | Barber’s pretrial statements were exculpatory and material and should have been disclosed | State committed a Brady violation; new trial granted |
| Materiality of Barber’s Statements | Statements not material; defense likely aware via King’s wife | Statements were critical to possession issue and not known to trial counsel | Evidence was material; nondisclosure impaired defense |
| Prejudice from Suppression | No prejudice because conviction likely regardless; evidence largely circumstantial | Suppression undermined confidence in the verdict given alternative suspect | Suppression prejudiced defendant and undermined confidence in verdict |
| State’s Duty to Disclose Under Brady | Prosecutor did not need to disclose statements he believed to be false | Duty requires disclosure regardless of prosecutor’s credibility assessment | Prosecutor’s credibility judgment irrelevant; disclosure required |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (State must disclose evidence favorable to defendant if material to guilt or punishment).
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Materiality standard for Brady; evidence undermining confidence in verdict warrants new trial).