State v. Root, 2015 MT 310

On July 27, 2012 in Butte, MT, Lawrence Lee was stabbed and cut while driving a pickup containing Lee, defendant Michael Root, and a juvenile (S.R.). Lee and S.R. testified that Root stabbed Lee; Root testified S.R. did it.
S.R. testified for the State that Root stabbed Lee; S.R. later denied knowing witness Lonnie Boyd.
During trial (between days 2 and 3) the State produced a recorded police interview of Lonnie Boyd in which Boyd said S.R. told him S.R. — not Root — stabbed Lee. Boyd was disclosed earlier by name but the recording was produced late.
The defense moved to dismiss under Brady for late disclosure; the District Court denied the motion but the defense called Boyd, who testified consistent with the recording and impeached S.R. on that point.
Root argued ineffective assistance for failing to request an accomplice/accountability instruction for S.R., and argued the Brady violation (late disclosure of Boyd recording) warranted dismissal. The Court affirmed Root’s conviction, rejecting both claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting an accomplice instruction for S.R.	Root: counsel should have requested instruction that S.R. was an accomplice and his testimony required corroboration.	State/Respondent: an accomplice instruction would conflict with Root's defense of noninvolvement; tactical choice not to request it was reasonable.	Court: No ineffective assistance — failure to request the instruction was a reasonable tactical decision and did not prejudice the defense.
Whether the District Court erred by denying dismissal for late disclosure of Boyd's recorded statement (Brady)	Root: late disclosure of an exculpatory/impeachment recording prevented timely impeachment of S.R. and prejudiced the defense; dismissal required.	State: Boyd was disclosed by identity earlier; recording was cumulative, defense obtained and used the recording at trial and called Boyd to impeach S.R.; no prejudice undermining confidence in verdict.	Court: No Brady violation requiring reversal — late disclosure was not prejudicial because defense obtained/use of the evidence at trial allowed the jury to hear Boyd's contradictory testimony; verdict remains worthy of confidence.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (suppressed evidence must be shown to undermine confidence in the verdict)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (Brady prejudice assessed by reasonable probability standard)
Amado v. Gonzalez, 758 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.) (prosecutor’s Brady obligation not excused by defense counsel’s lack of diligence)
United States v. Olsen, 737 F.3d 625 (9th Cir.) (discussion of prevalence and seriousness of Brady violations)