786 F.3d 701
9th Cir.2015Background
- In 2004, a Nevada jury found Comstock guilty of possessing stolen property (a wrestling ring) based on a theory the ring was stolen and pawned.
- Street, the alleged victim, doubted the ring was stolen and later wrote a pre-sentencing statement suggesting he may have misplaced the ring outside.
- Detective Thomas linked the ring to Street and located it in a pawn shop through surveillance.
- Comstock’s defense argued the ring was lost outside, but the State argued it was stolen; trial evidence did not include Street’s misplacement doubts.
- Comstock moved for a new trial claiming Brady material was suppressed; Nevada Supreme Court denied without addressing suppression in detail; the district court denied habeas relief.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the Brady material was suppressed, material, and prejudicial, granting the writ and ordering retrial or release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Street’s pre-trial statement Brady material? | Comstock: yes, favorable and suppressed | State: not clearly favorable/suppressed | Yes; evidence was favorable and suppressed. |
| Was the suppression prejudicial/material under Brady? | Comstock: suppression undermined verdict | State: not likely to alter outcome | Yes; suppression undermines confidence in verdict. |
| Was the Nevada Supreme Court’s Brady ruling an unreasonable application under AEDPA? | Comstock: state court applied Brady unreasonably | State: application reasonable | Unreasonable application; relief granted. |
| Did Brady apply to charged theory versus uncharged theories (misplaced vs stolen property)? | Comstock: material to defense even if not the charged theory | State: focus on charged theory | Material for the actual trial; reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (Brady material includes favorable evidence that is suppressed)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (Materiality requires reasonable probability of a different result)
- Bagley v. Smith, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (Materiality standard for suppressed evidence)
- Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (S. Ct. 2012) (Clarifies evaluation of trial testimony and materiality)
- Williams v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (Brady material that undermines prosecution theory)