Temple, David Mark, WR-78,545-02

Background

David Mark Temple was convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to life; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal (Temple v. State) and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief on direct review.
Temple filed a habeas application alleging Brady/Kyles/Bagley suppression, failure to disclose grand jury testimony, ineffective assistance (failure to investigate/timely move for continuance), newly discovered evidence/actual innocence, and related discovery failures.
A 26-day habeas hearing was held with ~292 exhibits; the habeas court found numerous police reports, witness statements, audio recordings, polygraph materials, and other investigative records were not timely disclosed (or were destroyed/misplaced) and that late disclosure impaired defense preparation.
The habeas judge found the prosecutor (Kelly Siegler) withheld or delayed disclosure of evidence, limited which offense reports defense counsel could copy, and in some instances misrepresented discovery facts to the trial court; the court concluded this materially prejudiced Temple's trial.
The court rejected Temple’s Strickland ineffective-assistance claim (finding defense counsel’s performance, though imperfect, did not satisfy both prong requirements) and rejected the actual-innocence/newly discovered-evidence claim based on the recantation/inconsistencies of the key new witness (Glasscock).
Concluding that Brady material was withheld or untimely produced and that the nondisclosure was material in light of the circumstantial, time-sensitive case, the habeas court recommended the Court of Criminal Appeals grant a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady/Kyles suppression of exculpatory/impeachment evidence	Temple: State failed to disclose multiple police reports, witness statements, audio recordings, polygraphs, and leads pointing to alternative suspects; nondisclosures were material and undermined confidence in verdict	State: Jury heard key witnesses (including Sanders); defense was able to cross-examine; nondisclosures were not sufficiently material to change outcome	Habeas court: Found numerous nondisclosures/late disclosures and concluded, in light of the circumstantial and time-specific case, that the nondisclosures were material and a new trial is warranted (recommendation to CCA)
Impeachment evidence re: Riley Joe Sanders and detectives (Bagley)	Temple: Multiple interviews, statements, and polygraph data for Sanders and others were withheld; that evidence would have impeached Sanders and law-enforcement witnesses	State: Sanders testified and defense cross-examined; prosecution argued no reasonable probability of different result	Habeas court: Found withheld/impeachment material existed and was material given reliance on timelines and witness credibility; favored granting new trial on Brady/Bagley grounds
Ineffective assistance of counsel (Strickland)	Temple: DeGuerin failed to use key timeline statements, failed to obtain or renew continuance when significant material was produced mid-trial, and failed to investigate alternative-suspect information	State: Defense counsel actively litigated discovery and sought continuance; some responsibility rests with State’s discovery conduct; performance did not fall below objective standard that would require relief	Habeas court: Rejected Strickland claim—counsel’s performance not shown to meet both deficient-performance and prejudice prongs given prosecutorial obstruction and evidentiary circumstances
Newly discovered evidence / actual innocence (Glasscock)	Temple: Glasscock initially provided statements and a polygraph suggesting Sanders admission; this new evidence would create reasonable doubt and likely change verdict	State: Glasscock later repudiated/varied material facts; his credibility was significantly undermined	Habeas court: Denied relief on actual-innocence/newly discovered-evidence—Glasscock’s recantations and inconsistencies prevent meeting the high clear-and-convincing standard

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady materiality assessed in light of the whole record; State includes law enforcement)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (impeachment evidence falls within Brady disclosure obligations)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) (high burden for habeas relief based on actual innocence)
Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (granting relief where undisclosed police reports indicated other suspects)
Ex parte Villegas, 415 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (relief where inability to present an alternative perpetrator due to nondisclosure was prejudicial)
Ex parte Harleston, 431 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (deference to habeas fact findings but court may independently review record)
Ex parte Navarijo, 433 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standards for evaluating newly discovered evidence/actual innocence)
Ex parte Holloway, 413 S.W.3d 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (new evidence must undermine confidence in verdict to warrant relief)
Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (materiality analysis under Brady in context of trial strategy)