Thomas Barton v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8020

Barton challenged federal habeas denial on Brady v. Maryland grounds for withholding impeachment material; sole witness Henson’s testimony underpins the State’s case.
The State re-opened the Kelly burglary investigation before Barton’s trial; Kelly statements allegedly threatened to obstruct justice if he testified.
Only a single police Brady file was provided at trial, long before, and it did not reveal the later-revealed impeachment material about Kelly.
Ohio courts denied Brady relief in post-conviction on res judicata grounds, holding Barton barred from raising Brady claims because not raised on direct appeal.
The district court denied the petition on the merits; the magistrate recommended a COA for the Brady claim; the district court adopted the magistrate’s analysis.
The court ultimately holds that AEDPA deferential review does not apply because the last reasoned state court decision was procedural, and reviews the Brady claim de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Brady claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court.	Barton argues the state court addressed the merits.	State contends courts applied a procedural bar, not merits.	No merits adjudication; de novo federal review.
Whether AEDPA deferential review applies given the state court’s ruling.	Deference should apply if merits adjudication occurred.	State-court rulings were procedurally barred, not merits-based.	AEDPA deference not applicable; de novo review.
Whether withheld Kelly evidence was exculpatory/impeachment material and prejudicial to Barton.	Withheld impeachment evidence could have undermined Henson’s credibility.	Evidence was not material or would not have changed outcome.	There is a reasonable probability of prejudice; Brady violation established.
What standard governs review of the state court’s decision under Ylst and last-reasoned decision doctrine.	Last reasoned decision should govern, not combined opinions.	Richter/Ylst analyses favor deferring to state court on merits.	Last-reasoned state-court judgment for this claim was procedural; de novo review applies.
Whether Barton can overcome procedural default under Maupin/ Coleman due to State’s suppression.	Cause and prejudice shown due to State suppression.	Defaults should bar review; no adequate cause shown.	Cause and prejudice satisfied; merits reviewed de novo.

Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (U.S. 1991) (look-through to last reasoned state-court decision; default governs review)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA deference when state court adjudicated on the merits)
McCarley v. Kelly, 759 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2014) (last reasoned decision approach; when state court was unclear on merits, review is de novo)
Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135 (6th Cir. 1986) (four-part test for procedural default (adequate state rule, enforcement, independence, cause and prejudice))
Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (S. Ct. 2004) (impeachment evidence required when witness is crucial to the case; not merely cumulative)