Troy Smith v. Kevin Chappell, 664 F. App'x 621

Smith was convicted in California state court of second-degree robbery, false imprisonment, second-degree burglary, and conspiracy; sentenced to 26 years.
Pursuant to a Pitchess request, Smith later received ~300 pages from SFPD Inspector Gardner’s personnel file showing Gardner had been disciplined six years earlier for lying in a police exam cheating scandal and was on probation during Smith’s investigation and trial.
Smith amended his federal habeas petition to add a Brady claim (suppression of impeachment evidence), exhausted it in state court (state denial), and returned to federal court; the district court denied habeas relief and denied additional discovery about Gardner.
The government conceded the Gardner material was favorable and suppressed; the sole contested question was materiality under Brady — whether disclosure created a reasonable probability of a different result.
The state relied on strong physical evidence tying Smith to the scene (a special early-edition Chronicle found at the scene bearing Smith’s and co-defendant Turner’s fingerprints, and video placing a perpetrator with a newspaper at the scene).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: although Gardner’s misconduct was impeaching, the withheld evidence was not material because no plausible theory showed how disclosure would have produced a different verdict, and the district court did not abuse discretion in denying discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gardner personnel material suppressed by prosecution was material under Brady	Smith: Evidence of Gardner’s prior discipline would have impeached Gardner’s credibility and created reasonable probability of a different outcome	State: Evidence was impeachment only and, given strong physical evidence, not material to the verdict	Held: Not material; state court decision reasonable under § 2254(d) — no reasonable probability verdict would change
Whether district court erred in denying additional discovery re: Gardner under Rule 6(a)	Smith: Further discovery could reveal additional Brady material not presented to state court and thus be material	State: Pinholster limits § 2254(d) review to state-court record; and Smith failed to show good cause or a plausible theory of materiality	Held: No abuse of discretion; discovery properly denied because requested materials would not be plausibly material

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
Pitchess v. Superior Court, 522 P.2d 305 (Cal. 1974) (disclosure procedures for officer personnel records)
Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (2012) (Brady materiality standard: reasonable probability of different result)
Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009) (defining Brady materiality framework)
Milke v. Ryan, 711 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2013) (officer discipline bears on credibility)
United States v. Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2013) (evidence suppression by government)
Gonzalez v. Wong, 667 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (two-step inquiry for Brady impeachment evidence)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (limits AEDPA review to state-court record)
Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740 (9th Cir. 2005) (good-cause standard for discovery under Rule 6(a))
Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) (Brady-related discovery standards)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (gravest doubt standard for assessing prejudice)