United States v. Pettiford
393 U.S. App. D.C. 283
| D.C. Cir. | 2010Background
- Pettiford convicted of possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) and §841(b)(1)(B)(iii).
- Brady claim: government allegedly failed to disclose a photo of Cousins's driver's license in time, claimed as exculpatory material.
- May 11, 2006: Pettiford stopped for a burned-out headlight; warned; vehicle later stopped again.
- May 15, 2006: Pettiford arrested for unregistered vehicle; cocaine base found in center console; total 18.8 grams; packaging and scale found.
- April 27, 2006: Pettiford previously pled guilty to related offense; district court allowed 404(b) evidence via a redacted plea transcript.
- Superior court later vacated Pettiford’s guilty plea as involuntary; Pettiford sought a new trial alleging Brady violation; district court denied; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the undisclosed license photo Brady material? | Pettiford argues yes; photo could have altered defense. | Government contends photo not material given strong other evidence. | No Brady materiality; no reasonable probability of different verdict. |
| Was the district court’s materiality weighing correct? | Pettiford contends undisclosed evidence would undermine verdict. | Government asserts overall trial evidence remained strong; license not outcome-determinative. | Court properly weighed total trial record; not prejudicial. |
| Did disclosure timing affect admissibility of related 404(b) evidence? | Timely disclosure could have changed how 404(b) evidence was presented. | Admissibility of 404(b) evidence not undermined by timing; transcript/ live testimony alternatives. | Not material to the Brady claim; 404(b) evidence would have been admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (due process requires disclosure of favorable evidence)
- Brodie, 524 F.3d 259 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Brady materiality reviewed de novo; materiality requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Oruche, 484 F.3d 590 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Brady standard applied; materiality assessment is a question of law)
- Johnson, 592 F.3d 164 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (strength of the evidence bears on materiality under Brady)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prejudice assessed by probability of undermining confidence in verdict)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (prejudice prong requires material evidence under Brady)
- Bowie, 198 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (evaluate undisclosed evidence in light of the entire trial record)
- Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (established Brady framework for exculpatory evidence)