JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge:
On April 26, 1974, Arthur Monroe was found guilty of armed robbery by a Louisiana jury and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana. After exhausting his state remedies,1 Monroe filed a petition for habeas corpus in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In this appeal from the district court’s denial of the petition, the sole issue presented is whether Monroe was denied due process because of the prosecutor’s failure to produce at trial a statement given to the police by the victim of the robbery.
On the afternoon of March 14, 1974, Doty Marisco, a laundry route salesman, was robbed at gunpoint of his wallet and about $8.00 in change. Marisco immediately reported the robbery to the New Orleans police. Although he was not able to describe the robber’s face, Marisco was able to tell the police that the robber was a black male, about 20 years old, approximately 6 feet tall, and wearing a red, white and blue plaid shirt. A few minutes later the police approached Monroe who was talking with another man some three blocks away from the scene of the robbery. Upon seeing the police, Monroe fled, but was apprehended within a short time. He had a pistol and $1.90 in change; neither the wallet nor the money taken from Marisco were ever recovered. Monroe was then taken back to the scene of the robbery. Marisco was not able positively to identify Monroe as the robber but did tell the police that Monroe’s general appearance, shirt and gun were similar to [150]*150the robber’s. Monroe’s fingerprint was later lifted from the inside door handle on the driver’s side of Marisco’s laundry truck.
Approximately two hours after the robbery, Marisco gave the following statement to the police:
At about 3:15 p. m., this date, I had stopped my truck in the 2300 block of South Galvez Street to make a laundry pick up at the Santa Monica School. As I started to get out of my truck, I had one foot on the ground, and I was looking down where I was stepping, when I heard a man say, “I want your money.”
Brief for Appellant at 6-7.
At trial, Marisco was called as the prosecution’s first witness. When asked to describe the robbery he stated:
I was in a paneled truck with sliding doors. I was going to make a pick up at 2300 Galvez and before I got out of my truck, I was writing my ticket out, I heard a noise on my left hand door. He had the latch door.
Record Transcript of State Trial at 2-3.
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Marisco if he had ever given a statement to the police, to which Marisco answered that he had. Counsel then requested the statement, the prosecutor objected to producing it, and the court sustained the objection.
Petitioner emphasizes that Marisco’s pretrial statement to the police did not mention “a noise” at the door. During his testimony at trial, however, Marisco stated that he did hear a noise just prior to his confrontation with the robber. This testimony, petitioner argues, was relied on by the prosecutor to establish that petitioner’s fingerprint was placed on the door of the laundry truck at the time of the robbery and not at some other time.2 Petitioner argues that Marisco’s statement to the police, had it been disclosed, could have been used to cast doubt upon the reliability of the damaging testimony elicited by the prosecutor at trial. Thus, petitioner contends that the prosecutor’s failure to turn over the statement denied him due process and now seeks a reversal of the District Court’s denial of habeas relief. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand.
In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the Supreme Court set forth the general rule by which we evaluate the due process implications of a prosecutor’s refusal to provide evidence that is favorable to the defense: “[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Id. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196. Subsequent decisions have refined and clarified the Brady holding, and it is now clear that in order to establish a Brady violation the defendant must prove three things: “(1) The prosecution’s suppression of evidence; (2) The favorable character of the suppressed evidence for the defense; (3) The materiality of the suppressed evidence.” United States v. Sink, 586 F.2d 1041, 1051 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Anderson, 574 F.2d 1347, 1353 (5th Cir. 1978).
Since we have little difficulty in concluding that petitioner has satisfied the first two parts of the test, we turn to the third and most important element.
The definition of materiality, for purposes of the Brady doctrine, varies with the nature of the suppressed evidence and the manner in which the request, if any, is made. The Supreme Court has identified three types of cases to which Brady applies:
(1) The prosecutor has not disclosed information despite a specific defense request; (2) the prosecutor has not disclosed information despite a general defense request for all exculpatory information or without any defense request at all; (3) the prosecutor knows or should [151]*151know that the conviction is based on false evidence.
United States v. Anderson, 574 F.2d 1347, 1353 (5th Cir. 1978).3
This case falls squarely into the first category. Although the prosecutor argues otherwise, we cannot see how a defense request could be more specific than the one made in this case.4 Accordingly, the appropriate test of materiality is whether “the suppressed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial.” 5 United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 104, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2398, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). Stated another way, the suppression of favorable evidence by the prosecutor, in the face of a specific request, cannot be excused unless “ ‘there appears no reasonable likelihood that [the evidence] would have affected the judgment of the jury.’ ” White v. Maggio, 556 F.2d 1352, 1357 (5th Cir. 1977) (quoting Shuler v. Wainwright, 491 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1974)).6
[152]*152Although the question in this case is not one of sufficiency of the evidence, in deciding whether the suppressed evidence “might have affected the verdict,” it is necessary for us to consider Marisco’s pre-trial statement in light of the other evidence of guilt offered by the prosecutor.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge:
On April 26, 1974, Arthur Monroe was found guilty of armed robbery by a Louisiana jury and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana. After exhausting his state remedies,1 Monroe filed a petition for habeas corpus in the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In this appeal from the district court’s denial of the petition, the sole issue presented is whether Monroe was denied due process because of the prosecutor’s failure to produce at trial a statement given to the police by the victim of the robbery.
On the afternoon of March 14, 1974, Doty Marisco, a laundry route salesman, was robbed at gunpoint of his wallet and about $8.00 in change. Marisco immediately reported the robbery to the New Orleans police. Although he was not able to describe the robber’s face, Marisco was able to tell the police that the robber was a black male, about 20 years old, approximately 6 feet tall, and wearing a red, white and blue plaid shirt. A few minutes later the police approached Monroe who was talking with another man some three blocks away from the scene of the robbery. Upon seeing the police, Monroe fled, but was apprehended within a short time. He had a pistol and $1.90 in change; neither the wallet nor the money taken from Marisco were ever recovered. Monroe was then taken back to the scene of the robbery. Marisco was not able positively to identify Monroe as the robber but did tell the police that Monroe’s general appearance, shirt and gun were similar to [150]*150the robber’s. Monroe’s fingerprint was later lifted from the inside door handle on the driver’s side of Marisco’s laundry truck.
Approximately two hours after the robbery, Marisco gave the following statement to the police:
At about 3:15 p. m., this date, I had stopped my truck in the 2300 block of South Galvez Street to make a laundry pick up at the Santa Monica School. As I started to get out of my truck, I had one foot on the ground, and I was looking down where I was stepping, when I heard a man say, “I want your money.”
Brief for Appellant at 6-7.
At trial, Marisco was called as the prosecution’s first witness. When asked to describe the robbery he stated:
I was in a paneled truck with sliding doors. I was going to make a pick up at 2300 Galvez and before I got out of my truck, I was writing my ticket out, I heard a noise on my left hand door. He had the latch door.
Record Transcript of State Trial at 2-3.
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Marisco if he had ever given a statement to the police, to which Marisco answered that he had. Counsel then requested the statement, the prosecutor objected to producing it, and the court sustained the objection.
Petitioner emphasizes that Marisco’s pretrial statement to the police did not mention “a noise” at the door. During his testimony at trial, however, Marisco stated that he did hear a noise just prior to his confrontation with the robber. This testimony, petitioner argues, was relied on by the prosecutor to establish that petitioner’s fingerprint was placed on the door of the laundry truck at the time of the robbery and not at some other time.2 Petitioner argues that Marisco’s statement to the police, had it been disclosed, could have been used to cast doubt upon the reliability of the damaging testimony elicited by the prosecutor at trial. Thus, petitioner contends that the prosecutor’s failure to turn over the statement denied him due process and now seeks a reversal of the District Court’s denial of habeas relief. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand.
In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the Supreme Court set forth the general rule by which we evaluate the due process implications of a prosecutor’s refusal to provide evidence that is favorable to the defense: “[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Id. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196. Subsequent decisions have refined and clarified the Brady holding, and it is now clear that in order to establish a Brady violation the defendant must prove three things: “(1) The prosecution’s suppression of evidence; (2) The favorable character of the suppressed evidence for the defense; (3) The materiality of the suppressed evidence.” United States v. Sink, 586 F.2d 1041, 1051 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Anderson, 574 F.2d 1347, 1353 (5th Cir. 1978).
Since we have little difficulty in concluding that petitioner has satisfied the first two parts of the test, we turn to the third and most important element.
The definition of materiality, for purposes of the Brady doctrine, varies with the nature of the suppressed evidence and the manner in which the request, if any, is made. The Supreme Court has identified three types of cases to which Brady applies:
(1) The prosecutor has not disclosed information despite a specific defense request; (2) the prosecutor has not disclosed information despite a general defense request for all exculpatory information or without any defense request at all; (3) the prosecutor knows or should [151]*151know that the conviction is based on false evidence.
United States v. Anderson, 574 F.2d 1347, 1353 (5th Cir. 1978).3
This case falls squarely into the first category. Although the prosecutor argues otherwise, we cannot see how a defense request could be more specific than the one made in this case.4 Accordingly, the appropriate test of materiality is whether “the suppressed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial.” 5 United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 104, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2398, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). Stated another way, the suppression of favorable evidence by the prosecutor, in the face of a specific request, cannot be excused unless “ ‘there appears no reasonable likelihood that [the evidence] would have affected the judgment of the jury.’ ” White v. Maggio, 556 F.2d 1352, 1357 (5th Cir. 1977) (quoting Shuler v. Wainwright, 491 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1974)).6
[152]*152Although the question in this case is not one of sufficiency of the evidence, in deciding whether the suppressed evidence “might have affected the verdict,” it is necessary for us to consider Marisco’s pre-trial statement in light of the other evidence of guilt offered by the prosecutor. The transcript from the trial shows that Marisco was called as the prosecution’s first witness and provided the most damaging testimony against Monroe. On two separate occasions the prosecutor questioned Marisco about the noise at the door, presumably in an attempt to show that Monroe’s fingerprint got on the door handle during the course of the robbery. Marisco then identified Monroe as the one who was brought back to the scene of the robbery by the police, but, on cross-examination, he testified that he did not get a good look at the robber and was not able positively to identify Monroe as the robber when he was brought back to the scene. Record, transcript of state trial, at 8, 10. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), the balance of the case consisted of establishing that Monroe’s shirt and gun were similar to the robber’s and that Monroe fled when confronted by the police a few minutes after the robbery. Given the absence of other evidence connecting Monroe with the robbery and the victim’s inability to identify Monroe as the robber, the fingerprint evidence became a crucial part of the prosecutor’s case. Although the victim’s statement to the police did not directly contradict his trial testimony, the absence of any reference in that statement to a “noise at the door” could have been useful to the defense in attacking his in-court testimony on this crucial issue. This distinguishes the statement from that class of evidence that may properly be labelled “impeachment evidence not concerning a substantive issue.” United States v. Anderson, 574 F.2d 1347, 1354 (5th Cir. 1978). Such evidence may be useful for the purpose of showing that the witness is, generally, not likely to be credible.7 Marisco’s statement, on the other hand, is impeachment evidence of the sort that goes directly to a substantive issue and could be used in urging that the in-court testimony has been “improved” by the erroneous addition of what the prosecution needed to support its theory. Under these circumstances, there is at least a reasonable likelihood that the suppressed evidence could have affected the verdict. Accordingly, we hold that the prosecutor’s failure to turn over the statement denied petitioner a fair trial within the meaning of Brady and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. We reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case with instructions that the district court order the petitioner released [153]*153from custody if the state does not retry him within a reasonable time.
REVERSED and REMANDED.