Ex Parte Firth

Supreme Court of Alabama

Ex Parte Firth

493 So. 2d 405

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 27, 1986

Docket85-622

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 493 So. 2d 405 (Ex Parte Firth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte Firth, 493 So. 2d 405 (Ala. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

This Court granted certiorari to determine whether Brady v.Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny were correctly applied by the Court of Criminal Appeals to reach its result in this case.

The Court of Criminal appeals recognized that the suppression by the state of material evidence, requested by the accused, which was favorable to the accused either as direct or impeaching evidence, would be error, citing Williams v. Dutton,400 F.2d 797 (5th Cir. 1968). Nevertheless, that court held that, because the promise of immunity, as testified to by the State's witness, Brett Jones, had been revealed upon his cross-examination by the defense, the petitioner, Firth, was not prejudiced by any suppression of it by the State. We agree with that conclusion under these facts. The promise of immunity in question here was brought out by defense counsel at trial, and thus they were "fully able to make whatever use of it they desired during closing arguments to the jury." United States v.Walker, 720 F.2d 1527 (11th Cir. 1983). See also United Statesv. Bruner, 657 F.2d 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (failure to disclose the indictment of a witness did not require reversal of a case in which *Page 406 defense counsel learned of this evidence during trial).

Our views expressed here are not to be construed as agreement with the discussion of this point otherwise in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This Court granted certiorari to determine whether Brady v.Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny were correctly applied by the Court of Criminal Appeals to reach its result in this case.

The Court of Criminal appeals recognized that the suppression by the state of material evidence, requested by the accused, which was favorable to the accused either as direct or impeaching evidence, would be error, citing Williams v. Dutton,400 F.2d 797 (5th Cir. 1968). Nevertheless, that court held that, because the promise of immunity, as testified to by the State's witness, Brett Jones, had been revealed upon his cross-examination by the defense, the petitioner, Firth, was not prejudiced by any suppression of it by the State. We agree with that conclusion under these facts. The promise of immunity in question here was brought out by defense counsel at trial, and thus they were "fully able to make whatever use of it they desired during closing arguments to the jury." United States v.Walker, 720 F.2d 1527 (11th Cir. 1983). See also United Statesv. Bruner, 657 F.2d 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (failure to disclose the indictment of a witness did not require reversal of a case in which *Page 406 defense counsel learned of this evidence during trial).

Our views expressed here are not to be construed as agreement with the discussion of this point otherwise in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 So. 2d 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-firth-ala-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack