Amado v. Gonzalez, No. 11-56420 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of aiding and abetting a senseless murder in a public bus. The prosecutor neglected, however, to discharge his obligation to disclose material information that would have enabled defense counsel to impeach the credibility of a critical witness against defendant. Applying de novo review, the court concluded that the prosecutor violated defendant's right to due process under Brady v. Maryland and defendant was entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus and release defendant from custody unless the district attorney timely initiated proceedings for a new trial.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a murder conviction based on a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Reviewing de novo because the highest state court only considered state law in denying relief to petitioner, the panel held that the prosecution violated Brady by suppressing material impeachment information about its witness, Warren Hardy. The panel held that it would have reached the same conclusion under a deferential standard of review. The panel also held that petitioner was prejudiced because Hardy’s statements were critical to the conviction, because Hardy was the only person to testify that petitioner brought a weapon to the scene, thus differentiating him from just a member of a crowd of onlookers after the shooting. Judge Rawlinson dissented. She would hold that the state court did not unreasonably apply Brady, that the record supports the aiding and abetting theory of conviction whether or not petitioner had a weapon, and that there was no prejudice to petitioner given the witness’ extensive self- impeachment and the existence of other witnesses who attested to petitioner’s aiding and abetting in the crime.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 11, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.