STATE EX REL. ROBINSON VS. VANNOY

Annotate this Case

Darrell J. Robinson was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Robinson appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, arguing that the state suppressed material evidence that violated his due process rights. The evidence in question included undisclosed deals with jailhouse informant Leroy Goodspeed, serology reports and notes, other forensic evidence, and eyewitness accounts inconsistent with trial testimony.

The court found that the state did suppress evidence and this evidence was favorable to the defense. The court further found that the undisclosed evidence was material and its suppression undermined confidence in the verdict. Consequently, the court decided that Robinson did not receive a fair trial, resulting in a verdict unworthy of confidence. The court reversed Robinson's conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded the case for a new trial.

Download PDF

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #006 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 26th day of January, 2024 are as follows: BY Weimer, C.J.: 2021-KP-00812 STATE EX REL. DARRELL J. ROBINSON VS. DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, ANGOLA, LOUISIANA (Parish of Rapides) CONVICTION AND SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. SEE OPINION. Crichton, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, and assigns reasons. Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons. McCallum, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Justice Crain and assigns additional reasons. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2021-KP-00812 STATE EX REL. DARRELL J. ROBINSON vs. DARRELL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, ANGOLA, LOUISIANA On Supervisory Writ to the 9th Judicial District Court, Parish ofRapides WEIMER, Chief Justice Certiorari was granted in this "'" to con,ide, the claim of defffidant, Dorrell J. Robinson, that the district court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Finding merit to the claim that the State suppressed material impeachment and exculpatory evidence and presented false and misleading testimony and argument to the jury, we conclude that the suppression violated defendant's due process rights and requires reversal of his conviction under the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 3 73 U.S. 83 (1963), and Napue v. People of the State of Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). Accordingly, defendant's conviction is reversed, his sentence is vacated, and this matter is remanded for a new trial. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In order to place defendant's post-conviction claims in the proper context, it is necessary to begin the discussion with a recitation of the evidence adduced and presented at defendant's 2001 capital trial for the first degree murders of Billy Lambert, Carol Hooper, Maureen Kelly, and Nicholas Kelly. At that introduced trial, it was to each other chores days prior Lambert's to the VA, At to kick because Administration treatment into him Lambert's but began drinking the night defendant with before Billy (VA) While the two were the next approximately days. the homicides, still for performing spare bedroom within were Centerwhere in exchange again out of the house Lambert Medical for alcoholism. to live moved Peart, and victim According Lambert told to Peart back day, and send him of his drinking. defendant 8:30 purchased on the morning a bottle of of vodka May 28, 1996, at the nearby the Town day of the and Country Laterthatmorning,aroundll:30a.m.,defendantwasseenparkingLambert's truck at another Doris in Poland, grocery Foster, with and Maureen's Hooper's Foster her four relatives twice, coming other the rear & Country When Kelly. victims home on Guy Peart Road the house, daughter Maureen Kelly, brown Ford truck and Carol but the front where door was unexpectedly she discovered the bodies of floor, all shot in the head. Lambert had each been shot once. of the house, so she quickly had been Foster heard a noise exited and drove to the nearby store, where the clerk called 911 for her. Foster brown room Carol's Lambert's of the house, used her key to enter on the living at Lambert's Carol Hooper, son, Nicholas in front arrived 12:10 p.m. on the 28Ih, having made plans to his sister parked and the from Lambert's Lambert, car were cousin, at approximately infant locked. store. Lambert's Louisiana, have lunch Town David approximately mrirders, store. Defendant cousin, defendant defendant to the murders, that he intended shot invited on his fartn. eight inpatient Lambert that at the Veteran's they were both receiving in treatment, revealed returned Ford truck to the house was missing. 2 with first responders, Gary Normand she noticed was trtrnmxng that trees near the Lambert house when he observed a light brown it turned off Guy Peart Road at approximately Farrell Ford Scallan, truck around who being was driven brown truck Poole's erratically thereafter, when vehicle. as defendant, neighbor, Poole at a restaurant Steve the truck, reported Halbert, away, his knocking engaged Halbert continued vehicles off the road. down then exited at approximately approached with in the area, its wheels by a young as Similarly, saw a light man with According a pair 12:44 light. brown dark hair Defendant tried drove through and ran into p.m., crouched defendant mirror off he identified of his friend and the vehicle, repeatedly and to restart the scene. 911 to report was into side the on the road. approached called who Halbert encountered who Poole p.m., the truck drawn, passed he fled driveway, driver's the assistance succeeded, The chase continued the soliciting argument. defendant, Poole of the truck, vehicles Poole Michael the driver at a traffic in a heated 2:30 guns don'thaveagun. on medication stalled to pursue a gravel him, the two he finally At approximately lane, that when when truck and when Defendant into 11 miles did not stop, he pursued he and defendant wearing spinning 12:15 p.m. that afternoon. on Guy Peart Road and about it swerved Eventuallythe him lunch truck the same tune. Shortly turned eating Ford driving erratically, Evangeline a fence, the nearby behind reportedly the hit and run, while Parish, forcing where and parked woods, a mound blurted defendant behind where of dirt. out: "I'm other a house. police As not found officers armed. I Whilebeinghandcuffed,defendantadditionallyvolunteered:"I'm for violent tendencies. to the arresting of shorts under officers, blue defendant )eans, 3 and was, his in fact, clothes unarmed. were He was stained with a combination of dirt, paint, and blood.l bottom of defendant's determined Kelly's the blood knife known woods search where Atthe of Lambert's Defendant of the left shoe discovered lace. shoe were consistentwith crime had officers no murder Testing Lights $71 his truck, scene, investigators bedroom. pockets, also house, he was arrested, investigators on the Later testing victimNicholas found revealed cash in his was ever adamp, that blood, a yellow cigarettes the route weapon found (which wallet. defendant pocket Lambert Despite drove, an and the located. bloodstainedtowel onthe too, was consistent with floor victim Amongtheitemsontopofadresserindefendant'sbedroom, found a wallet cash was found doorknob near the victims. with in the wallet. human, but the victims victims had a total Lambert's A bloodstained DNA testing and defendant of five identification gunshot red jacket of the jacket were wounds all excluded between and credit cards was hanging showed found the bloodstains as the source. them, in it; no only four Although on a were the of the bullets ever located. Alfred J. Schwoeble, clothesinl998. defendant's an expert t-shiit or shoes. characteristic not have testing in gunshot residue, examined defendant's Schwoeblelatertestifiedthathedidnotfindsignificantparticleson He did find of gunshot waistbandofdefendant'sjeans. DNA end and a pack of Marlboro of Lambert's NicholasKelly'sDNA. could the of defendant's to Lambert to smoke). extensive particle and spots on defendant's the contents belonging were shoe were DNA. Among was left Small spots of blood come revealed from two particles unique and three lead-rich residue, to gunshot particles residue, one on the inside Becausetheparticleswereinsidethewaistband,they the discharge the blood stains on his of a gun, but rather clothes 4 were exclusively had to have transferred tliose of defendant. from another Schwoeble source, found such as a gun tucked six particles into the waistband characteristic of gunshot particles on the right leg of defendant's leans. characteristic particles. particles questions at trial, consistent with Leroy five Schwoeble lead-rich agreed the right-handed Following capital and the initial murder. While Goodspeed. defendant investigation, awaiting trial Goodspeed the Rapides Parish that he "did those people, the residue Sheriff"s Office, a man, residue In response a gun downward. defendant was charged Parish, to prosecutor's with defendant Wilmore, that on November two women 40 lead-rich on defendant's firing to Steve and hands. On the left leg, he found two patterns in Rapides reported or contaminated four shared were counts child, of a cell with the lead investigator 11, 1997, and a small jeans defendant for told and threw him the gun off of a bridge." Defendant's jury Parisli for trial. above, the Staterelied was selected See, La. using theory, the victims weapon had been loaded Doris explained was Lambert's Foster that in the VA testified a total with Hospital. bullets. Roughly five that Lambert to Lambert, guns the revolver before to theorize kept at her house to Lambert the murders, afraid which Foster one of the bullets bullets. 5 found a gun of guns, and returned at home, to the meant State's the murder in Lambert's next for safekeeping at the VA outlined that defendantkilledthe According wounds, routinely to Rapides to the evidence No guns were she was but she forgot and transported revolver. gunshot bullets. Because a week caliber of five Parish In addition evidence .38 she had Lambert's she brought five missing had loaded, the bullets art. 623.1. on circumstantial victims but C.Cr.P. in St. Landry and had house, to his bed. while Lambert the revolver him remove the unloaded so she only She was the gun and returned Defendant pet-petrator. Rather, returned home his panic, attempted counsel from escalated, ultimately leading evidence, jacket at the scene detected on defendant, range. In fact, bottom of his shoe stepping With gunshot down search clothing. the investigation admitted themselves during prior another experts established involved. after shooting lace, blood when residue out that defendant's asked although officers to the defense so. investigator several bloodstain on the attributed stumbled Moreover, from the pat- storage Attorney the of his for gunshot involved arresting that they unzipped the that the not tested District upon to argued improper were was at close the defense hands spatter people the defense the the Assistant to do or the victims, cross-contamination from to the on the red No blood defendant evidence, was either or transfer which As the blood In his panic them. transfer he Foster. him, defendant was a minute residue" jeans of his arrest, defense was when Doris chased that either shoe's like to escape with person Kelly's the murders and Halbert the woods be expected that he was not the and fear, much into on defendant pointed discovered Poole consistent to the "gunshot had reportedly murders. that defendant at the time The not of Nicholas The defense residue flee was on defendant's of When and the end of that respect residue him blood in shock car. as would the only on a drop scene. that defendant defendant's the possibility the State5s case by arguing and fled Poole's "bloodstain" indicating argued the store, he sideswiped found to counter in officers defendant's pants the pat-down. proposed that Mark Moras was the actual perpetrator of the EvidenceestablishedthatMorashadbrieflylivedwithLamberttwomonths to the murders. and confronted him. out of the house. Lambert discovered The two fought, Lambert contacted that Moras and Lambert the police 6 was forging shot at Moras about checks while the checks, in his name chasing him and Moras was arrestedandchargedinbothRapidesandAvoyellesParishes. before the charges Finally, Goodspeed, were cross-examining any him health However, tn response received resolved. the defense challenged history, his mental in Rapides Parish, treatment had recently to counterthe the lenient was made of Goodspeed's entering his guilty murder.3 district court court In identity enunciated v. Virginia, presented 2 Although facing a possible Goodspeed entered a guilty As to count circumstance: plea or great (involving the victim found defendant beyond to sentence after victim was under harm to three to more counts, than trial counts On direct was when of first under the appeal, sufficient doubt against this to prove the standard hypothesis him imprisonment the jury one person. the jury La. C.Cr.P. 7 that no in Rapides at hard of Parish, labor, with 11 months. Kelly), old. testimony recornrnendation, reasonable filed years plea and that the circumstantial every for the charges serving Nicholas 12 years the evidence w.'r. guilty testified of four counts. 307 (1979), on each of the four bodily unanimous exclude favorable guilty he was attori"iey in defendant's a reasonable 443 U.S. and was sentenced circumstance of death four 33 year charges. he had that called Arrnitage as awitness that of lying. that Goodspeed's Parish part, sufficient He was released 3 As an aggravating a risk was denied in a very on all four criminal instances Goodspeed received.2 Leroy as to whether Goodspeed the jury's as the perpetrator counsel State then of death in pertinent evidence created with a sentence in Jackson one year suspended. the jury and his insinuations snitch his extensive The involvement accordance finding, State, Goodspeed on the Rapides deliberations, imposed affirmed, defendant's plea the defendant's mention addiction, by defense from sentence of jailhouse and medications, represented into degree his drug for his testimony. factored Following about diagnoses offered a deal in exchange who the credibility to direct questioning beneficial Aimitage, Lambertwasmurdered found found defendant La. C.Cr.P. an additional art. 905.4(A)(10). laiowingly art. 905.4(A)(4). aggravating innocence. Supreme State Court denied In 2005, Application series v. Robinson, certiorari. defendant procedural initiated filed by the district district court claims, in anutshell, court granted inviolation to correct false or misleading of Illinois, (1972); thatthe assistance regarding At U.S. defendant in hearing testimony 264 (1959) is actuallyinnocent; both the guilt on May of Fact accepted also submitted 9, 2016, listing the stipulation a Motion the parties couit. A accompanied in violation objections on April disclose thatthe and the defense exhibits State failed States, 405 had not ajoint into evidence. U.S. 150 trial." stipulation Brady a nine received. of the ineffective of his capital submitted the Those v. People of defendant's were exculpatory defendantreceived phases of 2, 2014, claims. begannegotiating signed Conviction by a series ofNapue v. United the basis and associated to Vacate in district andthat forming the evidence for Counsel State failedto and penalty (2004). Se on all of defendant's the parties evidence 1023 U.S. a Pro The procedural and Giglio The by filing 373 U.S. 83 (1963); at trial 66. 543 U.S. Subsequently, thatthe Maryland, the evidentiaryhearing, a hearing court 360 the undisclosed Stipulation a hearing. So.2d proceedings followed, of the State. of allegations ofBradyv. of counsel Priorto petitions on behalf 874 v. Louisiana, and Request an evidentiary evidence State Relief following consist 4/14/04), post-conviction and amended objections (La. Robinson for Post-Conviction of supplemental denied 02-1869 page claim. Joint The district The defendant and Sentence on the basis of the Joint Stipulation. 4 Defendant juiy foreperson, others. Because in any further raised claims regarding the alleged discriminatory selection of the grand alleged juror misconduct, and the cumulative effect of the errors identified, among of our ultimate resolution of this matter, it is not necessary to address these claims additionally detail. 8 Three days seeking later, to withdraw notes.5 the defendant a portion it withdrew stipulated by filing May 14, conducted over a period witnesses, both lay and expert, introduced. evidence adduced Moras respect in the form presented finally of 10 days, with of withdrawal proceeded additional testified, in detail. in which, majority fact, serology without of previously to an evidentiary hearing, days of depositions. and volumes with For purposes regard of documentary Numerous evidence were claim 1998, scribbled over 5 The relevant notes withdrawal file jailhouse which contained to obscure them. related indicated to the North and were absent pleading explained that in fact, wife, statement counsel did, we focus on the and the development contain informant was discovered Goodspeed's of the stipulation and diagrams to defense attorney's That in an attempt portion claims that the State withheld deal with January police. Brady inquiry, of suspect. to defendant's 28, of the present to defendant's evidence, to district undisclosed to the use of the vast matter the following statement The the of an undisclosed On not provided 2018, as an alternative With file. stipulated Givenourultimateresolutionofthismatter,itisnotnecessarytorecount all of the evidence of bench that addressed its own notice its consent of facts.6 On Mark a withdrawal of the stipulation The State responded explanation, submitted Louisiana from after notes appear provided which had 1996 testify that serology been it was 54 pages repoit file and the district review, a to state, in part, "try would Lab's the defense additional the undisclosed Goodspeed counsel Crime both defendant post-conviction. marginal that defense material Goodspeed, Becky The notes exculpatory discovered were attomey's that the notes. 6 The State's notice of withdrawal followed the replacement of the ASSiStant District Attorney who negotiated the Joint Stipulation of Facts with a Special Assistant District Attorney retained for the puipose of handling the post-conviction proceedings. When the State later of the stipulated witlidrawing facts submitted an Amended it had withdrawn, the stipulated facts Notice it alleged was protected of Withdrawal that under 9 any disclosure La. C.E. in which of the it "re-admitted" State's arts. 506 and 509. rationale three for and reconcile...said was turned this over to trial OnDecember a may help counsel, 18, 2000, letter to Judge Ross Foote 14, 2000, Goodspeed, had been arrested Melancon Rapides found Parish handle defendant's Office and presented who someone told had asked worthless as a principal issuance of the charge, of robbery. letter. were explained but that and "apparently CAJUN pardoned not I chose charged unusual to not 10 counsel. assigned that to Judge Parish by parole to revocation, later the letter Forte with unless issuing bill of infonnation Goodspeed faced for these offenses. shows 29, 1999 recommend were about offender, that he does not recall not to recommend was Melancon database on January and the copy counsel in Lafayette felony Parish. The originally the letter for life without via deposition it was with charged As a fourth Corrections convictions written plea, ParishDistrictAttortaiey's defense he was formally of imprisonment Department 7 For liis part, Melancon pending degree sentence Parish Goodspeedwas and on Februaryl5, to first a mandatory Rapides to do SO." Rapides guilty at that time. to defense was sent in Lafayette on the letter, that he spoke not have a 1997 Goodspeed who with the notes. that on December with robbery against forthe testified him degree Wampler, stipulations he would the Judge It was not provided Greg him 26, 2001, checks, files. the court, obscured in connection was copied the statement ScottyMelancon, advising be taken Office Attorney negotiated completely to first post-convictionpetition OnFebruary Louisiana Attorney's to the district and Melancon Parish of principal Attorney's District marker When Goodspeed'sprobationofficer, that no action District ASSiStant a black was on probation on charges in the District to get out Det[ention]. in Rapides who recornrnended you that Goodspeed's and on Februai' the details revocation between The surrounding when there my supervisor 2, the is a and 2001, although going before as a habitual the Pardon Goodspeed questioning, against was called in his lenient The records of future ADA benefit. Goodspeed's supervising Would of the Lafayette without Parish defense on the first was not Office left messages degree reflect that on for the Lafayette robbery charge, the message: "Per Edwards the substance requested, of the fax were not located. and was granted, a continuance Parish Correctional Center stattng: "Dear and the DA is going to give me time served on 8-13-01. sure nothing the State dismissed stop's [sic] me at that time."' Goodspeed's principal I should go In keeping to first degree robbery Parish worthless essential checks ADA Thomas Frederick. charge in a murder trial." Goodspeed In keeping with that note, the issuing was dismissed by ADA 11 left The note stated:"Tommy, Luke that you dismiss the check charge. Luke states Mr. witness Sir and see if I have any hold's [sic] or warrents [sic] on me. check a note for Lafayette an in case. The same day, Goodspeed wrote a note to the Parish on August 13, 2001. Then, on October 25, 2001, "BL" was Luke WhilethetransmittalsheetwasfoundintheDistrict at the Lafayette is requesting nor charges. Attorney's Sharu'ion testimony to w.'r. attorney, charge in Lafayette Edwards first In response for his testimony, sent a five page fax to Sharu'ion on June 7, with officer that note, District Mike Goodspeed home that day. "Just making with Parish Prosecutor first degree robbery I went to court in return Parish 19, 2001, you please His Rapides on the Rapides file, the 4 pages forming On June anything 7, 2001. sentence yourrequestLeroyGoodspeed." Attorney's on March that Goodspeed's prosecuting Edwards for pardons by the State and verified May 17, 22, and 31, 2001, Edwards. defendant he stated that he did not receive Armitage, Parish he was not eligible Board. testified was there any promise a factor offender Frederick on November 6, 2001. Neither the post-trial note requesting disinisSal provided to defendant's on direct appeal spoke with conversation, Shannon Parish prosecutor testimony, when he felt contain before his testimony nor the charge conviction were was pending to the exculpatory and been against Lafayette 22, given look Parish In a deal back initial their second Rapides asking to in exchange to Louisiana that Prosecutor for a letterthatthe prosecutor to come their by In that he got a deal he did not want testified 2012. defendant. Ms. Herrero He reiterated have for his because he trial. He very angry badly as a result, his practice Scotty testifying when he returned "incriminated" Becky to write over Melancon when counsel. Shannon spoke 8 Mr. Goodspeed died on June 11, 2016, prior to the hearing date. trial, on cross- with explained he reviewed If those his secretaryto is, and never 12 as Goodspeed counsel at defendant's in the margins. instruct to defense because, not go through. Goodspeed, notes he would at defendant's by defense the lead prosecutor from information, from his deal might Shannon, statement sharedacellwithLeroyGoodspeedand returned was the statement he does notknowwho 20 specialist, trouble.8 Mike the it was turning checks mitigation he had suggestedthat he had been and that, as regards statements, that Goodspeed For his part, that, relayed dropped. Goodspeed examination defendant's March KevinNicholstestifiedthathe that worthless post-conviction on wrote to get into present explained, although Goodspeed but he also stated Finally, reported counsel, for charges did not want was Leroy Goodspeed Goodspeed's issuing defendant's exchange conversation, of Goodspeed's trial Goodspeed in between Edwards and Shannon, at that time. Susan Herrero, she communications witness notes did not blackoutthe further Melancon testified notes that regarding Leroy Goodspeed. that he only wanted in exchange the truth, asked Goodspeed, trial, the of 2000, agree Attorney's last dollar" sorry Lafayette."9 asked him "to for Goodspeed was a material witness I would authority. In addition defendantpresented to obtain he called first pages Goodspeed Goodspeed anything to evidence evidence among 9 Shannon did acknowledge the ofothermaterials specific the materials that he "I Goodspeed word about report. want to for me. Parish bet my Because he and because he he had endured a wayto to Shannon: after also called the Lafayette thing" have assiSt him...He "[T]hat's out of my jurisdiction, all I told LeRoy. I have and ask." regarding despite explained: cross-examination "find trial [Goodspeed]" put in a good not a real serious it's for the police about Shannon, and he could "just According look, word he contacted reports, after to and LeRoy and asked himto case. I said, I can do is call trial, of the grueling did He further the fax were "were I in a good Lafayette in According testified, from anyone Melancon together. after Edwards trial. with put the police in a murder not disclosed, to defendant, he informed to offer and said, can you just because do after All house of the robbery trial, allegedly in of time that the missing at defendant's 110 meeting, spoken to do so, Shannon office felt the circumstances ever two months that same period he would District first with they had been in a halfway me about their "Never ADA his nephew say it was in May LeRoy he had replied: with defendant's felt from and that he was not going whether Shannon communication Before that for his testimony. When because He stated Renew undisclosed deal witli Goodspeed, discoveredpost-convictionthatwere and detailed discovery are approximately requests. 51 pages According of serology bench about the pending Lafayette Parish charges prior to trial and that he had visited Goodspeed in the Lafayette jail a couple of times. 13 notes as well November as diagrams 7, 1996, of Serology Laboratory. These bench classification of blood physical Report evidence issued notes and evidence, prepared by the North diagrams contain in connection Louisiana demonstrate information about jacket left and a focus found hanging sleeve turned medium velocity as well as transfer match the DNA at tlie crime of the evidentiary on a doorknob inside out. the presence serological impact blood blood profile scene hearing, bench spatter of either defendant found indicate the presence back and sleeves of the jacket. David for transmission Exline the which of RJ Lee Group State) was defense fromDistrict ofthe lab explains found counsel: in the "The District crime and this blood At trial, the presence the jacket workers David was called blood they were working cut themselves files but finding However, does not match Peart of the foreign when Attorney's stains do not include taken close-up Ray De!comyn the gunshot As which high residue set forth was velocity to testing in the letter, not disclosed blood spatters to on Thebloodcontainedinthesehighvelocityspatterwas for an identification. the jacket, Investigator of this jacket." lab has reported thesleeveareasofthisjacket. insufficient Office that performed the "significance and red jacket, Photographs of the crime the Alettersentvia Attorney's (the group with of high The transfer or any of the victims. in the possession on the red residence imagesoftheredjacketandofablooddripontheneighboringwall. facsimile and DNA performed of the Lambert on the front, on the back and was testing notes stains and Ofparticular in the hallway The a Criminalistics testing,andprovideanoutlineoftheforensicinvestigationandtesting. relevance, with on barbed two other spots on the jacket. together wire a possible for their noted explanation on for He testified that Lambert wore on the farm and that he, Lambert, used 14 were or any of the victims. the defendant by the State to offer stains of blood cattle and his business and then rcde together in Peart's truck. Lead defense been providedwiththe attorney Michael serologyevidence-the blood Small testified drip onthe wall andthe of high and medium velocity impact blood spatter on the jacket-he that evidence to impeach Peart's testimony about that had he presence would have used how the foreign DNA got on the red evidence regard to ballistics jacket.'o Defendant also produced testimony and bench notes and photographs in the possession with of the crime lab that showed marks and diagrams ofthe crime scene, whichnotes andphotographs did not find in any of his files. with these materials, tra)ectories he would and to possibly In response specified materials Willson, the defendant learned crime impeach used testified them the State's that theory of how from lab, the State presented the crime District handled Shannon most that lab, so he instructed Attorney regarding who of the forensic the defense Investigator had the defense provided evidence to bullet the crimes failure assisted Shannon evidence. Willson Delcomyn as unfolded." to disclose the testimony specifically them the of Thomas in prosecuting testified requested to obtain counsel had he been to develop allegations and who the defense. have Small to defendant's ASSiStant from Attorney ricochet notes that he from and deliver the them to '2 'o Stuart James, the blood stains an expert in bloodstain on the red jacket same bloodshed pattern analysis, and the passive drip testified stain at the post-conviction on the wall were most hearing likely pait that of the event. " JohnNixon,anexpertinfireaiins,ammunition,andgunshotresidue,testifiedthatgunsliotresidue analysis has "fallen testing protocols, further opined more out defendant's that, shots were based fired to autlior a letter signature, requesting ]ab requesting to T.J. clothing on photos of the lack would testified Shuflin, Delcomyn Small's office, not of the crime via deposition the director testified of probative have tested value," positive scene and ricochet of more any and all laboratory the same. to Atton'iey because and the probability '2 For his pait, Delcomyn received of favor than of the notes, that Crime and then 15 1999, a large the contents under gunshot than letter packet He at least six or fifty he took current residue. marks, in Alexandria, sent a separate he delivered but did not examine is more March Lab for and divot one shooter that in early and that percent. it upon himself under Shannon's to tlie Shreveport of materials of the package. tl'iat he Prosecutor discovery, but Shannon during agreement with Shannon, "reached after related of hiding for them brought the a recess defense recess, an agreement everything" accused the testified to tour open the to defendant's the doors stated lab, at my request sometime did not agree to February of 2000, he made of the for which the meant crime lab. record that the "As When I did not open the envelope. Mr. I did not look the Jab notes Knox on the lab notes, notes. until were brought On cross-examination, it was attached Finally, failed not receive at trial. defendant to disclose investigation That to y'all's of the crimes. taken "look I've Delcomyn came at them. had at been asked in Ray I told Ray, Small Willson questioned cross-examined "Listen, Knox I never expert Curtis referencing saw the serology the notes post-conviction." evidence information Specifically, a four page transcription statement, and that he testified, presented exculpatory an Shannonfurthertestified to trial, and Attomey file to parties could the lab notes Mr.WillsonishandlingDNA,bringthemtoMr.Willson." that the you know, andunderstand the case. open According defense he testified: and as I recall into he in case.'3 Later, lab notes to me. initially a hearing defense those them in "to the that regarding from eyewitnesses defense of the statement on June 5, 1996, his allegations counsel Small developed testified of GaryNormand, contains that the State a handwritten during tliat its he did who testified note at the top '3 A transcript of the February 2, 2000 hearing shows that the defense had filed a motion for open file discovery, which tlie State opposed. After argument from both parties, the couit denied open file discovery on the grounds that "I don't think there is anything else tliat can possibly pop up that hasn't already popped up in this trial." The court added that as of that date, no new evidence would be admitted at trial. The court then addressed a defense subpoena for records related to crime lab protocols, policies, and procedures. The court briefly recessed to allow the defense to confer with the state crime lab's director, TJ. Shuflin. When court resumed, defense counsel Danalynn Recer annouriced that "I talked with Mr. Shuflin and he's agreed to allow us and our expeits to tour the Jabs both here in Alexandria and at their Shreveport facility. We've reached that agreement." Defense counsel Small added: "And that satisfies the subpoena, Judge." 16 ofthe first page that states: "Says he may have seen another auto-leaving going (rt.beforelunch)-couldhavebeenlO:00-checkwithWayneNormand." while Small Dunn, thattranscript of the did receive didnot interview mo[rn]ing." signed that he observed read: In introduced which places the murders to his defendant transfer interview someone-drop of Andrew the secondpage Robinson off-that statement '4 In furtherance him from Billy the time in support that he alleges of Lambert's frame his points outside was of the red jacket place in which claim to Mark from also Moras. matched Guillot, found A previously to Moras's Moras's DNA. neighbor, of the actual Moras as the crime scene he spoke to Guillot of the murders from Guillot. Guillot, anything about direct traffic, denied bloodstain In addition, Moras's on the mornxng a volunteer speaking fireman with on counsel that contradicts that scene to help at the untested Delcomyn to the crime day or telling the road outside and evidence obtained to Investigator was called defendant claims, fromWayne and learned off across that on the day of the murders committed."' Brady on the sample a statement declares Specifically,defendantofferedevidenceestablishingthat of the jacket obtained were presented bloodstain a DNA lining at the hearing, or later, perpetratorofthemurders. mrirders 4, 1996, that appearon Brown-saw dropped addition innocence, the "Kirby being noon matches of the June containhandwrittennotes defendant State postulated the Inaddition, Post-convictioninvestigatorslocatedandinterviewedMr.Brown,whose statement, around a transcription south Moras of the who that the murders. defendant also presented evidence that the State failed to disclose records from the Rapides Parish Coroner's office showing victim Carol Hooper had a life insurance policy, and that Detective Steve Wilmore of the Rapides Parish Sheriff's Office consulted a psychic during the course of his investigation into the murders. of his claim of numerous Brady violations 17 by the State, Post-conviction Moras's girlfriend investigator Gary Eldredge interviewed Louella at the time of the murders. He testified that Louella worked as a housekeeper for Billy Lambert and was supposed the day of the murders, but Lambert called and cancelled Moras appeared at her home that morntng, father had to pull Moras off of her. Rollins, told to clean him his house the appointmerit. he was "loaded" Rollins's Moras was worked up and said he needed more drugs, that Lambert owed him money, he was going left. to Lambert's did not see him again until She and reported that he had gotten Finally, Linda on the morning moriiing then a truck him from house. the property and a car parked when saw the bodies where they going of the victims she placed from whose took Lambert when was friends called with her father She and her father As they toward approached the railroad They Lachney parked an anonymous he returned Moras was a drunk at around brought her mother They left testified that she overheard stealing money disputed large parts of an affidavit of the affidavit from were himtalking Lambert true. and head" to his brother where the two scared. she testified 18 She saw up to the door, but got in the window and returned She and her father and to her father's then drove to According who would Abe (who had buried she hadpreviouslysigned, Specifically, to work, she saw defendant looking that she looked that 7:00 or 7:30 in the the house, track, call to 911. and a "drug and her truck testified tlieTown&Countrystoreandwatchedaspoliceandambulancesarrived. to Lachney, and that to her truck Lambert, and walked testified on the floor. the keys still Lambert. father at the house. knocked. Moras late that afternoon money to stop by. to Lambert's no answer liouse, Lachney, of the murders, and asked went running to get his money. on When and hostile. After her father intervened, she run liis mouth. she had dated) it. Although she verifiedthat that she heard Moras She about she aspects talking about having stolen a lot of money from Lambert by forging he was being Lambert prosecuted was killed Finally, before amount providing time the forgeries, he could post-conviction written to defendant in the for of 011 that to get Lambert, but uncovered a check that May 24, 1996, four days before the murders. and the explanation word "labor" written was for the $71.00 had The check was the on in cash found Lambert line, memo on defendant at the of his arrest. Following the extensive briefing, conviction relief proof." conclusion on the finding reasons, material assistance counsels have concerns however that withheld which provided a fair '5 hi brief, claim. art. 926.2, whicli contends that since provides noncumulative at or documentary evidence," of either offense applicable at trial, all claims to carg arguments of Brady, and "Certainly, defendant post-conviction convince this that Court was ineffective. not of the State that of certain did for post- that or veracity counsel and his burden items court to trial," considered to defendant, that is entitled "in ligl'it juror La. C.Cr.P. claim erred address witnesses, evidence was The defendant defendant's in failing innocence claims admissible to relief have art. 926.2(B)(1)(b). found this factual his factual innocence enacted La. C.Cr.P. on "new, that was physical, reliable, not article the petitioner upon beyond filed expressly before clear the new that was aresponsive The legislation or La. C.Cr.P. presenting tliat "liad guilty and known or nontestimonial by such evidence. evidence" offense forpost-convictionreliefwas 19 and forensic, under or of any felony based at trial that is corroborated" of all the relevant would to address in this case, the legislature is "scientific, evidence of conviction whose factual and no rational court ruling be legally or "testimonial the offense of conviction." couit's would A defendant evidence, been presented that tlie district the district that prior 926.2(B)(1)(a). doubt district forpost-conviction evidence discoverable convincing failed filings 0ndefendant'sapplication,thiscourtgrantedasupervisorywrit defendant He noted not denying writing: or that trial The "has in violation counsel, does supplemental defendant's as to certain Brady trial. innocenceclaim.'5 of alone violated rejected evidence ineffective after a judgment defendant the court information hearing, issued that exculpatory raised the court received was of the district In written suppressed ait. he wanted checks, get to him. investigation $75.00, an alternate and that Lambert's and evidence a reasonable verdict makes December3 to the the article 1, 2022. to assess the correctness Vannoy, 21-00812 of the district (La. 6/26/23), 363 So.3d LAW In Brady Court v. Maryland, receiving where good or bad faith disclose, no evidence. Brady State v. Kemp, United States So.2d 956, v. Bagley, 959 (La. favorable denial evidence factual was standard to the district provisions trial, 676, and So.2d 682 guilt (1985); to the duty to impeachment 540, 545. of a witness The when or innocence, at all is made right under eitlier couit of La. C.Cr.P. it is unnecessaiy the and its progeny case in which by not the State breach the "omission Because claim every does unless art. 926.2(A). Brady withheld prosecutor evidence innocence jurisprudential a new A that and not of the defendant's La. C.Cr.P. matter to note of discoverability, conviction. determine rights regard due process the testimony or even no request 667, 828 Supreme to the accused without evidence 10/15/02), may States due process of the State's impeaches witness U.S. v. State and for the evidence. v. Knapper, 579 1991). It is important favorable 473 a defendant's exculpatory which specific Robinson favorable or punishment, p.7 (La. of that a general, violates between evidence ex rel. the United of evidence For purposes 00-2228, or credibility whether nile exists rule encompasses applies 83, 87 (1963), to guilt of the prosecution. difference the reliability either State ANALYSIS for the evidence is material ruling. 1230. by the prosecution a request the evidence AND 373 U.S. held that suppression after court's the district criteria for that matter), for consideration art. 926.2. However, result court enacted United in this this court because to do so. 20 States recent a reversal would under be inclined decision claim the disclose in the 427 U.S. regarding (or innocence couit's to that of to result v. Agurs, article ordinarily factual of this duty a finding a general post-trial significance did not make of defendant's in constitutional is of sufficient to a fair trial. establish it is discovered will any do not 97, defendant's the previous to remand under to grant this the new defendant 108(1976). ForpurposesofBrady'sdueprocessrule,areviewingcourtdetermining materiality must ascertain "not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received received a different a fair trial, verdict understood with the evidence, as a trial resulting Kylesv.Whitley,514U.S.419,434(1995). the withheld evidence probabilities to trial. an outcome-determinative would Instead, at 434 (quoting Bagley, 473 U.S. test have obtained a Brady aunden'nines confidence suppression in a verdict worthy of each explained: item occurs in the outcome evidence 660 undisclosed must So.2d 819, favorable be taken confidence in the verdict. there And, most when to put the whole of materiality evidence revealing are offended, and jurors with words, apply effect violation of the p. 15 (La. is shown when and not item by item, light in the assessment could as to undermine consists is violated, of known 21 of Brady that is subject trial false claims, to a slightly of previously Agurs,427U.S.atl03-104. the presentation by the impact 94-0461, a different introduced and due process to consider the cumulative a Brady evidence and that the prosecution 514 U.S. at 435-36. broadly Brady, courts cumulatively 514 U.S. do the "evidentiary this is assessed v. Marshall, case in such of undisclosed under that shouldhaveknownwasfalse. court rules category standard of justice Kyles, or might Kyles, importantly, alone; State considered at trial the Kyles,514U.S.at436. standing In other it weighs of the trial. for reviewing be considered." 826. the foregoing is a singular evidence evidence, reasonably While is not enough of exculpatory suppressed 9/5/95), "It he of confidence. which an acquittal violation at 678). in evaluatingthecumulativeeffectoftheundisclosedevidence. As we have in its absence, Thus,thereviewingcourtdoesnotput that the petitioner so at a second but whether testimony lower undisclosed that it knew or Rudimentaryprinciples when a prosecutor evidence. Giglio, deceives a 405 U.S. at 153. The same evidence, such allows instances, reasonable With the district a new when trial have Napue, erred misleading in mind, his claim on his Brady that the State failed In ... in any 405 U.S. of Giglio at 645 F.3d 735 will discuss v. Warden (5'h Cir. prongs to disclose Louisiana 2011). of defendant's the materiality that material failed to and Napue. was favorable Women, contention and that the State knowingly (2) the evidence for to analyze Giglio, false at 269. could to defendant's was required LaCaze proceeding testimony defendant was material. two soliciting 360 U.S. of the jury."' in violation claim, the evidence the first Napue, false we turn of Brady, at trial, 728, if "the not at 271). in violation evidence, although it appears. the judgment principles evidence the State suppressed prosecution, when affected in rejecting evidence To prevail before the is required 360 U.S. the foregoing court exculpatory true it to go uncorrected likelihood 154 (quoting correct holds to demonstrate that (1) to the defense, and (3) Correctional Because they required Brady Institute are inter-related, showing we together, requirement. Suppression of Evidence Favorable to the Defense In its written crux of defendant's informant, (3) other Group reasons, received forensic and Brady the district claim an undisclosed evidence photographs, [was] ballistics court identified as allegations that the evidence (1) deal; (2) serologyreport withheld; bench 22 i.e., notes, Goodspeed, andnotes investigator's sketches forming and jailhouse were letter the withheld; to R. diagrams; J. and Lee (4) eyewitness information inconsistent with trial testimony [wasl not provided.'6 will address Jailhouse each of these Informant exchange that informant, the State for beneficial During that treatment. into coininents to an Assistant circumstantial, 0915, were to have of the forhis hearing pp.l3-14 4 (La. 7/6/10), on the weight (La. both and shortly twice the flawed from made a deal. the Rapides District the record entered testifying between after special receiving Assistant The supports desired is amply 5/8/12), 93 So.3d 577, 580) this court Attorney Robinson is full trial, of character the instances, of Goodspeed bythe of discretion. the district evidence ("[W]hen a trial andmaynot court State makes special factual treatment atthepost- 11- v. Thompson, v. Wells, findings of the witnesses, overturn court's adduced See, State 553, 563 (quoting and the credibility great deference, that to have a deal and received supported and is not an abuse of the testimony owes those findings about came forth affidavits after in that is typically provided cornrnunications convinces testimony 45 So.3d Nichols testified a deal. record that Goodspeed when Goodspeed dismissed. that further and his desire that fact allowed State evidence found: evidence the team in court been system, and Lafayette messages charges that tracking wherein have show Kevin Attorney phone Lafayette reported foundthatthe Goodspeed detailed may Robinson's inmate, District exchanged offender court the district more submitted existed that Specifically, for offenders. who disclose Goodspeed the state's Documentation conviction to hearing, records witnesses in exchange the district failed to indicate not an option conclusion Goodspeed, treatment. The pardons Review separately. the post-conviction appears other of evidence Goodspeed As to jailhouse establishes items We 08-2262, of fact a reviewing p. based court those findings unless there '6 There are two additional items of evidence that defendant alleged were not disclosed, the life insurance policy of victim Carol Hooper, and the fact that one of the lead investigators, Det. Wiln'iore, consulted with a psycliic. The district court found that the State did not have knowledge of the existence of the life insurance policy and that the consultation with the psychic was a false lead, that the State had no general duty to disclose, citing State v. Broadway, 17-0825, p. 8 (La. 9/21/18), 252 So.3d 878, 885. We find no error in these findings, and no reason to disturb the district court's ruling as to these items of evidence. 23 is no evidence disclosed to support findings.") The defendant failed the State challenges to produce to defendant's direct trial, and the district however, a Brady demonstrate violation evidence that the this evidence 645 F.3d at 735. whether the prosecutor was not whether the witness "might implement... any promise As this court has explained: [T]o the extent important leniency of the State the state State bias or interest charges, or the prospect v. Vale, Rapides with that Goodspeed 381 may had received Parish going attorney at defendant's trial sentence in Rapides 819, 475 So.2d arise from deal prosecutor [the state] (quoting (La. 752, Parish, his conduct. Id. that Goodspeed the State went 1070, 24 told will 1980) but to at 270). and cross- receive his bias or (collecting (La. 1985). A criminal he has made no 1072. had charges to great treatment that Goodspeed's he not a position of or pending when Goodspeed right 755-56 arrests deal. "is 360 U.S. establish 822 666 So.2d in is a proper that facts agreement, Napue, protected to enforceable was motivation the is concerned, an effective so far as to call Goodspeed's to verify where a bona fide, even beneficial cases into relevant 1/26/96), While to knowledge So.2d demonstrates Rapides his lenient charges, or of prosecution, Parishes. that proves as Brady constitutionally is highly p. 4 (La. the testimony and Lafayette Id. the state regarding 95-1230, that a witness's v. Nash, witness's agreements entered "hope v. Brady, see also insofar believed of a witness's from interest." cases); exposure limited have reached witness have that of an undisclosed at most, been of consideration."' function examination, Here, never The key question, the arguing ContrarytotheState'ssuggestion, has and fact findings, of the existence evidence, that the state and the witness LaCaze, notion that court's ShannondecidedtorewardGoodspeedaftertrial. State fact is not disputed. Nonetheless, prtor those in lengths in both to dispel connection Rapides testimony pending any with Parish defense was not a factor post-conviction his investigator in Herrero that testimony, he had been and prosecutor's evidence files. Lafayette Parish at defendant's cliarge that essential The DA's trial, and his in Herrero."' Moreover, defendant's trial, when examination, check his belief that While is not credible, is particularly deal fact rationality, accept Finally, evidence makes or reject ofhaving the of hearing degree that might not he would be receiving court found the province of the trier the testimony State's of Ms. Herrero and that credibility of fact, may, in here the district 1232("The within the bounds of of any witness."). insistence receivedundisclosed and further treatment 17(La.4/1/05),898So.2dl219, determinations of on cross- favorable otherwise, time was upset providing that the testimony an to Ms. at the Goodspeed go through, robbery was statement Goodspeed and testimony he felt he had been "incriminated" the district credibility despite mate Parish Rapides Goodspeed Goodspeed's the State insists within the first "Mr. for his Lafayette of Goodspeed's because at the post-conviction SeeStatev.Higgins,03-1980,p. of charge a cell because in the of Goodspeed's Nichols, for his testimony. trier dismissal in exchange between on the heels Kevin exchange corirt. cornrnunications corroborate as a result, Shannon be found trial," of Goodspeed's determination could a murder evidence and Mr. Nichols deal subsequent fromtestifying and, by prosecutor that followed worthless testified he returned of the offices issuing a deal undisclosed andthe witness given that the defendant specialtreatmentpriorto failed to present his trial testimony, as the district court noted, "[tlhe records submitted show that the State twice entered pardons into the state's for offenders. '7 This end with court This has noted a jury's verdict. offender occurred that tracking on January a prosecutor's State v. Pierre, duty system, when that is typically 29 and February to disclose 13-0873, 25 material p. 11 (La. not an option 2, 1999, after Goodspeed exculpatory 10/15/13), 125 evidence So.3d does 403, 410. not had come forward District Attorney's Melancon, charges that and before he testified files no action to first be taken evidence, while no special favors from Report to bench the district uncertain noted occasions portion only ' found in the officer, Scotty to by a black issued found tune. that could claim This have been that he received it.'8 to disclose Curtis holds stating "try marker testimony. Goodspeed's claim uninfluenced by any selfish at trial that from to the the crime defense. about but ultimately concluded that the defense Michael referred found that decision over to defense to come fonvard constitute been disclosed. 26 at trial Tingle's other was impeachment entirely when the it appeared some portions wife, These likely on two you to get out Det," coonsel. to turn notes speculated of Goodspeed's said this may lielp and as such, its efforts although The court to the statement tut-ned Dawn was not disclosed, trial. was provided.") did not object to lab analyst court notes Small Jab, ("What testimony respect his demonstrated contradictory and reconcile... motive, notes in Criminalistics evidence documents of the the entire but used during being Louisiana prepared section The of serology evidence 51-page counsel Knox, before by the North portion is whether true with physical 51 pages of serology counsel, and shared of that the post-conviction some defense his The same analysis notes court defense of the 51 pages obscured treatment had a duty on and recommending at that Goodspeed's as diagrams that the State offered during marginal special to counter Report to this court expert, exchanged Parish his probation The prosecution as well at least had the notes because DNA to revoking at trial had obtained to disclose over all records State's probation in Lafayette demonstrates a Serology that the prosecution The court Goodspeed's robbery regard the State. notes Laboratory, remains from Further, and hTotes with failed with evidence connection but degree circumstantial, used as impeachment As a letter trial. dated December 18, 2000, advising that Goodspeed had been anested of principal Serology was at defendant's were not that "[w]hat Becky, were in wl'iich completely notes cast doubt on an act of conscience evidence that should liave perhaps has been discovered these many years later are the records not used during trial. The benchnotes not disclosed, and diagrams demonstrate, velocity impact hanging on a doorknob blood stains blood among spatter and found in the possession exculpatory narrative that someone because homicides. there matching the DNA had lived argues there State's other than defendant the blood in the Lambert is an alternative argument home misconstrues definitive to be exculpatory. Kyles, confuses the evidence eviaence is exculpatory weight of the stains Moras to the homicides its duty under at 450-451 with its favorable defendant's of his blood theory '9 The transfer blood stains on the back of the jacket were ultimately Mark Moras, through post-conviction DNA testing. 27 as Because the State on tne jacket. Evidence argument, tendency[.]"). nor is identified on his farm, ("Such at the the murders, on the jacket. Brady. the is not exculpatory of the jacket 514 U.S. in that it supports bleeding, on the back for the presence was and supports home, Lambert scene evidence during deposited of the of the red jacket was injured were as transfer profile this stain evidence found at the crime images maintains and workedwith explanation taken close-up the blood and medium as well the DNA was in Lambert's the perpetrator of Mark photographs were of the red jacket do not match the jacket of high residence, Defendant The State counters profile and sleeves lab include wall. it connects as to when Moras The of the crime is no evidence evidence which In addition, the adjacent to the extent time ofthe there all back, defendantmaintains the presence of the Lambert of the jacket, or any of the victims.'9 and which things, on the front, defendant drip other in the hallway on the back and of a blood referenced, need not be however, Here, the of the case, i.e., that an linked to alternative suspect, unidentifiedperson involved who was neitherdefendantnor evidence, the district its own serology xnspectton. want. Further, Thus, 11/30/10), the 53 So.3d obligated to provide reasonable was present and to disclose foundno at least some portion Brady violation, and hadphysical the court possession pointed out that the lab and secure district 1263, reasoned, there was with that the defense of the red jacket the State had any and all records court a defendant noting citing no Brady information of this exculpatory fortesting offered v. Harper, violation because he already and to allow the trial State retained counsel the could 10-0356 the State (La. is not has or can obtain with diligence. Before respects. court experts, defense "to explore this court, First, of the crime thetrial. defendant contests argues the district defendant lab's serology the district couit court's ened notes were "exchanged factual in finding and shared findings in two that some portion [and] also used during Second,defendantdisputesthedistrictcourt'sconclusionthatthedefense had access to the lab notes the lab and secure these findings are, in fact, In concluding trial victims in the murders. Despite the State's failure explore one ofthe counsel and "appear[] district court corinsel Michael stains circled KIIOX replied that cited to two Small on Exhibit because any the defense and all records contradicted notes from the crime been excerpts from S-31, that he saw four the State's used expert that were 28 counsel were could permitted want." "to Both of record. lab were during the trial the bloodstained stains trial by the trial to have asked and its experts brought the trial transcript. witness, towel marked to the attention by all attorneys, Ill Curtis found as positive the Knox, first, about in Lambert's for blood of the defense blood room. but not tested for DNA, and added: "Looking she has designators at Ms. Tingle's in the area that she tested, notes, this. Would screening?" Knox Contrary Knox that your replied: he ever to the district told made privy A review I(nox about responses indicates the trial the district reveals the defense a review incorrectly in satisfaction procedures, its experts these excerpts defense [reports] the referring Ms. merely had access Knox counsel Small case to which I have are not certified While to or consulting had access to those notes, orthat of the contemporaneous trial only some notes, to them, them defense that the parties that mentioned in this exhibits. of them." demonstrate that notes Tingle's I have a copy before bench trial of shows demonstrates and date counsel of them transcript the transcript he was and defense that, But, "Letmeask repoits. questioned of Knox's nothing the notes been in the were "used by all attorneys. court prosecution be her notes. The serology reports that the same vein, Ill the trial reports." certified indicated transcript during the the finding, that "all of the trial reflect he was aware In fact, are certified readily do not indicate or that the witness or area that on that item." SmallaskedKnox: it would court's They saw them, his testimony. expressly easily "Well, had the lab notes. during lab's notes is another but it is not circled Inthesecondexcerptcitedbythedistrictcourt, you there to tour policies, reported with respect the agreement to the offer of a defense and protocols, the lab facilities to tour subpoena the parties in Alexandria 29 that for was transcript reveals that reached between the the crime documentation agreed to allow and Shreveport. Jab. The record of the crime the defense and The agreement did not address the serology notes or the lab's statement, did not encompass Defense serology during attorney Small affirmed his cross-examination instead that the serology reasons acknowledge, ("At conflicting. witnesses about insisting the notes State's offer counsel turned the testimony from to turn that the offer to tour to open were available to tour the crime want are not lab to defense hearing, there all records acknowledged discovery. on this to and used by all counsel at trial, supported by the trial was between the Moreover, free reign to on cross-examination court's afforded court's point counsel The district facilities the and argued counsel."). lab gave defense Sharu'ion that as the district a dispute to trial want."2o its riegotiated counsel witnesses was couit's to any such notes the State withdrew State's file could testimony over to the defense, the crime prosecutor agree while the over counsel post-conviction not provided were the efforts notes could were the trial to the district and that he did not refer And, post-conviction he did not in fact that the serology to him, notes access any and all materials, tliat in his of Knox. that the serology and contrary and all records notes were neverproduced stipulation while "any records, counsel record, any and conclusion and that the and are all records an abuse of discretion. In addition disclosure of deterinination to challenging the 2o In fact, experts "satisfies more red jacket to conduct when to tour the agreement because its own the paities the State's the subpoena" expansive notes, court's announced crime an agreement related Small 30 questions the crime its own had been was quite to the crime this was memorialized. conclusions the lab's regarding district conclusions had access to the evidence and consult lab, Attorney for records than the defense testing factual defendant that the State had no duty to disclose the blood-spattered opportunity serology the district reached clear lab protocols, the court's about and the experts. for defense in adding policies counsel and its that the agreement and procedures; no For the general a defendant with the district court case, reliance proposition information cites he already Harper, on the broad procedure article obligated to disclose, upon or copies thereof, to knowledge 719(A). the ...of Here, scientific district defense with However, the particular art. 719, or experiments, that are in not only filed guilt which are favorable or punishment, intended Trial, foruse as well at trial, specifically to Motion the requested for Discovery, not yet been reduced to defendant scientific and forensic be immediately Amending number Answer of forensic reports "upon defendant receipt to the defendant." for and C.Cr.P. or or art. and inthepossession and relevant te ISSUES of tests or experiments Discovery evidence, is not seriously the State assured to Motion with in a Death expert Penalty notes, records ThattheStaterecognizedtheneed information provided is or reports, for Discovery of scientific for Expanded The control, La. Motion and material or reports but also a Motion to writing, custody, use at trial. a detailed andexpertreportsandallrawdatarelatedthereto. to disclose results andtangibleobjects as any results requesting for of this in connection possession, and intended Inspectionrequestingdocuments,photographs, of the State, the facts the prosecution "any made diligence, is misplaced.2' which of the defendant, to provide reasonable therein under tests attorney counsel under of law announced request case, has no obligation has or can obtain is La. C.Cr.P. written particular of the supra. proposition applicable material that the prosecution Discovery notes, the disputed. that while of crime While and serology In its original scientific testing Jab documentation in a Second Inspection notes Answer had same will Supplemental the were State not and attached among a them, 2' The frequently cited notion that the prosecution has no obligation to provide a defendant with infoimationhe alreadyhas orcan obtainwithreasona-ble diligence contemplates informationrelating tothedefendant'sownhealth,actions,orhistory,i.e.,Statev.Hobley,98-2460(La. So.2d771,785-86,orinfoi-mationcontainedinpubliccaserecords,i.e., 849 F.2d 156, 161 (5"' Cir. 1988). 31 12/15/99),752 UnitedStatesv.Newman, despite assurance and physical in the answer examinations Thus, there was Lab in accordance satisfy. The provisions shall ordered him exculpatory Based given addition" on the access the relieve the State testing of its obligation authorized obligated to could the the court disclose La. C.Cr.P. obligation under so far as to permit exculpate on grounds motion, to under does not extend that the of samples to the disclosure testing from state that, upon DNA The testing of the case at trial and notes that the State was which his own and test results foregoing, therefore, it appears that the defense State's obligation to the red jacket its own experts. obligated experiments a defendant that the defense or experts the same conclusions.23 in determining and that consult not art. 91 7(A) art. 917(B), independent theory to form tests and/or for the reports and not alternative That the State's had the ability at trial do of documentation undennine discretion La. C.Cr.P. in its possession. art. 719(A).22 suppression request to conduct provide, is "[i]n written of La. C.Cr.P. information art. 917(B) C.Cr.P. with be allowed to of all scientific had been provided. a specific Crime defendant that copies to, but did not, district court abused had access to and used the serology of disclosure and the opportunity The serology the notes were ceased when to conduct exculpatory the defense its own evidence testing its notes was and the State was disclose. 22 The case of State v. Franklin, 03-3072 (La. 4/23/04), 872 So.2d 1051, cited by the State, is inapposite. The case does not address the State's obligation to disclose substantive or exculpatory testing evidence, which is the Brady discovery obligations in light issue presented here. Rather, Franklin of the 1997 amendments to La. C.Cr.P. clarified art. 719. the scope of Specifically, Franklin found the district couit did not err by denying a defense request for "not only computer software programs and proprietary macros used in the [DNA] testing but also information with regard to laboratory personnel, outside audits, and proficiency testing programs," because amendments to C.Cr.P. art. 719 provided the defense with the opportunity to conduct independent testing. The Franklin per curiam expressly notes that the State had provided lab's repoit and test results. the defense with the i3 In fact, defendant's impact DNA expert retained at trial on tlie jacket. 32 did not detect high velocity blood spatter Other Forensic Evidence The next category consists of crime of evidence scene photographs, of the crime scene David of RJ Lee Group Exline for the State) respect couit explaining that However, the court contributed wherewithal appears to were with discussion Delcomyn residue and diagrams, number of photographs bullet theory" the with testing the district and other the case. enforcement, event, trial to case. With of and law following all materials cited at trial of potential of shots impact Trial and having ricochet the lacked counsel court is what that counsel reports, in this regard previously a bullet been The fired was taken. 33 Billy a finding "five Attorney in Lambert and all of the theory," were ricochet marks Small, testified that the in question merely in the Lambert of does support that bullet are not supportive excerpts lack especially noted, documenting and diagrams at trial. record between the State's photographs sketches counsel from event for defendant, court were the have documented that the trial does not make with about thatmight marks the shooting notes to defense marks that inconsistent by the district complaints concluded the district ballistics available ultimately simply specific andphotographs regarding those at trial. defendant's taken testimony scene photos, and/or of court were the court 24 The trial excerpts photo to share ricochetmarks However, discussed the crime record Ray sketches its "five claim and diagrams in the State's the State, the detectives investigative some especially over; pre-trial notes, sketches the gunshot of the red jacket supported the need the district Moras.24 turned Investigator Brady be the issue. photographs connection DA a significant "[w]hether the concerning those marks, materials, noted, notes, that performed bench believed of defendant's bench from (the group ballistics State addressing information Mark to a letter the "significance" to recogruze could In that the the basis ballistics that the State did provide materials who in addition to the photographs, found forming of the propositioxi that were actually produced establish that there was home and that at least one materials, and inparticularthe BulletWorksheet,25 werenot in his files overtohimindiscovery. TheStateinbriefdoesnotdisputethiscontention;itargues simply are not exculpatory. that the materials To the extent negligence or negligence does suppression lack that the district of not training relieve of material court of law the State exculpatory attributed enforcement evidence had retained discussed above that could exculpate divot violates a defendant Lambert exculpatory. evidence because wherein Kyles, 25 The Bullet Worksheet suppression "five Again, and 514 U.S. gunshot that bullet theory" contrary were at least account fired, notes: theory six who scene or of tl"ie crime) to the State's into crime evidence Mark need the defense the availability and test results of the case. by John Nixon, testified at the photos, ricochet more shots and that position of for the same reasons as explained residue that Totheextent erred the State's holds "irrespective of documentation the undisclosed it does not take shots unintentional because serology was exculpatory, a conclusion the State's was involved. exculpatory the undisclosed or undermine to the extent support due process court to mere Brady obligations the district does not permit hearing, (undermining with with arnrnunition, marks shooter expert, firearms, conviction obligations. the State of its Brady ballistics the ballistics such Brady,373.U.S.at87. in connection witness Here, in relieved its own of an expert expert court in production officials, of its Brady thegoodfaithorbadfaithoftheprosecution. that the district omissions andnotturned not earlier be and fired than that the evidence Moras's post- were more an one is not encounter definitive to be at 450-51. indicates that three different kinds of projectiles at the scene, supporting post-conviction used. expert John Nixon's was 34 or bullets were recovered hypothesis that more than one firearm A similar Delcomyn explains analysis holds to the RJ Lee Group. the "significance" no obligation "significance" have the to conclusions. disclose examined As discussed opportunity abused to conduct its discretion Eliewitness The final State its above, provided to handwritten the defense was ariother and consult with Wayne transcription contain Normand." Trial obligations The sleeves explains of the jacket on tlie jacket were that tlie of Gary had the opportunity to have drawn his own of disclosure to tlie under red jacket experts. maintains Normand, taken and the The district court of were suppressed statements addition, who on crime June lunch)-could while interview the of Andrew quantity 5, have defense was Dunn, bythe obtained from at trial, 1996, was not contains he may }iave been a seen 10:00-check provided with that transcript on the top of the second a did not page that read: "2 Thedefendantmaintains Jab had reported and did not match testified page that states: "Says (rt. before that appear in an insufficient tested the obligation Brown-sawsomeone-dropRobinsonoff-thatmo[rn]ing. 26 The letter about Testimony consists statement, south In notes that the State concerns could access an the red Specifically,thepartiesstipulatedthatafour of the June 4, 1996, handwritten determined its own the defendant going detected wliich to the contrary. at the top of the first auto-leaving given ofmaterials its Brady also investigator that the letter, prosecutor's the State's from spatter who with defense. notation letter the defense expert however, of the statement the or the own eyewitnessesonthedayofthemurders. page transcription The court Inconsistent category of blood to its case because in determining in violation velocity letter its own testing Information to the The district court determined the by did not cease wlien Brady respect to the defense. of the evidence jacket with of the high jacket,26was not disclosed had true finding to be tested the DNA 35 high velocity for identification, of the defendant blood spatter but other blood or any of the victims. on tlie spots that these handwritten because they (l) place identify defendant cotnrnitted.27 notations are exculpatory, another outside We agree.28 car fleeing the Lambert The statements and should the crime residence scene at and notes have the should been around disclosed, noon, and (2) time the crimes were have been disclosed. Materialitv Having concluded exculpatory evidence defendant's Brady materiality. affecting its assessingmateriality. failed by the defense, in doing First, the to disclose the district of the third so, the court district court prong engaged court at least of nonetheless legal an incorrect the denied of the required in two applied some Brady errors, both standard in Initswrittenreasonsforjudgment,thecourtrecitedthecorrect test for materiality For State on its analysis And, analysis. 5/25/04), the presented claim showing: (La. that as reflected 875 So.2d purposes determining in this Brady's materiality received decision in State v. Bright, 02-2793 37: of not whether court's due must rule, a reviewing court likely than not have ascertain: the defendant a different process would verdict more with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. [Emphasis supplied.] Bright, 02-2793 in the very evidence next that at 6, 875 So.2d sentence, may not at 42 (quoting the district have been court Kyles, found: provided, (for 514 U.S. "This Court reasons at 434). However, does not view cited above), would that the have 27AdeclarationobtainedfromMr.Browninconnectionwiththepost-convictionproceedingsattests that on the day of the murders Lambert residence around Brown noon observed or later, defendant undermining being dropped the State's off across timeline the road from the of the morning's events. 2" The State argues that this evidence is not exculpatory because defendant has failed to produce evidence linking the other vehicle to alternative suspect Mark Moras, and because the declaration of Mr. Brown is "worthless" since he did not testify at the post conviction hearing. Again, the evidence is exculpatoiy in tl'iat it intetnipts the State's timeline of events and is consistent with defendant's position that he simply stumbled upon the crime scene and fled. 36 resulted in a reversal counseled against of [defendant's] in Bright: conviction." This reviewing court "[T]he evidence to an outcome-determinative the petttioner trial. test. Id. A would Rather, have evidence in light to convict." need be taken confidence in the verdict." The second separately. not item "state Pursuant evidence. by item"); see also, evaluation in isolation improperly rather is accomplished ("We evaluate is no other the tendency way. We on a Brady than court and force from inculpatory (and left it bears evidence light court each Supreme could as to undeimine applied the wrong Court its courts, has previously 37 precedent, for purposes evidence [is] considered collectively, 577 U.S. 385, of each as required by Kyles, 514 U.S. effect The rule explained. evidence for of the 394 (2016)(finding the materiality undisclosed cumulative Louisiana of undisclosed effect cumulatively" and at the end of the discussion."). was the cumulative evaluated ofthe category analysis to evaluate v Cain, separately as this court claim in its materiality at the end of the inquiry. evaluate the favorable the district prejudice are directed Wearry court of evidence not have been eriough that "the by the district to controlling courts that analysis. Id. at 436 ("suppressed postconviction evidence Here, withheld do so at a second discounting would standard the probabilities case in such a different at 435. the potential reviewing undisclosed Id. the not a sufficiency after only put or might "is there is the very not it weighs To prevail demonstrate committed to analyze of materiality, at 434-35. its materiality error that evidence, does at trial purposes demonstrate to put the whole in conducting evidence not must reasonably its decision for Brady 514 U.S. a defendant standard an acquittal of the undisclosed Kyles, reiteration), obtained materiality defendant test in which standard piece Kyles). at 437, n.lO there of materiality with See, State of This item by item; purposes applies the equal force v. Louviere, in 00- 2085, pp.l6-17 (La. 9/4/02), 833 So.2d 885, 898 (evaluating the entirety of a defendant's Brady claims so "the evidence [couldl be considered collectively," according for to Kyles); reviewing standing courts alone; considered."). materiality Marshall, to consider the as the effect district suppressed at 16, 660 So.2d the impact cumulative Thus, of the 94-0461 of each of court evidence the did item item and evidence evidence it was item is not enough of exculpatory suppressed here, by at 826 ("It error to must be evaluate in isolation, the rather that"i collectively. Whether question of law Under incorrect p. 5 (La. a de novo evidence, suppressed different of the 33. standards in evidence could materiality the the of Brady each impact the of material error (in this court to liave suppression. almost 38 that that the defense LaCaze, entirely the 645 proceed disclosure F.3d on the value to of the case in such a 514 U.S. with 22- undisclosed was deprived concludes the v. State, will put the whole Kyles, of applying interdicts See, Jones such to p. 7 (La. 11/8/13), determination) material 2008). entitled the fornn demonstrated at trial, 500 (5'h Cir. 13-1416, in the verdict. of evidence depends legal is a mixed are generally Accordingly, be taken presented the fact violation 494, is appropriate. was confidence and materiality defendant reasonably 537 F.3d of Police, review aggregate, side of a Brady law 341, 345. whether of each category that of as here, de novo as to undermine an evaluation of where, 362 So.3d considered evidence questions v. Department court, of purposes v. Kaylo, in making assessment light assessment mixed However, 5/5/23), for See, Mahler O'Hern of the district 1455, Thus, 29, legal findings law, on review. So.3d is material and fact. Louisiana deference 131 evidence the at 435-36. of in light cumulative at 736 ("The of the evidence relative F.3d to the other 387, evidence 396 (5'h Cir. Jailhouse informant that testimony that reasoned evidence three year and, thus, at trial; sentence year sentence, underx'nined "it quoting Rocha v. Tbaler, 619 the with suppression and (2) given on his charges Goodspeed's "special of Goodspeed's is unlikely Deal was not prejudiced Goodspeed that (1) the value other Undisclosed the defendant it provided at trial by the state."), 2010). Goodspeed's In concluding disclose mustered was the jury in Rapides that [the testimony treatment" not testimony that was very Parish, failure to for his in exchange material, heard undisclosed] any more by the State's the low a possible would than the evidence to the of Goodspeed's he faced information court compared evidence when district 33 have seriously heard by the jury at that "[i]t is trial. In brief, difficult Leroy the State adopts to consider Goodspeed wherein At trial, Robinson, The accurate. hear "every example, reminded this the defense in ensured scourging arguing cross examination court's opinion than on direct appeal State's As the evidence possible two that Goodspeed convictions, that he will he has spent that the jury ill, takes is mentally and has admitted where had been heard most every say or of his adult possible reason testimony.... at 17-18, the the jury six felony to get out of prison, 02-1869 of the this reasoning, to more It quotes hallucinations, Goodspeed's flaw case. amassed for auditory to reject subjected counsel 24 times, Thus, upon noted: do anything life. in this defense arrested Haldol a witness was the court and expands 874 So.2d argument adduced reason" pardons in this post-conviction to reject that at 79. were Goodspeed's entered 39 regard is that demonstrates, testimony: in the CAJ[TN it is not the jtQ it did not system factually did not hear, for before he testified at defendant's Melancon recoinmending Goodspeed's probation to first degree robbery; transcribed While Goodspeed future favorable w.'r. Annitage, defendant was not 29 Goodspeed wife, Becky, the right "talked thing anytliing," it's variously thing." Have No, And that's A: Goodspeed on direct when fronts, on direct, defendant you received of principal Goodspeed's in connection any promises Despite were made or exchange you[r] attorney, W.T. charges, witness because against Parish he and his to do and I felt "they to be a witness did only of the his Rapides thing to detectives, Not Parish forward the right in the solicitation in which he came his statement offered unchallenged. as a potential and that he was happy you been treatrrient on the Rapides know, counsel that he had not favorable by the State's that or have defense his testimony conference agreed...You that went status examination the following revoke and it did not hear of treatment to receive Goodspeed he gave ask for anything; Finally, not because it was offer "I me mean occurred: anything for your testimony? sir. I haven't. I assume true that or not, Armitage, would know whether too? I, yes, sir. On cross-examination, are cuirently that on charges maintains, it was bolstered it and we both to do, too;" and lie did not tlie right against in the pretrial testified about State that Goodspeed's discussed to and cross-examination.29 and did not expect testified taken Scotty for his testimony. denied on several representing officer notes on Becky in exchange direct as the go unchallenged, who be Parish beneficial repeatedly credibility of the attorney receive Parish for his testimony did this testimony action to the marginal both true, treatment in exchange testimony during certainly Goodspeed's no in Lafayette he would efforts, is that probation this may help you get out of Det;" that received it challenged received "...said in Lafayette treatment Foote his arrest charges counsel's special Judge it was not alerted expectation his pending defense to despite statement Goodspeed's with trial; it did not see the letter from pending replied: in response to defense counsel's question "[wlith against 'Tm just you, going what plans do you have to take my lick." 40 to try and help all of these things that yourself get out of this," plea deal was worked capitalized upon the prosecutor nor was by the prosecutor told the judge in both toldyou, "I didn't Goodspeed's opening-" aware it.3o It of and closing own ask for anything, attorney andsaid,"Itwasn'tdiscussed. discussed. made also was arguments, wherein the jury: Goodspeed to me." out, I didn't took and nothing this stand. offered was He looked at you Inthepleabargainnegotiation,itwasn't know about it, I - and the judge didn't know about it." Goodspeed was not given anything. He was not offered anything. He did not ask for anything. The materiality prosecutor." bolster of evidence Kyles, 514 U.S. Goodspeed's to a plea deal documents because he has served Giglio and Napue. 3o Ai-mitage testified as follows ... At that pretrial discussed charges, tliat failing did you make to great to disclose charges at a murder to the prosecutor's the word of the lengths he did not testify pending witness" conference Leroy went that but of Goodspeed's in response by taking the prosecutor testimony as an "essential implicates Q: Parish dismissal understood Here, eliciting Rapides requesting best at 444. credibility, on the "is pursuant subsequent in Lafayette trial. This Parish conduct questions: the judge aware Goodspeed was a possible witness was the judge ever even of it? of was anything against Danell Robinson? No. Was it even discussed? No. As far as you Not " will the prosecutor offer Goodspeed. other ladies with No Goodspeed. Now, convictions. Tliey the jury: from an inmate, Rapides will you Goodspeed Darrell and a young things. told evidence Leroy conversation two aware as far as I know. In his opening, We know, Robinson child. doubt And see from the testimony absolutely no reason will Goodspeed are mostly he did drug not in use every has a felony related. gain Detention November Darrell anything 41 1997, he had Threw it off a bridge-among ploy possible record. for of Leroy said I did that He had a drug to lie. Center, Robinson I got rid of the gun. the defense Leroy tell in which Parish his to discredit He has addiction. testimony. some But, And to a man, Leroy felony you will he has In Giglio, the petitioner had told a testifying not testify, witness discovered after his conviction that the witness "would and that if he did testi'fy he would judgmentandconscienceoftheGovernment' Giglio, Government argued not be indicted. Id. at 152 the witness that the witness the State's sentence for prosecutor that testimony. In fact, the he had the witness's public defender had promised The Supreme petitioner evidence, and that a new Court trial, known no false holding testimony, that a denial false evidence, ailows it to go uncorrected credibility for ofthe believing petitioner. Giglio received witness; that Id. principle the at 269-'i and applies may of 'good had and the Amendment trial, then to serving a question in return but the prosecuter the jury Napue, violation through when the State, Id. at 269. his took no that a 360 U.S. not the soliciting Moreover, goes apprised an interest for of due process, though testimony jurywas the the use of false State, is a denial false by and granted ofthe it appears. a 199 was apprised for the witness. obtained if the at trial, a Fourteenth consideration Amendment even ifthe have this that he would response although when even and it applies only of other in testifying the to the grorinds against the O. Napue consideration of due process witness in a conviction to be such by representatives this on the no promises in a murder he could a Fourteenth is also added, if he did at 155. consideration, to do what found Id. promise there Court "received testified he had been promised to correct to rely did not disclose trial. witness murder, received action at 265. a new principal same be obliged The Supreme Court found and grantea the petitioner In Napue, year to tlie jury be prosecuted astowhetherhewouldbeprosecuted. 405 U.S. at 153. However, violation definitely that the Government stand or potential for the proposition favors in exchange 42 that where a key for testimony witness has and lies about those favors, Further, the trial as Tassin is not fair. Giglio deals, Amendment violation prosecution (quoting would with State twice entered received respect the Kevin offered in Parish 2008). to Fourteenth issue agreement Where, in the case as to a future and the jurywas (emphasis entitled court charges that received outlined just no such some dismissed. after a deal; Attorney offered to testify Parish. Yet anything charges, Goodspeed's by calling his it capitalized State not attorney and (3) phone only 43 that is not messages Parish testified to take my lick." between Assistant trial, the Lafayette that he had not for his testimony, and that, with More importantly, treatment Parish had been charges, was not a foactor in his favorable allowed on the testimony to his prior presented: (1) the defendant's on the Rapides testimony even made comments to testifying that no favorable testimony that Goodspeed's The going and the State systemwhen at trial, Goodspeed just Goodspeed or agreement and the Lafayette in exchange 'Tm treatment of the evidence (2) Goodspeed District Parish, understanding offendertracking receiving between in Lafayette favorable into the State's about added)). of an understanding testimony Assistant were or received uncorrected, a is unnecessary. exchanged and shortlyafterthe bolstered Rapides of an important or evidence for offenders; to his pending Annitage, in referring crux to his credibility at 154-55 had Nichols, or been State the "was... to his pending pardons an option charges u.s. presented district DistrictAttorneywere Parish 778 (5fh Cir. 770, "promise" A promise understanding Goodspeed The the Rapides term that is deception. credibility regard testimony. an inmate, establish Goodspeed's or that typically use the be relevant 405 defendant to correct existed, 517 F.3d of it." and the State failed they of any Giglio, Here, Napue the witness's ... evidence Id. and covered-up to know v. Cain, explains: Although as here, Tassin to argue this testimony deceptive to the jury that Goodspeed W. T. plea to go did not gatn in anything for his testimony, and of itself, Lacaze, 645 imr'naterial lack demonstrates F.3d after at 737, going of any motives of Goodspeed's very low on a chain evidence house) with proves admits. to downplay and circumstantial that defendant was present it lace, drop "was is unlikely the testimony any more defendant was based evidence.32 was the minute on a small the significance that Goodspeed's shoe and the end of that shoe's stepping and of his testimony the case against to the murders credibility is The only transfer and this of blood bloodstain evidence when at the Lambert physical on (which he entered residence, the which he of the murders. Here, was evidence central 32 In its written (1 ) defendant ofanyunderstandingoragreementbetweenGoodspeedandthe to reasons, had been (2) defendanthad determining the district living drinking; (3) defendant fled (5) defendant, wlien as Lambert (7) atowel of Nicholas smoked, with Kelly's from blood jailhouse court outside the scene; apprehended, and $71.00 Nicholas Goodspeed's outlined at the Lambeit no employment bedroom; testimony from deal force."). at trial," However, See, an unrevealed that the value undermined This, evidence. [the witness's] attempt evidence have that to lie. OnlyGoodspeed'stestimonyprovidesanyindicationthatdefendantwasthe perpetrator State lacks the position by the jury. defendant only argument to emphasize simply other defendant of his left is consistent the of inferences connecting the bottom at trial no reason of the undisclosed State's lengths would heard materiality ("The taking to information has absolutely and the State in turn, testimony, than the evidence largely n.l to such court, compared suppressed the for lying The district and "he (4) the evidence residence ofhis work following Lambert's blood were found was found knife, on the bottom 44 wallet from that as evidence the VA (3) defendant was found apackofcigarettes of Lambeit's of defendant's shoe other that: hospital; had resumed in defendant's the same brand was detected on defendant's on the floor infornnant. faiu'i; fact at trial his release empty hadLambert's The presented at Lambert's in cash; (6) gunshotresidue Kelly's credibility. bedroom; and a shoe waistband; (8) two drops lace; and (9) impeaching evidence the undisclosed The to the jury does not undermine materiality inquiry of bias more undisclosed source main not turn in hindsight, important. on which of determines Rather, of bias-even source"-could different does a court, considered the be taken two the jury inquiry is if it is not the only reasonably Kyles, The State's to put uncontradicted 514 U.S. suppression testimony circumstances, there Goodspeed's prevented the defense Forensic andnotes, sketches and a stronger velocity an or even the case in a impeaching exculpatory likelihood" against defendant Brady, light. Napue, in the State's and diagrams deal with have As a result, heard 3ury Under the disclosure these to the jury affected of the jury's the nondisclosure, and Giglio. forensic jailhouse of the crime case for the defense, value As discussed at length, would spatter supra, Defendant have resulted evidence the undisclosed on the front, back 45 of the ballistics bench maintains, in a weaker could have and sleeves and we case agree, for the State used the evidence and the State's serology Serology the "significance" scene photographs, scene. the Goodspeed, in the fortn explaining as the defense of the physical informant evidence case, and crime of this evidence blood so the murders. might the letterfromInvestigatorDelcomyn the probative impact under to the Goodspeed's Evidence to disclose that the disclosure attack have whether the whole from admitted case in a different to the undisclosed of the red jacket notes, defendant for testifying was material In addition Report that and put the whole failed would at 434-35). is at least a "reasonable motive in and of itself, State competing source claim that he received no inducements for his testimony, Undisclosed of light. at 736 (citing judgment the materiality evidence. sources Id. was presented theory notes to of the case. document high- of the red jacket, as well as transfer the crime blood stains scene include neighboring wall. undisclosed materials violent on the back According incident, on the wall close-up demonstrate most likely unidentified third party undisclosed letter argument by trial stains velocity counsel impact stains State's Peart, blood gunshot residue the red jacket resulted misleadingly to the from implying homicides, inconsistent despite with State's profile testing expert's he could have, testimony and to advance the prosecutor [defendant], who?" that revealed these from drip in conjunctioxi a stain with the in Delcomyn's And, neighbor, it elicited trial to preempt any to the crime the State (and an used his alternative cattle innocuous knew this farm, and unrelated explanation was notes. the transfer Mark on Lambert's were Moras. stains that information theory on the jacket Had defense conclusionregardingthehigh-velocity as he testified, James, resulted the jacket injuries on the jacket serology suspect, hadcomrnittedthecrimes. notes, fact the undisclosed of alternative forensics stains the on the Peart'stestimonysuggestedthe work-related the blood Post-conviction DNA minor drip its case, memorializing connected unidentifiedpersonwasinvolvedinthehomicides). bloodstains of and was at event. expert. cousin taken and the passive spatter back Stuart spatter evidenceto on the Lambert's that blood of the same bloodshed transfer the expert, on the red jacket ofthis photographs and of a blood defense the unknown importance of the high David of the red jacket that part the "significance" to Undisclosed to post-conviction The Staterecognizedthe from images and that the blood were testimony of the jacket. matched the counsel known of the impact blood spatter, to impeach that another person David Peart's was present and Indeed,ifdefensecounselhadbeenprovidedtheserology could Defense not have counsel argued, could 46 as he did in closing: have used "Finally, the undisclosed if not evidence to undermine the State's i.e., Mark Moras, theory of the case and bolster committed A similar analysis his defense holds true with respect to the undisclosed At trial, the State theorized bullets Foster the gun Doris claimed the undisclosed it is likely more fired, than and the shots evidence, one firearm likely came have been used by the defense the day of the murders As evidence credibility that of the evidence and lessen the credibility Undisclosed Witness consists have State's (undisclosed The final post-conviction from than to undermine been case, is material it expert the State's to attack was material. couldhave transcribed statement defendant statement Dunn off indicate leaving interview at Lambert's 33 In fact, a murder approximately theory opined eviderice as to what narrative the investigation Kyles, beenusedto Upon that six gunsliots This were could happened of the crime. and 514 lessen U.S. attackthe exculpatory of Gary evidence the at 445 investigation Normand left for us to consider and the interview DunnfromwhichanotationregardingKirbyBrownwasredacted. auto" five case). of undisclosed of the suppressed seen another had fired Statements category on the Normand and this theory. at least See, notes John Nixon alternative used of the State's contradict one shooter. a plausible ifit to Lambert at the scene, more and to provide could materials was used ballistic that one assailant to have returned a week before the murders.33 The undisclosed reviewing person, the crimes. crime scene photographs. from that another weapon that Normand around the time indicate home was never Handwrittennotes and his brother of the murders. that Kirby of Andrew Brown Notes may have Wayne "may handwritten seen someone that morning. recovered; the State's 47 theory was just that: a theory. have on the drop TheundisclosedinformationfromGaryNormand's was seen leaving the area-could another person committed failing to adequately Kirby Brown have been used to support Brown, investigate could have defendant or later, who being altemative been revealed more suspects. devastating offacross counsel the day of the murders. theroad could State'stimelineofthatday'sevents. in contrast, noon, making State's because money, would The undisclosed See, Juniper withheld as to when evidence Zook, 876 material a petitioner when coinrnitted pocketknife he had defense observed aroundnoon, contradicted the am,shotthevictims Brown 570 the evidence a crime."). 48 the murders was unable as a potential Mr. Brownwas 551, and flee. off at the Lambert coinmitted counsel Kirby F.3d dropped to have defense identifying and Billy's being for him informationregarding v. Had 12:lOpm(whenDorisFostercameupon has defendant However, the notation regarding and interviewed have directly 11:15-11:45 cigarettes it impossible timeline. that for Inhisclosing,theprosecutorarguedtothejury betweenll:45-11:50am,andthenhaduntil statement, case. that officers information Lambertresidence thatdefendantarrivedattheLamberthousebetween to gather argument have located declaration fromthe Such testimony The to the State's in his post-conviction dropped the scene) defendant's the murders and to impeach law enforcement counsel been alerted to this information, Mr. statement-thatanothercar (4Ih Cir. residence according to challenge witness undermined this after to the timeline was suppressed. clearlymaterial 2017) Brown's ("Corirts underBrady. have the government's found theory Cumulative Effect In reiterate assessing thatthe The only to" of Undisclosed the blood presented "characteristic jeans,34 found evidence that jailhouse informant, gunshot amount (two left defendant to serology theory the (1) evidence potentially strength have and notes timeline no confidence evidence identified with gunshot that tlie definitions residue blood expeit the particles are now Kelly's shoe's lace. was the testimony Considered John residue have described evolved alternate of the potentially placing separately, cumulatively verdict would they not (3) State's each crime (2) scene "five bullet" defendant outside item underi'nines convince have State treatment, suspect, the State takes the pesition on the bottom defendant's Nixon of possible identified beneficial to contradict statements and its suppression due to the number Because of been the us that we can affected had the to light. establishes 34 Post-conviction an the potential the jury's in brief, Kelly's lace conclusively Nicholas shoe and the end of that Goodspeed's implicating with come was material of Nicholas of victim defendantdemonstratedthatthe case,, considered that Nevertheless, evidence "unique in the waistband as the perpetrator showing of events. of the State's suppressed value evidence of the case, and (4) witness State's drops) evidence. of two particles detected to Goodspeed. disclose documentation it is important on circumstantial residue Throughthispost-convictionproceeding, failed withheld, based largely of defendant's identified evidence by the State consisted of" and the minute on the bottom The only of the defendantwas evidence and one particle defendant's significance case against physical Evidence explained sources was inconsequential of defendant's guilt. that (beyond gunshotresidue over as merely The gunsliot residue of such particles the years and particles "characteristic of' 49 from once gunshot the presence shoe and the end of his shoe from one surface sources, considered on the has low for the particles other residue. its argument evidence of a gun) can come of the suppressed because State rests discharge and the ease oftransfer with that none Nixon "unique probative commonly to another. explained to" gunshot lack of any bloody conviction footprints at the scene expert in bloodstain actively scene, was just and not that: could have leaving small this a bloody single of blood item of jailhouse case upon State went informant the favorable Far from to impeach this Goodspeed defendant claim, serology by defendant the testimony 35 Nicholas Kelly was conviction case pursuant to refute did receive would the credibility his claim crime ofDavid Peart elicited the victim closest to the When have considered person bythe front 50 case, and door. on the largely been rntxch been presemed. contention (even witness that going so regarding defense counsel to identify together that couldhave with the 'oeen used may have been involved State to conceal the reliance evidence a11owed of the only scene evidence that another any to any inducements Goodspeed and other withoiat regarding have evidence The undisclosed notes of blood its rests would this claim). of the homicides. of on that that someone and the State's strength the in response ourconclusionthatthe in this of was upon Based the evidence had the undisclosed testified and undertnine to support the a pool to bolster as the perpetrator undisclosed conciusive, proving lengths who Yeah. with shoe is equivocal, by the jury stumbling that it also possible in contact defendant's a review the victim to tlie expeit, evidence-underscores wliich upon be possible.... being from to great treatment proposed and come evidence-far on his shoe while James testified post- the lack of bloodyfootprints maintains) could on defendant's far as to call his attorney rebut a roam""' than the one heard The "That Mr. suppressed circumstantial the blood or hypothesis footprint. immaterialityofthe weaker into theorythat (as defendant On re-direct, stepped amount later responded: yes. State's acquired a theory to State's question, hypothesis, thatthe defendant bleeding, of defendayit's patteiw analysis, Stuart James. However, Mr. James's testimonyreveals at the scene proves and the testimony tlie relevance and to of the undisclosed defendant serologyevidence,wefindourselvesleftwithasingularconclusion: did not receive to a new trial under a fair trial, Brady, Giglio, or a verdict worthy the of confidence. He is entitled and Napue. CONCLUSION For the foregoing vacated, and this CONVICTION reasons, defendant's case is remanded AND SENTENCE conviction to the district VACATED; TRIAL. 51 ccurt is reversed, for a new REMANDED his sentence trial. FOR NEW is SUPREME COURT OF LOIDSIANA No. 2021-KP-00812 STATE EX REL. DARRELL J. ROBINSON vs. DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOIDSIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, ANGOLA, LOIDSIANA On Supervisory Writ to the 9th Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides Crichton, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, and assigns reasons. I agree with the majority that the state did not disclose favorable evidence to the defendant, but I dissent in part because, in my view, the cumulative effect of the withheld evidence did not deprive defendant the right to a fair trial as to his gu ilt. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 108, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). As to the penalty, though, I believe that in the absence of the suppressed evidence, the death sentences imposed in this case are not "worthy of confidence," and must be overturned. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419,434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1566, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). For that reason, I would affirm the ruling of the trial court denying defendant's post-conviction Brady claims as to his convictions but reverse the ruling of the trial court as to the penalties, vacate defendant's four death sentences, and remand to the trial court to convene a new penalty phase trial. On May 28, 1996, at approximately 12:10 p.m., Doris Foster arrived at the home of her cousin, Billy Lambert. Foster discovered the bodies of Lambert, his sister Carol Hooper, Carol's daughter Maureen Kelly, and Maureen's infant son, Nicholas Kelly, all shot in the head. She left immediately and drove to a nearby store where the clerk called 911. When she returned to the scene with the police she noticed that Lambert's truck, which had been there when she arrived earlier, was now gone. It was soon discovered that defendant, who had been staying in Lambert's home at the time, had fled the scene in Lambert's truck. At trial, the state presented evidence of defendant's highly suspicious behavior. Witnesses testified seeing him speed away from the home at about 12:15 p.m. Defendant drove erratically, swerving into other lanes of traffic, forcing motorists off the road, and side-swiping another vehicle. A chase ensued and defendant was followed until he turned down a driveway, drove through a fence, abandoned the truck behind a house, and ran into the woods where the police later found him hiding. As they approached, defendant told the officers he was unanned and "on medication for violent tendencies." Besides his incriminating conduct, the state presented additional physical evidence connecting defendant to the crime. When he was arrested, defendant had Nicholas's blood on the sole and lace of his shoe, Lambert's knife in his pocket, and some cash and cigarettes in his possession. At the crime scene, a spot ofNicholas's blood was found on a towel in Lambert's bedroom and Lambert's wallet, emptied of cash, was found in defendant's room. All four victims were shot with a .38 caliber gun, the same caliber gun Lambert was known to keep in the house, but the weapon was never recovered. A gunshot residue expert testified that he found one particle on defendant's shirt, a few particles on his waistband, and many particles on his pant legs. Finally, the state called Leroy Goodspeed to testify against defendant. Goodspeed testified that in November 1997, while the two men were jailed together, defendant confessed to him that he "did those people, a man, two women and a small child, and threw the gun off of a bridge." Critically, the confession Goodspeed testified about is not self-corroborating. In other words, it does not contain information that only the perpetrator of the crime could have known. 1 Since the 1 The identity of the victims of the crime was well-known public information and the murder weapon was never discovered, under a bridge or elsewhere. 2 reliability of the confessioncannotbe deteimined by its substance alone, that defendant confessedto the crime, a )uror must have taken word that it occurred.Thus, Goodspeed'scredibility factor to believe Goodspeed on his became and remains a relevant in this case. At trial, Goodspeed'scredibility blistering cross-exatnunation abundantimpeachment heard that that convxctxons, admitted 2002-1869, by defendant's Goodspeed he will had been arrested ill, "say pp. 17-18 took (La. 4/14/04), prxson on charges pending accepted imprisonment at hard 11 months of that labor sentence. that sentence he by the for state. amassed auditory State he was suspended, state dispelled was before six felony and v. Robinson, that when to and was released this Goodspeed's not defendant's sentenced any suspicion case by calling received The jury he had been facing up to 33 years which one year a using hallucinations, to get out of prison." confession, The in defendant's lenient over attorney 874 So.2d 66. The jury also learned deal in with to his asststance the experienced in Rapides Parish; however, a plea test. He underwent 24 times, medication or do anything Goodspeed reported defendant's Goodspeed highly evidence that had been turned was mentally that was put to a rigorous related his years serving outcome attorney to trial, three after in related who testified testimony against defendant.2 Nevertheless, Goodspeed despite maintained that anything from explained that he was only heard Goodspeed that the facing up to life 2 There are, of course, the state may have state in he had exchange doing a myriad him successful not for pending of reasons, aside his it was "the him suggested from deal on these 3 requested, testimony against but his testimony a plea incrimination received, so because had charges in prison, offered the defense's seeking charges. of his character, or been against right thing defendant. to do." in Lafayette, where that he was unaware cooperation promised from He The jury he was that his Goodspeed, that asststance in defendant's treatment in case in Rapides Lafayette Parish. In its Goodspeed had no reason to lie about testtmony. In closing, state offered anything, After denied trial, Goodspeed's receiving defendant's any trial and on February offender 2000, charges pardons were system after forward there Neither from Goodspeed Goodspeed had received about the confession at trial presented incentivized Parish charges defendant's trial were defendant. Rapides by that all Parish the were later state from Goodspeed addition, against Attorney that his further Goodspeed testimony 29, 1999, on December that on first him. degree robbery letter against asking or being the state defendant. promised defendant. However, one can reasonably defendant. Goodspeed because Mike he testified hearing, the state could not provide an explanation infer First, at the Shannon was the jury from he testified for 18, Goodspeed's As a result, benefits against at of Corrections asked him to put in a "good 4 his anything, nor the probation which expressly District given above, for against to testify pending dismissed Assistant that after trial 3 During the post-conviction these entries were made. for his testimony that from (on January additional denied in post-conviction, state against but before Goodspeed noted his arrest entries these to gain not recommending testified asserted the Department In despite state for his testimony. occasions behalf.3 the pardon the state in exchange was post-conviction before above, is evidence, Lafayette Parish. the into to a judge not be revoked Goodspeed A discussed a letter in beneficial evidence As on two entered Parish to defendant that wrote was additional from on Goodspeed's officer did not learn anything Goodspeed in exchange treatment 2, 2001) in Lafayette he came favorable the result and nothing credibility. However, in Rapides disclosed marred 2001. a probation probation that in March tracking statement, discovered already possibly the confession stressed defendant could opening and did not ask for anything the impeached the Parish time of against testified word" the in for him as to how or why with the Lafayette to assist him Parish District [because] Attorney, he called he was a material and asked witness them in a murder in the Lafayette Parish District Attorney this request and dismissed Goodspeed's charges because he was "an in a murder testifying against testified after getting against belief Third, against contained Goodspeed at trial of a pre-trial not revealed could defendant. Without Rapides Parish Yet the District He for his file interview self-serving with but appears to conclude that of the existence there was, in for Goodspeed's was not disclosed defendant testimony denied aid by the state in exchange this information, to 2012. Attorney over both reasonably this agreement points in defendant's of a police in post-conviction-who future not you to get out Det[ention]." against nevertheless he was in exchange The note was scribbled help immediately in March charges only Nichols account he testified on essential Kevin "that Goodspeed Parish good he was to his cell Nichols's of a transcript together, of additional, at trial. with to do," Internal made that worried the state before this may evidence deal-one against to Lafayette." the the confession. thing he was spoke Fourth, and Shannon some promise testimony back they testified returned he indicated & reconcile...said this the right Goodspeed note in the margin about Weighing was investigator defendant." wife say, in part, "try lie when Goodspeed a deal on his Lafayette a handwritten Goodspeed's "it that he had a deal with a post-conviction testimony 3iiry that defendant, her that he received fact, because his deal and he was headed Goodspeed's told Second, while defendant in post-conviction testifying trial. trial." a way case." memoranda witness file shows to "find to defendant was not able to show and to the that, contrary to the claims of the prosecutor, Goodspeeddid have a reason to about defendant's 4 Since Goodspeed hearsay evidence conviction subjected died about proceedings, confession before his the involvement it is accorded to the test of cross-examination. and that, post-conviction in hearing, defendant's less weight State than ex rel. 1992). 5 despite trial. his we are While if he had testified Tassin v. Whitley, assertions relegated this otherwise, to considering is permitted at the hearing 602 So.2d 721, in post- and been 724 (La. Goodspeed was not only Goodspeed was thoroughly to reject his testimony There besides the jury heard suggesting about worker of the defense could it pointed third party.5 on the jacket the blood house Lambert's Thus, At trial, was an injury to the theory before "high or on the jacket to the presence of someone the trial medium to a gunshot to defendant theory while over to the At trial, that was stained testimony sustained by a farm posited to the jury, and concluded velocity event that spatter." This and, thus, to the before trial. If it had been, the ofthe other house the state presented from the jacket not turn to Goodspeed. the Lambert Contrary state's state withheld origins ofthe blood and argued defendant at the house when than money, notes providing defendant was investigative leads seen at the Lambert The )ury heard from two witnesses who truck speeding away from the house at around 12:15 p.m. the then and when of the murders. prosecutor told the )ury that defendant 11:15 and 11:45 a.m., shot the victims between and handwritten of the crime Lambert's argument, a.m., and promised came to the murders. the jacket morning seeing Lambert to do." did not hear all the reasons that the state did from have counteredthe the on the closing 11:50 on to the timeline recalled thing occurred. Finally, relating right the jury made collected had examined connects the murders In evidence This fact was not disclosed murder. house experts blood classification that the blood own at trial, benefits a red jacket and was not related the state's some favorable of an unknown that it was "the as incredible. the undisclosed the blood because impeached is additional defense with testifying had knife, until 12:10 p.m. (when Doris and cigarettes before fleeing arrived at the between 11:45 and Foster arrived) to steal in his truck. However, the 5 At trial the jury heard that the blood on the jacket was not from defendant or any of the victims. Later, post-conviction DNA testing of revealed that it came from Mark Moras, a former resident of the Lambert house who had an ongoing conflict with Lambert and who was the altemate perpetrator urged by defendant at trial. 6 state did not reveal to the defense that one of the witnesses and his brother may have seen another vehicle off at the Lambert about Brown, they would defendant being dropped evidence had been turned inconsistent happened with upon the victims The treatment the cumulative provided to bloodstained crime-is evidence, confidence.6 Thus, is all and by the the case unlike the to have heard consistent the the with the state, in for my majority, guilty leads relating even guilt decline verdicts and that was claim evidence-the serological I If this day. testimony defendant's the view, defendant's seeing that he and fled in panic. undisclosed investigative However, material If the state had told defendant after they were murdered Goodspeed jacket, suppressed and of who saw defendant house at 12 p.m. or later that the )ury would timeline effect noteworthy. evidence over, Brown, he The him and learned that he recalled off at the Lambert the state's Kirby house that moming. have interviewed that leave the house that morning. state also suppressed a note about anotherwitness, being dropped told the police evidence to the taking remains to relating timeline into and that not disturb to of the account strong conclude would beneficial the worthy the of withheld defendant's convictions.7 Importantly, undermines ruling of the trial of innocence." in court of of guilt consciousness the the convictions based phase. In and I would evidence reverse alone the to avoid 350 So.2d apprehension from which the United when, "assuming every reasonable in State v. Davies, is one of the circumstances evidence v. Maryland, [] exclude[s] attempt the withheld and Brady on circumstantial explained that sentences, tends to prove, concealment, and, therefore, I believe death as this Court flight, dissent, penalty that the evidence Furthermore, "[e]vidence from defendant's as to permits fact to be proved 1977), distinct confidence 6 La. R.S. 15:438 every and hypothesis 586, 588 (La. . . . indicates the jury may infer guilt." 7 In so doing, victims. acla'iowledged years I am cognizant See State and citing ("[V]ictims v. States 2021-1893, "[e]ven substantial Edwards United of the impact Reddick, in Reddick, later inflicts Id., quoting v. v. when the evidence pain on crime %nnoy, 593 U.S. Mechanik, may be asked to relive their overturning pp. 15-16 victims ---, 141 475 U.S. disturbing 7 murder (La. convictions 10/21/22), 351 can be reassembled, who must testify has on surviving So.3d 273, conducting again and endure 283. As I retrials new trials." s.ct. 1547, 1554-55, 209 L.Ed.2d 651 (2021) s.ct. 938, 89 L.Ed.2d 50 (1986) 66, 72, 106 experiences."). States Supreme Court held that a due withholds favorable evidence process that is "material violation either occurs to guilt U.S. 83, 87, 83 s.ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 During a penalty phase of a capital trial, the relevant mitigating circumstance" when jury (1963) has "frequently defendants F.2d 491, 497 the sentencing 33 n. (5th reasonable doubt' 108 s.ct. 2320, At the trepidations about level 2323, trial about imposing the nature" State Court for s.ct. 1784, 1769, doubt, there ofthe penalty," 524 sentencing 173 is a reasonable "can entertain be expected Smith v. Balkcom, "The to ensure So.2d Brady some to resist 660 F.2d rule 701 573, is based that a miscarriage by v. itley, 992 as "a lingering 'beyond a 487 U.S. 164, 166, or more evidence )urors "or might [lead] 1176, 1192 as well." [feel] While retain[] a general though such a juror (La. 1987). v. Bell, not that the evidence The 449, who doubt would 580-81 about impose (5th Cir. on the requirement of justice defendant's States will often 473, 129 to a reasonable by the state in this guilt, the irremedial 3uror to and that juror penalty of death." 1981). of due process. does not occur." 8 to the out for a United to guilt rise withheld ambivalence to hold 556 U.S. giving minor not rxsing that is material Cone (2009). [may] may have reasonably caused at least one residual those to be doubt"' between v. Lynaugh, [] of Appeals 'residual has been defined that "[e]vidence probability case, considered cumulatively, nevertheless guilt, purposes L.Ed.2d Court Kirkpatrick and that "uncertainty, regarding v. Lee, "[o]ne state's has acknowledged be material doubt "[a]ny 155 (1988). sentence, the death sentence." Supreme the doubt Residual trial. certaimy.""Franklin 101 L.Ed.2d on of a capital 373 sentence Circuit state of mind that exists somewhere and 'absolute of reasonable life 1993). Cir. uncertainty about facts-a phase state added). to consider recognized the strategic value of relying on during (emphasis the approprtate imposed. La. C.Cr.P. art. 905.5(h). The United States Fifth the or to punishment." is required determining when United Its purpose States v. Bagley, is 473 [J.s. 00'7, 675, 105 s.ct. required to apply 3375, 3379-80, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). heightened care to protecting defendant in capital prosecutions. 305, 96 s.ct. "qualitative 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d difference" a corresponding between difference is the appropriate 944 (1976) in a specific to capital that the Brady materials punishment.8 evidence resulted in this case would in this case not worthy Therefore, remand the case for a new trial on the penalty 8 See La. determination shall impose C.Cr.P. art. 905.8, of the jury. a sentence "The court If the jury of life shall is unable imprisonment is standard reasonable have caused trepidations to withhold of favorable the death sentence imposed I would vacate the sentence and phase.9 sentence to unanimously without a the state's withholding rendering the that death to cause one or more jurors of justice of confidence. is of "there the heightened there of the because in the determination that are 428 U.S. 280, and life imprisonment, opinion For this reason, I believe in a miscarriage that case."). Applying cases, it is my rights Carolina, (explaining the death penalty about the nature of the state's case sufficient capital North v. in the need for reliability punishment of care applicable probability See Woodson the due process We benefit the defendant agree in accordance on a determination, of probation, parole with the the court or suspension of sentence." 9 Pursuant to La. C.Cr.P. of the trial or not seek a capital of life imprisonment art. 61, the District at hard verdict. labor Attomey has the discretion In that circumstance, without benefit of parole, See La. R.S. 14:30(C)(2). 9 the trial probation to retry court shall the penalty impose or suspension phase a sentence of sentence. SUPREM:E COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2021-KP-00812 STATE EX REL. DARRELL J. ROBINSON vs. DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, ANGOLA, LOUISIANA On Supervisory Writ to the 9th Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides CRAIN, J., dissenting. Billy Lambert, Carol Hooper, Maureen Kelly, and Maureen's infant son, Nicholas Kelly, were all murdered in Lambert's home on May 28, 1996. Defendant was spotted frantically fleeing the scene in Lambert's pickup truck at a high rate of speed, spinning-out, side-swiping a vehicle, and running other motorists off the road. An ensuing car chase ended with defendant driving through a fence, abandoning the truck, and fleeing on foot into nearby woods. Apprehended shortly thereafter, defendant had Nicholas's blood on his shoe and Lambert's knife in his pocket. Lambert's wallet, emptied of cash, and a towel stained with Nicholas's blood were found in defendant's room at Lambert's home. All four victims were shot at close range with a .38 caliber gun, the same caliber pistol Lambert had in his house before, but was never found after, the murders. Gunshot residue was found on defendant's shirt, waistband, and pants. A unanimous jury found defendant guilty on all four counts of first degree murder and recommended the death sentence, which the trial court imposed. On direct appeal, this court unanimously affirmed the verdict and sentence, finding "the circumstantial evidence presented at 'defendant's trial excluded any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence." State v. Robinson, 02-1869 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So. 2d 66, 75. The respectfully majority's who contradicted promised "deal" by direct of conclusion" any such conclusion confidence. I reasons Leroy examination, concluded reviewed the "new" evidence . that treatment." (Emphasis allegedly documents made evidence appears showing district after defendant's These Ray Delcomyn, a defense in Rapides Parish; cornrnitted court "that for beneficial finding that nothing Annitage, all defendant's that he "would is was witnesses the district attomey who and Goodspeed perjury, the majority the State failed to disclose treatment." I cannot find claim, the trial court pointed out that to indicate Goodspeed attoniey) noted do anything that Goodspeed, in his power the three-year sentence proceeding under cross- to avoid being in he received The trial in the court then presented by defendant, describing it as"more detailed added.) some about court Parish criminal Rapides by This testified trial; the jailhouse court. The trial and the )ury was informed recently who to effort was put forth to attack and reveal any possible adeal' Goodspeed." admitted proceeding in excliange rejecting the trial, "much with W.T. witnesses murders. for his testimony. in the murder trial; that the state failed Goodspeed, the witnesses by the trial by the trial to in exchange these in fact testified In written four in a criminal finding to a "factual that Goodspeed from for the murder Implicitly on the premise admitted the lead prosecutor Goodspeed himself. assistant not "worthy the state and Leroy defendant evidence investigator represented jail"; verdict rests largely to Goodspeed Shannon, attorney's made the between testified or offered are Mike during finds decision a purported informant defers now disagree. The disclose majority Goodspeed may have been allowed special The trial court identifies the pardons, the statements to a cellmate and a defense investigator, and communications between Sherman(the Rapides Parish and a Lafayette assistantdistrict attorneyover two months trial. But, the trial court made no factual conclusionsabout any of 2 this "new" of the evidence. alleged reasoning Instead, deal that and found about of the trial reasons court's value trial a possible deal. on this issue: evidence most cases brought where eyewitness nor such was Goodspeed's testimony .... was presented The jury which defense by [defendant] further it undermined showing" conclusion means committed perjury. on promised or offered 11-0915 my review and Goodspeed. testified there Goodspeed was proceeding, appeal a reviewing Assistant to testify. District discussed; who confirmed at trial, Goodspeed in its being possibly brought showing than the evidence conclusion. Particularly both court, parties heard de novo where that to the alleged review deal, of the relevant determine if defendant proved the state in exchange for his testimony. Cl State v. 93 So. 3d 553, 563 ("When owes a trial court makes those findings great deference.") Based defendant did not prove a deal between the state Attorney Sherman and Goodspeed both expressly understanding, Their testimony who testified ever to court of the evidence, confession following the trial. would have seriously any more trial anything 5/8/12), case. dates information including by the was no agreement, investigator, deal . (La. an not treatment evidence is not a factual Goodspeed was added.] witnesses, appropriate is this in he now sentences witnesses jailhouse evidence extensive to the [defendant's] of special at later testimony something finding of fact that [Emphasis a factual an alleged additional compared found, to to the closing Unlike to use to impeach received is unlikely are circumstantial treatment four evidence findings similar at trial. "[P]ossibly Absent only at trial. evidence able low of materiality, subject from very central only with Goodspeed's by the jury Thompson, is special Therefore, upon The was testimony was and is apparent violations contained counsel cross-examination. This as to the existence on a lack limited [defendant] Brady liis based was testimony against any finding violation testimony of Goodspeed's other pretermitted no Brady Goodspeed's cross-examination The the court or any other arrangement to induce was corroborated by the district attorney's he was present for all meetings with Goodspeed and no and Goodspeed's defense attorney in the Rapides Parish there was no deal in that matter. 3 The contrary communications probation that officer probation the Rapides Sherman likewise Lafayette Parish points I find in the is no reported presiding letters when revocation, in Rapides office attorney between Parish, was into evidence the a database or was otherwise The by anyone. it was not charge, my supervisor and so it is not surprising him trial. with the letter. contacting the That was at the Goodspeed. The majority house with Rapides testified copied surrounding otlier Goodspeed's there was a pending a'fter defendant's entered and hearing. over 7, the officer circumstances district are not more by the Department Parish District involved in Attorney of is that record keeping by The only testimony referring to a deal is secondGoodspeed's cellmate and a defense investigator, by persuasive than the direct testimony from the witnesses the alleged deal, all of whom refute it. no agreement false testimony. between to disclose and Goodspeed, the state did not such agreement and did not present, or fail to any See Giglio the state v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 150-51; 92 s.ct. 764; 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); Napue v. People ofState ofIll., 360 U.S. 264, 265; s.ct. 1173, 1175; 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). Defendant the probation the revocation Attorney's such entries its obligation correct, District of Corrections. Finding violate in footnote was pending the "pardons" there from at the evidentiary to the judge who had been in a halfway information involved letter drawn was part of a deal or had been requested explained to direct the Department 763, Parish but authorized wliich explained by the majority assistant to Conections, liand the proceeding of a relative also sent inferences I chose not to recommend The probation urging adequately for him to not recommend and "apparently 79 who as recognized uncornrnon that were is mostly did not say the letter Instead, I." evidence margin alternatively officer, argues the state should have disclosed the letter from the existence of the two pardons, and the prosecutor'snotes in of a statement from Goodspeed's wife. 4 This information is neither exculpatorynor sufficiently material to if there is a reasonable probability evidenceis material "Favorable violation. a Brady constitute had the evidence tliat, been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would different." Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433; 115 s.ct. 1565; 490 (1995). Whether considered in isolation or 1555, with cumulatively evidence, disclosure of the probation officer's letter, been have 131 L.Ed.2d the other Brady notes, and the the prosecutor's pardons would not "have made a different result reasonably probable." See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 441; 115 s.ct. at 1569. In affirming defendant, this court reviewed all of the evidence the state's circumstantial his testxmony, this also maintains Defendant The pl'iotographs. tlie attorney's the Crime materials jacket trial court State did disclose testified investigator, Labs in Alexandria that he personally were additionally material, Louisiana the North notes from particularly that, is not a Brady testimony Goodspeed's sripports information to produce the failure given full given that is the subject of the state's at best, might delivered proof was 874 So. 2d evidence, circumstantial impeach further marginally to disclose this pieces of evidence." of the note related 5 trial record Delcomyn, tlie district He received attorney's to the defense Lab. expert to blood notes from a large package office. Defendants This information had prolonged splatter lab and as diagran"is, any and all laboratory Shreveport. that defendant's and otlier "The fuiding, contention, access to the Crime serology as well Laboratory, that he requested and Goodspeed's violation. Criminalistics tliese of Robinson, Goodspeed." the state failed rejected hypothesis of the State's the quantum nature of on Commenting at 75. of Leroy the convincing Given I agree. at 78. 2d the strength any reasonable "excluded "Clearly... than the testimony more significantly observed, court So. 874 Robinson, innocence. recognized and specifically which evidence, against verdict the juty's of was also not possession on the jacket of the sleeve. Lastly, Code I find no merit of Criminal to defendant's Procedure article clear and convincing evidence rational have juror would La. Code Crim. blood identified the petitioner in Lambert's that "no guilty Defendant The presence to the point To prevail, claim a defendant that, had the new evidence found of a jacket by the defense. in these murders 926.2. Pro. art. 926.2B(1)(b). on the back factually-innocent house rational juror on evidence an alternative have found no doubt. indicating does not exculpate would at trial, a reasonable was from of this blood must prove "by been presented beyond relies under Louisiana that suspect defendant him guilty." Id. Defendant degree murder. from limited These convictions circumstantial of the relevant cotut's had a fair trial that resulted should evidence events confimied in convictions on four counts of first not be set aside based on inferences drawn where every witness with personal knowledge facts. I dissent and would affirm the trial the actual judgment. 6 SUPREME COURT OF LOIDSIANA No. 2021-KP-00812 STATE EX REL. DARRELL J. ROBINSON vs. DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOIDSIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, ANGOLA, LOIDSIANA On Supervisory Writ to the 9th Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides McCallum, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Justice Crain and assigns additional reasons. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for the reasons assigned by Justice Crain in his dissenting opinion. I write separately to emphasize that the jury weighed testimony and determined that the defendant was guilty of the murders of three adults and a child. The jury then determined that the defendant's actions warranted the death penalty. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence. State v. Robinson, 02-1869 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So. 2d 66. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, leaving those convictions and sentence undisturbed. Robinson v. Louisiana, 543 U.S. 1023 (2004). After a review of the record, I agree with the trial court's denial of the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief. Unlike the majority, I find that the cumulative effect of the withheld evidence did not deprive defendant of the right to a fair trial, and the guilty verdicts and the convictions are worthy of confidence. Since the disputed evidence related to guilt, not the penalty, in my opinion, it logically follows that the death sentence imposed by the jury is also worthy of confidence.

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.