Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the court in number 93-7927, Kyles against Whitley will be announced by Justice Souter.
Argument of Justice Souter
Mr. Souter: This case comes to us on writ of certiorari to the Fifth Circuit.
In 1984, a woman was shot and killed in a grocery store parking lot in New Orleans.
Several days later, acting on an informant’s tip, the police arrested the petitioner Curtis Kyles for the murder.
The murder weapon and other incrementing physical evidence were later found at Kyles’ house.
After a first trial ended in a hung jury, Kyles was tried a second time convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, his conviction in sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
During state post conviction proceedings however, it was revealed that the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense many items of evidence favorable to Kyles.
Among other things that stated withheld eyewitness statements taken by the police soon after the shooting which revealed that the eyewitnesses differed significantly in their descriptions of the gunman.
The state, it also withheld a number of statements made to the police by the informant.
The statements contained significant inconsistencies and inculpatory remarks and could have been use to support Kyles’s argument that the informant was actually the murderer and had both the opportunity and the motive to plant the gun and the other evidence in Kyles's house.
After exhausting state avenues to relieve Kyles, review federal habeas.
He claimed that his conviction had been obtained in violation of this Court’s decision in Brady and Maryland, which held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the accused violates to process where the evidence is material to guilt or punishment.
The District Court denied relief in the divided panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
In an opinion filed with the clerk of court today we reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and hold that Kyles is entitled to a new trial.
Considering the cumulative effect of all this suppressed evidence there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed the results of the Kyles’s trial would have been different.
The State cannot avoid this result by arguing that the police failed to bring the favorable evidence to the prosecutor’s attention.
The suppressed evidence would have supported a powerful cross-examination of the State’s two best eyewitnesses.
It would have bolstered the defense argument that the informant was a real murderer and would have cast out on the thoroughness and reliability of the police investigation.
Justice Stevens has filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg and Breyer joined and Justice Scalia has filed a dissenting opinion in which the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy and Thomas joined.
