Miller v. United States, 07–CF–1169.

Decision Date03 March 2011
Docket NumberNo. 07–CF–1169.,07–CF–1169.
PartiesTyree Beysean MILLER, Appellant,v.UNITED STATES, Appellee.
CourtD.C. Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Corinne Beckwith, Public Defender Service, with whom James Klein, Public Defender Service, was on the brief, for appellant.Elizabeth H. Danello, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Channing D. Phillips, Acting United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Roy W. McLeese, III, John P. Mannarino, and Samuel R. Ramer, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee.Before RUIZ and FISHER, Associate Judges, and SCHWELB, Senior Judge.SCHWELB, Senior Judge:

Tyree B. Miller was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to commit murder while armed and of eight related offenses. Miller was seventeen years old when he allegedly committed the crimes. The case arises from the shooting and wounding of Robert Jenkins, then aged eighteen or nineteen, on March 1, 2006.

On appeal, Miller's principal contention is that for a period of approximately one year before his trial, and notwithstanding repeated requests by his attorneys, the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense, until the evening before opening statements, critical exculpatory information, namely, that according to the grand jury testimony of Timothy Taylor, the prosecution's principal eyewitness, the gunman shot Jenkins while holding the pistol in his left hand. Specifically, Miller claims that if that information had been provided in timely fashion, it would have enabled his attorneys to focus their preparation and presentation of his defense on persuasive evidence showing that Miller, who is right-handed, could not have been the shooter. Miller further contends that Ryan Lindsey, a prosecution witness who was a passenger in the pick-up truck that was used in connection with the crime, who was also a potential suspect in the shooting, and who provided contradictory versions under oath as to what occurred, is left-handed. According to Miller, the government's belated disclosure of the gunman's apparent left-handedness came too late for defense counsel to recognize the significance of a video showing Lindsey signing a document with his left hand, and to use that evidence effectively. Miller claims that these failures by the prosecution to make timely disclosure were in contravention of the government's responsibilities under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, and deprived Miller of his right to a fair trial.

The trial judge held, inter alia, that late disclosures “are far better than no disclosures” and that in this case, the exculpatory material was provided to the defense in ample time to permit counsel to use the material effectively. In connection with Miller's claim regarding the video, the judge concluded that Miller's attorneys had sufficient time to grasp the significance of this evidence, that [h]ere, the fault is completely with the defense,” and that [y]ou can't blame the government for this one.” Id. Urging this court to affirm Miller's conviction, the government asserts, inter alia, that disclosure was not required at all under Brady, and that even if disclosure was required, our precedents compel us to hold that the evidence was made available to the defense in a timely manner, that Miller has failed to show suppression of Brady material or legally cognizable prejudice, and that the trial judge therefore did not err or abuse his discretion in ruling as he did.

We disagree with the legal conclusions which the judge drew from essentially undisputed facts, and we hold that the government effectively suppressed material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady, thereby undermining the fairness of Miller's trial. Accordingly, we reverse Miller's convictions and remand the case for a new trial.

I.THE TRIAL

The proceedings against Miller began inauspiciously for the prosecution, 1 but they ended in disaster for the defense when Miller was found guilty of all charges. Miller was sentenced to serve concurrent terms of imprisonment totaling 150 months, to be followed by five years of supervised release.

A. The Shooting and the Apprehension of Brandon and Lindsey

The prosecution's case began with the testimony of two eyewitnesses to the shooting, Timothy Taylor and Lynn Rollerson, who were respectively nineteen and eighteen years of age at the time of the offense. Rollerson resided in the building on Bass Place, S.E., in which the shooting occurred. Taylor had previously lived nearby.

On March 1, 2006, at about 4:30 p.m., Taylor and Rollerson were socializing with friends and tossing a football around near Rollerson's home when a black pick-up truck passed by. There were three young black men inside the vehicle, and a silver tool box was attached to it. Shortly thereafter, the driver made a U-turn and headed towards a school at the end of the street.

Taylor testified that he then saw a man wearing a face mask and a black “hoodie” come through a row of parked cars and walk past Taylor towards Jenkins, who was standing on the porch. The man asked Jenkins “why you keep looking at me?” The masked stranger grabbed a pistol from behind his back, and he fired several shots at Jenkins, severely wounding him. The gunman's mask concealed his face, and neither Rollerson nor Taylor was able to identify Miller as the shooter.2

On direct examination, Taylor testified that the assailant shot Jenkins with his right hand. On cross-examination, however, Taylor admitted that approximately a year earlier, in July 2006, he had twice told the grand jury, under oath, that the gunman had used his left hand.3 Taylor also acknowledged that recently, and after the date of his grand jury testimony, he had entered a guilty plea to attempted possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute it. Taylor testified that he had not yet been sentenced for this offense, but he asserted that no promises had been made to him, in connection with his testimony at Miller's trial, as to what his punishment for the drug offense would be or what sentence the government would request.

After the shooter left the scene, Taylor and Rollerson observed that Jenkins was seriously injured.4 One of the young men called 911, and they provided the police with a description of the pick-up. The officers broadcast a lookout for the vehicle, and shortly thereafter Officer Lavern Miller of the Metropolitan Police Department observed a truck matching the description being driven out of the Bennco Shopping Center, which is located several blocks from the crime scene. Officer Miller activated his lights and siren. The driver of the vehicle initially attempted to avoid apprehension by weaving in and out of traffic, but he eventually pulled over. The occupants of the pick-up turned out to be Alvin Brandon, who was driving, and Ryan Lindsey, who was Brandon's passenger. Officer Miller detected a strong smell of gunpowder in the vehicle. Brandon was arrested for reckless driving, but Lindsey was released.

In July 2006, Brandon and Lindsey appeared before the grand jury, and both men implicated Miller in the crime. Each man also subsequently testified at Miller's trial. Because neither Taylor nor Rollerson was able to identify the man behind the mask, the government's proof of the identity of the shooter turned largely on the credibility of Brandon and Lindsey.

B. Brandon's Testimony

At the trial, Brandon was the only witness who identified Miller as the guilty party. Brandon testified that in the late afternoon of March 1, 2006, he was driving his mother's black pick-up truck. At Bennco Shopping Center, Brandon encountered his friend Lindsey. Lindsey asked Brandon to give a ride up the street to Lindsey and to one of his (Lindsey's) friends, who turned out to be Miller. Brandon agreed to Lindsey's request. At trial, after some hesitation—Brandon initially “guess[ed] that Miller was the man who needed a ride—he testified that it was “the defendant who rode in his truck on the day in question. He stated that Miller was wearing a black hoodie and jeans.

According to Brandon, Lindsey directed him to make several turns, and the men eventually arrived at Bass Place. Either Miller or Lindsey asked Brandon to make a U-turn, and after Brandon had done so, Miller got out of the vehicle. Brandon turned around again and, at Lindsey's request, he waited for Miller to return to the truck. Brandon testified that he saw Miller go into an apartment complex, and he then heard a number of gunshots. Apprehending that if he stayed around, he might be linked to a shooting, Brandon tried to drive away, but the “kill switch” in his truck cut off the engine, and Lindsey had to reach down and push a button to restart the vehicle. Brandon testified that he then saw Miller, who had a pistol in his hand, running back towards the pick-up. Brandon claimed that, at this point, he did not allow Miller to get back into the vehicle [b]ecause I didn't want to have nothing to do with him after ... what just happened.” Miller ran off toward a nearby school.

Brandon testified that Lindsey then begged him to allow “my man” (meaning Miller) back into the pick-up. Concerned that Miller would be displeased if Brandon left him in the lurch, and that Miller would confront him the next time the two met, Brandon acceded to Lindsey's importuning. Once Miller was inside the truck again, Lindsey asked him what happened. Miller replied that he had tried to “light his ass up,” a remark which Brandon understood to mean that Miller had tried to kill the man he had been looking for. Miller also indicated that he had concealed the weapon at the school, and he warned Brandon and Lindsey that the event “stays between us three.” After a drive of no more than two minutes, Brandon dropped Miller off, and he then drove back to the Bennco Shopping Center with Lindsey still...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Biles v. United States, s. 11–CM–612
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • October 23, 2014
    ...10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), “to use the favorable material effectively in the preparation and presentation of [his] case,” Miller v. United States, 14 A.3d 1094, 1107 (D.C.2011) (quoting Edelen v. United States, 627 A.2d 968, 970 (D.C.1993) ). This late disclosure, he says, “continued to prejudi......
  • Turner v. United States
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • June 11, 2015
    ...we conclude not). It had no bearing on whether any one individual defendant was part of a large group attack.This case is not like Kyles or Miller, the two cases on which appellants principally rely. In those cases, there was no dispute as to how the crime occurred, only a dispute as to the......
  • In re Taylor
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • August 1, 2013
    ...of any argument in its briefs to the contrary. Nevertheless, we choose to address it. See supra note 10. 17.Cf. Miller v. United States, 14 A.3d 1094, 1107 (D.C.2011) (withholding Brady information “ ‘casts the prosecutor in the role of an architect of a proceeding that does not comport wit......
  • Sheffield v. United States
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 2015
    ...law, and we therefore review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Miller v. United States, 14 A.3d 1094, 1120 (D.C.2011) (quoting United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36, 39 (3d Cir.1993) ). As to the first asserted Brady violation regarding L.B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Innocence Checklist
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...a picture of the defendant to several eyewitnesses to buttress their in-court identif‌ications). 306. See e.g., Miller v. United States, 14 A.3d 1094, 1109 (D.C. 2011). 307. See e.g., Boyd v. United States, 908 A.2d 39, 61–62 (D.C. 2006) (remanding case to trial court after reversing Boyd’s......
  • Federal Criminal Discovery Reform: a Legislative Approach
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 64-3, March 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir. 1993) (stating defendant was "not materially prejudiced"), with Miller v. United States, 14 A.3d 1094, 1112 (D.C. App. 2011) (deciding defense was prejudiced by prosecution's failure to disclose until the night before opening statements that eyew......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT