State v. Williams

• Citation: 896 A.2d 973,392 Md. 194
• Decision Date: 14 April 2006
• Docket Number: No. 97 September Term, 2003.,97 September Term, 2003.
• Parties: STATE of Maryland v. Tony WILLIAMS.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 973

896 A.2d 973

392 Md. 194

STATE of Maryland v. Tony WILLIAMS.

No. 97 September Term, 2003.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 14, 2006.

Annabelle L. Lisic, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore), on brief, for Petitioner.

Robert W. Biddle (Nathans & Biddle, L.L.P., Baltimore), on brief; Fred Warren Bennett (Bennett & Lawlor, L.L.P., Greenbelt), on brief, for Respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, GREENE and JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.

BELL, Chief Judge.

In this case, we are asked whether Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its application pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-263(g),¹ extend not only to exculpatory or mitigating information pertaining to State's witnesses known by the Assistant State's Attorney prosecuting a specific criminal case and the related officers participating in that prosecution, but also to such information known to the other Assistant State's Attorneys in the same office. We shall hold that Rule 4-263(g) requires that result. Furthermore, as did the Court of Special Appeals, Williams v. State, 152 Md.App. 200, 831 A.2d 501 (2003), we believe that, under the circumstances of this case, Brady does indeed extend beyond the individual prosecutor, encompassing exculpatory or mitigating information known to any prosecutor in the office.

The United States Supreme Court, in Brady, held that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution imposes upon the State a duty and obligation to disclose "evidence favorable to an accused upon request ... where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1197, 10 L.Ed.2d at 218. See also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40, 57 (1987). The evidence to which the Court referred was both exculpatory evidence and impeachment evidence. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104, 109 (1972). See also United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3380, 87 L.Ed.2d 481, 490 (1985). The duty to disclose such evidence also applies whether or not there has been a request for such evidence by the accused. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 49 L.Ed.2d 342, 351 (1976).

The State in the case sub judice essentially presents three arguments, each of which, it maintains, requires reversal of the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. First, it claims that the net cast by Brady does not, in fact, reach evidence beyond the personal knowledge of the individual prosecutor in a case, without regard to the ease with which the prosecutor may have been able, with due diligence, to obtain such evidence from other sources. Second, it claims that, even if Brady applies to such evidence, the State's failure to disclose it is excused, or negated, by the defendant's ongoing discovery duty. Third, the State argues that the evidence that was not disclosed in this case was not material, and, therefore, was unlikely to have affected the decision rendered at the trial level; that, in other words, it was "harmless error." With all these points, we disagree.

A.

Having mandated in Brady, that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution," 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1197, 10 L.Ed.2d. at 218, the Supreme Court has outlined the three elements of a Brady violation. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-282, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1948, 144 L.Ed.2d 286, 302 (1999). The Court has explained: "The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued." 527 U.S. at 281-282, 119 S.Ct. at 1948, 144 L.Ed.2d at 302. With this in mind, we turn to the facts of this case.

The respondent, Tony Williams, was charged with, and convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of, the murder of Dana Rochelle Drake, who was fatally shot outside her apartment in northeast Baltimore, and related offenses. Central to the State's case against the respondent was the testimony of Sean Williams ("S. Williams"), a jailhouse snitch. S. Williams, who had occupied a cell adjacent to the one occupied by the respondent when the respondent was being held on the murder charge at the Baltimore City jail, testified that the respondent admitted committing the murder. According to S. Williams, at that time, the respondent also admitted purchasing the murder weapon. The motive for the crime was, he said, the respondent's desire to collect the proceeds of the life insurance policy he had taken out on Ms. Drake's life. S. Williams testified that he reported this information to homicide detectives, including an Officer Massey, who recorded his statement. He stated that he was promised nothing in exchange for the information and, furthermore, had not asked for anything. Thus, S. Williams maintained that he was getting "nothing" "out of this thing," and that no one in the State's Attorney's Office promised him anything or initiated contact with him about the case. In short, according to S. Williams, his testimony was being given "out of the goodness of his heart" and because he did not like guns and violence. The respondent's convictions were reversed by the Court of Special Appeals. Williams v. State, 152 Md.App. 200, 831 A.2d 501 (2003).

Although unknown to the prosecuting attorney, S. Williams was, and had been, for at least 10 years, a paid and registered police informant for the Baltimore City Police Department, Eastern District Drug Unit, with his own confidential informant number.² Moreover, he had cooperated with the State's Attorney's Office in a number of cases, involving narcotics, weapons and homicide, leading to numerous arrests. That S. Williams was a confidential informant, with an identification number, and was cooperative in narcotics cases, was known to at least one member of the Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office and also, perhaps more extensively, to members of the Baltimore City Police Department.

When the respondent was arrested and charged with the Drake murder,³ S. Williams had been charged with theft of both a battery and a police cruiser from the Eastern District Police District. Those charges were disposed of in consideration of S. Williams's cooperation in drug arrests. His handler, the officer who registered him, so testified. That testimony was confirmed by S. Williams's attorney in the theft case and by the prosecutor in that case. In fact, the prosecutor testified that it was because of S. Williams's cooperation in narcotics cases that he "stetted" the cruiser theft charge. For the battery theft charge, he was sentenced to "time served."

The case folder in the S. Williams's theft case contained other corroborative evidence. A notice of postponement indicated that the "defense wishes to cooperate [with the Baltimore City Police Department] and others on pending cases." In addition, the stet noted that it was entered because the "State declines to prosecute."

Although the prosecuting attorney in the respondent's case and homicide detective Massey testified that they did not know of S. Williams's informant status and denied "giving him anything" for his testimony — Massey even indicated that S. Williams never asked for anything in exchange for the information he provided — the case file in an earlier case involving S. Williams suggested that S. Williams had a different mind-set, that he wanted, and had actively sought, consideration for his cooperation. S. Williams had earlier been sentenced to twenty-one months and five days for possession of cocaine. There were nine letters in the file, each written by S. Williams to the sentencing judge in that case, informing the sentencing judge that he was an informant for the Baltimore City Police Department and touting his cooperation with his handler, and "the prosecutor." In those letters, S. Williams asked for leniency in exchange for his cooperation. In four of the letters, his cooperation with homicide officers was emphasized. In the letter postmarked August 12, 1998, mentioning Officer Massey, he told the judge, "I have been very helpful to officers in Homicide since my arrest, I have told them very important things in cases that are to be tryed [sic] soon." In two subsequent letters, he referenced the respondent's case, a murder case "which involved a man who killed his fiancee, to obtain a very lump some [sic] of a life insurance," advising the sentencing judge in one of the letters that he was the "key witness" and informing him in the other that he had just testified. In both letters he mentioned again Officer Massey.

The sentencing judge responded to S. Williams on two occasions, sending copies to "the State's Attorney's Office," rather than to a particular assistant. In one of the responses, the judge told S. Williams to have his attorney contact the detective who registered him "and [to] have [his] attorney or the Detective contact this office to inform the Judge of any help you are giving him."

Having learned of the preceding facts, the respondent filed a post conviction petition, based on newly discovered evidence. The newly discovered evidence was, he alleged, that the State had failed to disclose impeachment information regarding S. Williams, its primary and star witness, including that he was, and had a record of being, a paid informant. The respondent argued that without this information, his cross-examination of the "jailhouse snitch" at trial was severely and prejudicially weakened.

As indicated,...