Banks v. Dretke

Banks v. Dretke

Opinion

 [**1263]  Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.

 [*674]  LEdHN[1A][] [1A] LEdHN[2A][] [2A] Petitioner Delma Banks, Jr., was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Prior to trial, the State advised  [*675]  Banks's attorney there would be no need to litigate discovery issues, representing: "[W]e will, without the necessity of motions[,] provide you with all discovery to which you are entitled." App. 361, n 1; App. to Pet. for Cert. A4 (both sources' internal quotation marks omitted). Despite that undertaking, the State withheld evidence  [***1180]  that would have allowed Banks to discredit two essential prosecution witnesses. The State did not disclose that one of those witnesses was a paid police informant, nor did it disclose a pretrial transcript revealing that the other witness' trial testimony had been intensively coached by prosecutors and law enforcement officers.

Furthermore, the prosecution raised no red flag when the informant testified, untruthfully, that he never gave the police any statement and, indeed, had not talked to any police officer about the case until a few days before the trial. Instead of correcting the informant's false [****18]  statements, the prosecutor told the jury that the witness "ha[d] been open and honest with you in every way," App. 140, and that his testimony was of the "utmost significance," id., at 146. Similarly, the prosecution allowed the other key witness to convey, untruthfully, that his testimony was entirely unrehearsed. Through direct appeal and state collateral review proceedings, the State continued to hold secret the key witnesses' links to the police and allowed their false statements to stand uncorrected.

LEdHN[1B][] [1B] LEdHN[2B][] [2B] LEdHN[3A][] [3A] LEdHN[4A][] [4A] Ultimately, through discovery and an evidentiary hearing authorized in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, the long-suppressed evidence came to light. The District Court granted Banks relief from the death penalty, but the Court of Appeals reversed. In the latter court's judgment, Banks had documented his claims of prosecutorial misconduct too late and in the wrong forum; therefore he did not qualify for federal-court relief. We reverse that judgment. HN1[] When police or prosecutors conceal significant exculpatory or impeaching  [*676]  material in the State's possession, it is ordinarily incumbent on the State to set the record straight.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.