The Law School Authority

Kyles v. Whitley Case Brief

Summary of Kyles v. Whitley

Citation: 514 U.S. 419

Relevant Facts: An elderly woman had been doing grocery shopping when she was shot in the head.  The gunman stole her car keys and drove away.  James Joseph was a police informant who claimed to have purchased the car from the suspect (Curtis Kyles) on the day of the murder.  Being concerned that he could be implicated in the crime, once Joseph (Beanie) believed the vehicle was stolen (part of the crime), he called the police to inform them.  Upon initially communicating with the police, his name had undergone several iterations.  Additionally, the initial story that he gave police changed when he met with the police at the station house.  He ultimately provided incriminating evidence against the subject, which was used to convict him of first degree murder.  Kyles appealed his conviction on the grounds that the state withheld evidence that could have helped him.  The state supreme court State Supreme Court had merit.  After a thorough review, the trial court did not provide Kyles with relief.  The State Supreme Court then summarily denied Kyles’ petition for a discretionary review.  The district court then denied Kyles’ writ for habeas corpus, but was denied.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.  The State Supreme Court then granted certiorari and ordered a new trial, finding that the overall effect of withholding evidence that could have aided Kyles was damaging.  In theory, Kyles could have been exonerated with said evidence.  Upon a search of Kyles’ home for the new trial, new evidence was fond, that the defense tried to argue had been provided by Joseph as evidence planting.  Ultimately, Kyles was convicted of murder again. Kyles eventually petitioned the Supreme Court to take on the matter on the grounds that Joseph later was found  to have inconsistent stories, which could have been used to exonerate Kyles by providing reasonable doubt, and unethically, the prosecution failed to provide such evidence. 

 Issues: The legal question presented was whether the prosecutor’s office violated Kyles’ constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment by not providing material evidence (exculpatory evidence) that could have exonerated him?

Holding: The Supreme Court held that Kyles’ rights had been violated, and that he should receive a new trial.

Reasoning: The Court reasoned that in the case Brady v. Maryland, prosecutorial suppression of evidence that is favorable to a defendant once said defendant requests such evidence violates the constitutional right to due process.  In the interest of justice, favorable information to a defendant, particularly that which sheds a considerable degree of reasonable doubt on a defendant’s guilt must be turned over by the prosecution.  The Court also highlighted the rationale of United States v. Bagley in its decision, indicating that the requirement of turning over favorable evidence is especially critical and important when there is a chance (likely) that the defense’s presentation of said evidence would result in a different (favorable) outcome for the defendant if they had been given said evidence.  If a different outcome could have foreseeably existed, then the defendant would have been denied their Fifth Amendment due process rights because he or she would have been denied a fair trial.  The Court mentioned the following in the majority opinion:  “A defendant need not demonstrate that after discounting the inculpatory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, there would not have been enough left to convict.”  Since a reasonable juror could have found reasonable doubt of Kyles’ guilt if presented with the withheld evidence, the Court found that a new trial must be held to remedy the constitutional violation(s).

Concurrence/Dissent: Justice Scalia provided a dissent on the grounds that it was practically unprecedented for the Court to have reversed on account of the fact that Kyles were merely arguing an interpretation of the facts (in Scalia’s viewpoint) and not on actual law.


Copyright © 2001-2012 All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner