United States Sixth Circuit

In a death penalty case, district court's new trial order granting defendant's petition for habeas relief based on a finding that the state violated Brady is affirmed where: 1) a withheld pretrial report was exculpatory and should have been disclosed at trial; 2) it was material because, if true, it would likely change the outcome of the trial; and 3) the ultimate determination concerning the truth of the withheld report is for the state courts to resolve. District court's denial of the Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend is affirmed and the remaining issues raised in petitioner's cross-appeal are pretermitted.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/29/2009
• Published 09/29/2009

Judges

• Before:  MERRITT, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Stephen E. Maher, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.  Richard Marvin Kerger, Kerger & Hartman, LLC, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Charles L. Wille, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.  Richard Marvin Kerger, Kerger & Hartman, LLC, Toledo, Ohio, Lori A. McGinnis, Loudonville, Ohio, for Appellee.