Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Kuantau Reeder, Petitioner v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden

NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

KUANTAU REEDER, Petitioner

Versus

DARREL VANNOY,

WARDEN OF THE LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY

Respondent

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE LOUISIANA FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Sheila C. Myers, Louisiana Bar No. 09871

Tulane Law School Criminal Justice Clinic

6329 Freret Street

New Orleans, LA 70118

Phone: (504) 865-5153

Alt. Phone: (504) 554-7498

Fax: (504) 862-8753

smyers@tulane.edu

Attorneys for Petitioner Kuantau Reeder

‘a

CRIMINAL CASE

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Over fifty years ago, in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1965) and

then in Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), this Court declared that

prosecutors must disclose all impeachment evidence concerning a prosecution

witness to the defense. The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office has never

contested that it failed to inform Kuantau Reeder’s trial counsel that its star

witness, whose credibility was critical to convicting Mr. Reeder of second degree

murder, had a federal conviction for lying. The following question is presented:

In a murder prosecution in which the Orleans Parish

District Attorney’s Office presented no scientific evidence, no

video evidence, no motive evidence, no incriminating statements and no physical evidence linked to the defendant, did the

Louisiana Fourth Circuit of Appeal fail to correctly apply

clearly established federal law as announced by this Court when

it held that the prosecutors’ failure to disclose the federal for

lying of its only eyewitness did not undermine confidence in

the jury’s verdict?

Petitioner Kuantau Reeder respectfully requests that this Court issue a

writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of

Appeal which the Untied States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reverse.

is

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURTS BELOW

Kuantau Reeder, Petitioner

Darrel Vannoy, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW............2:.ccececceceeeeeeeeeeeeteeeesenen ii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURTS BELOW.................. iil

TABLE OF CONTENTS............ ccc cscs ec ecec eee ee cece estes enecssseeeeeene see eeeeesaseees iv

INDEX OF APPENDICES. ............. cc cceccceee ene ceeceeeeeneeeeeaeeeseeeseeseatessees vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.........cccccccecceese eee eee sen eee ee ene eee ee erence ea ee certs vii

OPINIONS DELIVERED IN THE COURTS BELOW............cce cece cece eeeeees 2

STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH JURISDICTION IS

INVOKED...0.....c cece cece ee ce eee eee een tennant eens eee eneenneene esse een eeneneeensnteeneness 2

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED......... 0... ccc eee eceeee reese enone 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE............. cece cc ecece ne eee cence eee eee ene eee en enone enn enens 3

T. Introduction... 0.0 ccc cece ee eee ene neers nee ne eee eeeeeeaee eee eeseeeaeenaeens 3

II. State Procedural History... ...... 0... ...c cece cece eee ee cen neeeneeeeeneeeeeneees 5

III. Federal Procedural History.................cccccceececstceeeeeseeeneeuseneueenes 8

IV. Statement of Relevant Case Facts.................ceeeee eee ee ence cee eee ee caees 10

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.......... 0... cce cc eeee ene ee eee enenens 13

I. Summary of Argument..............ccecsecee cee eee eee c ene eneeeee ceeneeeaeeesees 13

TL. Argument...... 0... ccc ccc c cscs cence nese ee ne arenes eee ceeee seen eeeeeeneeeee sen eeeees 14

A. The first two requirements for reversal of Mr. Reeder’s state conviction

for second degree murder based on a Brady/Giglo violation are not in

C0) 0) 0 — 14

1. The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office has never contested

that it failed to disclose that its star witness Earl Price had a

federal conviction for lying to Mr. Reeder’s counsel prior to his

murder trial as mandated by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83

(1965) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). ........ 14

2. The non-disclosed conviction for lying goes directly to the issue

of Earl Price’s truthfulness and therefore constitutes impeachment evidence that is favorable to Mr. Reeder under Brady and

ItS PLOBENY. 0... ceeeee cece ese neeeseeeeee eee neeneeensseseeseeneneeraes 15

B. Earl Price’s non—disclosed conviction for lying satisfies the “materiality”

requirement of Brady as clearly established by this Court in Giglio v.

United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). ...... cc ececcec eee eceeeeeeeeeeenseeses 17

1. As a matter of law, a conviction for lying is unique and is not

cumulative to other convictions not related to truth-telling. ...... 20

2. The fact that Earl Price may have been partially impeached

through the use of his testimony at Mr. Reeder’s first trial

does not render his conviction for lying cumulative. .............. 25

3. Earl Price’s testimony at Mr. Reeder’s second trial was not so

corroborated as to render the non-disclosure of his conviction

for lying legally immaterial. ............... 2 cece ce eeeecee eee ee eee eeees 26

INDEX OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A The October 20, 2020 decision of the United States Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals denying Mr. Reeder’s petition for habeas

corpus.

APPENDIX B_ Opinion of the Federal District Court Judge for the Eastern

District of Louisiana.

APPENDIX C _ Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Louisiana.

APPENDIX D _ The May 11, 2012 decision of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit

Court of Appeal denying Mr. Reeder’s application for post

conviction relief.

APPENDIX E Denial of certiorari without reasons by the Louisiana Supreme

Court.

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)... cccccccsccescceceveeesenseeussonseens 29, 30

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1965).....ssscsesseeees ii, 4, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21

California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1930)....cceesessesscessesestesesserseessesesssestesesreesseee 27

Crivens v. Roth, 172 F.3d 991 (7th Cir. 1999)... eessecsscestecseresesssseeseeesseeeseeees 16

Davis v. Heyd, 479 F. 2d 446 (5™ Cir, 1973)\.sccsscssssssessessesssessssessessessvsesssessssecseeascnes 4

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)... eeeeeeeees il, 4, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 21

Jenkins v. Hall, 910 F.3d 828 (Sth Cir. 2018), cert denied

US, (2019) eee ecsecsnseseescnseseseteaeeeesessesnecerseeenessessaecessaeesessesaseeneeasennegs 18

Jones v. Cain, 151 So.3d 781 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014)... cc eeece cere c ence nee ens 5

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)... cscssessessesescsssserssessetsssesssreseeseseseeees 4,19

LaCaz v. Warder of the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women,

645 F.3d 735 (Sth Cir, 2011)... eee ceeeseececneeeneeeeceseeeneseseneeeeeneneengs 30

Laurence v. Lensing, 42 F.3d 252 (Sth Cir.1994). 0.0... cece eeeee eee eeeeaenes 14

Lockyar v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003)..........cc ccc ccenceteeens eee eusenaeennenteseeees 18

Mahler v. Kaylo, 537 F.3d 494 (Sth Cir. 2008).............cccscceeseeececeseerecesseess 19

Monroe v. Blackburn, 607 F. 2d 148 (Sth Cir. 1979)........ ccc. ccc ce ece cece neces eaeeaes 4

Monroe v. Butler, 485 U.S 1024 (1988).........ccccceecec cee cecsscareceeetsetessvsvsveees 4

Monroe v. Blackburn, 476 U.S. 1145 (1986)......... cc ccc cece neces cece reece eeeatececeees 4

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)... ee ceseccssscesseeessccesnecceesseceessecesnseeessenees 9,16

vii

Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (2012) secccsssssescssssscscsssecsesssecessscense 4, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26

State v. Bright, 875 So0.2d 638 (La. 2004) uu... ceeesssssessesescssscsscscssessecssussesseseescenes 4

State v. Carney, 334 So.2d 415, (La. 1976)..........ccccesceceeeteceecescuceeeecuvensesass 4

State v. Cousin, 710 S0.2d 1065 (1998)..........cccceccesceececceneeceeeeeeesecvunecsesees 4

State v. Curtis, 384 So.2d 396 (La. 1980)...........ccccceeeec cee ececesueesucceeeuuuuseess 4

State v. Dawson, 490 So.2d 560, 563 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1986)............cce cece econ 4

State v. Dozier, 553 So.2d 931 (La. Ct. App. 1989)....... ccc ccecec cee ens ene eneeeeenseees 4

State v. Evans, 463 S0.2d 673 (La. 1985)..........ccce cece ee eceneeseecnuuceeessesseeeeses 4

State v. Falkins, 356 So.2d 415 (La. 1978).......ccsscccceesceceessteesceseveeetevauensens 4

State v. Felton, 522 So.2d 626, (La. App. 4th Cir. 1988).........ccscscscececseeeeaseenes 4

State v. Johnson, 229 So.3d 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2018)... .....cccccccccscessceeeevseeueues 5

State v. Knapper, 579 $0.2d 956 (La. 1991)... ...cccccccccscceceeseessessceesenesesnevenss 4

State v. Lee, 778 So.2d 656 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001)........... ccc ccc eece eee eeeeseresseens 4

State v. Lindsey, 844 So.2d 961 (La. App 4 Cir. 2003)...........cccccceseeeee ene eesusees 4

State v. Marshall, 660 So.2d 819 (La. App 4 Cir. 1995)...... cece ce cceeeee ene ee ees 4

State v. Mims, 637 So.2d 1253 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1994)... 0... cece ccc cec cece reusnaens 4

State v. Olivier, 482 So.2d 301 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1996)..........ccceccecsecevecnesenens 4

State v. Parker, 361 So.2d 226 (La. 1978).........ccccccceesceeeseteeeseeeecetenesseeensss 4

State v. Perkins, 423 So. 2d 1103 (La. 1982)......... cece cece ee ccc cee nseeeeeeteeeceveees 4

State v. Peters, 406 So. 2d 189 (La. 1981)... .... ccc cececcene ee ceeeeenteeseeeneteaeenes 4

viii

State v. Reeder, 608 So.2d 56 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1997)......... 0... cccccce eee ceesee ones 6

State v. Reeder 882 So.2d 602 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004)... ... ccc cccsccccccscuscncveecacess 7

State v. Reeder, 61 So.3d 686 (La. App. 4 Cir. 201 D) oo. ccc ceccc ccc ccc cee cee ane cocccee es 7

State v. Reeder, 107 So.3d 623 (LQ 2013)... coc cec ccc cec ccc ces ces ves tes testes cen tse een cee ses eee

State v. Rosiere, 488 So.2d 965 (La. 1986)...........cccseseceuceveceveceucesceeasceseeaes 4

State v. Thompson, 825 So.2d 552 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002)............cecceccun eee eesenes 4

State v. Walter, 514 So.2d 620 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1987)............ccccecesc cee cee enous 4

State v. Wells, 191 So.3d 1127 (La. App 4 Cir. 2016) 2.0.0... ccc ccc cceceeceeeeecenee 5

State v. Willie, 559 So.2d 131 (La. 1990) ou... .ceesessssscsesscesssssseccsecssnesteceveacessnsens 27

Strickler V. Greene. ....cccceecceesncnevenensaeeeasnseccsseseseesenesesenaeeucesusensesegenens 19

United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976 oc ccc ccc cen vss cus cents sor see cesses se seestetsereeed D

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).....cssssescssssscssssssssessesssscesssasencees 18, 24

United States v. Kohring, 637 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010) .......cccscssssssssssserssesccenees 25

Wearry v. Cain, U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1002 (2016) .......ccccececvee 8, 21, 22, 23, 24

Federal Constitution and Statutes

Amendment VI, United States Constitution..........0.......cccsscccssssesscesssssceseeseeceveees 3, 27

Amendment XIV, United States Constitution............cccccscssssssssccssssccccessceesssecseseceeses 3

28 U.S.C. A. 2254... ec ce cece cence cee ee ences eeseeenseseessetenteeesesuneveeeuensess 3,17

Fed Rule of Evid. art. 609(a)(2). ........cccccsscsssssssssesssscssscsssscsccsseceseseesescssscessceesevsnees 16

Louisiana Constitution and Code Provisions

Article I, Section 16, Louisiana Comstitution.............ccccccssssccccsssscecssseteeesessecsceeees 27

La. Code of Evid. 609.1 B......cccccccccccce ccc eeeteceecenscccnnsuceeteunsceseeescaseceueecs 15

L.C.Cr.P. art. 782... .... 0. ccc cc cece cccsveceseceessevsenusasssecucusecssesensceseeeceseesueeeues 6

Other Authorities

ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function and Defense

Function, 3-3.11 (3d ed. 1993)... ceccccccee cence nee e eee e neon eeeneeeeneeeerenee en ens 4

Filosa, Gwen, N.O. man cleared in ’84 murder; New trial in Liuzza killing

brings an emotional end to epic case, TIMES-PICAYUNE, MAY 9, 2003,

AL AML cece cece ene ee ene nee tect eee ner H EEE EEE EAE EEE OEE OED EEO DOE SEES EE EEE ESSE EEE: 4

Perlstein, Michael, Jordan drops charges in 1975 murder; Two men freed

on eve of retrial, TIMES-PICAYUNE, June 24, 2003, at B-1...... cece cece eens 4

U.S. Code and Admin. News (1974).......cccsccsssesecesetenenesettsetcsseeesaeseneerss 16

Woolf, Virginia, The Moment and Other Essays, (1948)..............ccecceeeceuseces 17

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935). ..ccccccsecccvscccesevevevaeenscsseneess 29, 30

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1965).....ccssseerees li, 4, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21

California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1930)... csccccsscesseecsssceesessssesessesersesetessereens 27

Crivens v. Roth, 172 F.3d 991 (7th Cir. 1999)... sssssccscsessssssssecsessssesertenesssenees 16

Davis v. Heyd, 479 F. 2d 446 (5™ Cir, 1973)\ccsccsssssssssscsssssssssesssssesssecsesecsscsasenscneeens 4

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)... ccesseeeteee ii, 4, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 21

Jenkins v. Hall, 910 F.3d 828 (Sth Cir. 2018), cert denied

US, (2019) ee cesscsstcessessesesessecsesessesssessorssecsseseeseusaessssnessesnsensessesnees 18

Jones v. Cain, 151 So.3d 781 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014)... ccc ecece cess eee eeenen encase 5

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)... csccsessesessessesssscssrscesseessesseseseseeseeeaes 4,19

LaCaz v. Warder of the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women,

645 F.3d 735 (Sth Cir. 2011)... ec ececeeeeseeeeneveneeeseseueeseneneesenenennens 30

Laurence v. Lensing, 42 F.3d 252 (Sth Cir.1994). 00... cece ccec ccc cnseeeeeenceeeees 14

Lockyar v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003).........cccceccceceueecececuseeesesesecueesserecs 18

Mahler v. Kaylo, 537 F.3d 494 (Sth Cir. 2008)...............cccceceeeceveveceeeusaceses 19

Monroe v. Blackburn, 607 F. 2d 148 (Sth Cir. 1979)...........cccecececeeceeeeesseuceuss 4

Monroe v. Butler, 485 U.S 1024 (1988)..........cccecceceseeecteccesesevceseeeeeenenaeess 4

Monroe v. Blackburn, 476 U.S. 1145 (1986)..........ccccececceeeceseececeneeeeaeeusuenss 4

Napue v. IIlinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)... secsscssccsssesceceesscssecsecsssecessceesereseeseses 9, 16

vii

Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (2012)... eeesessstecsessesessecseeenees 4,21, 22, 23, 25, 26

State v. Bright, 875 S0.2d 638 (La. 2004)... ccsessssccesessssnsescesseeseessssseseesseesseeens 4

State v. Carney, 334 So0.2d 415, (La. 1976)............ ccc ccc ceccensseeneteeeeeuueeeesesees 4

State v. Cousin, 710 S0.2d 1065 (1998)........cccccce eee eecceseeeneeeeeeenaneveeueuseasses 4

State v. Curtis, 384 S0.2d 396 (La. 1980)......... cece ese ccescetenceeceeeeeeeaseaeensens 4

State v. Dawson, 490 So.2d 560, 563 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1986).............. cece see eees 4

State v. Dozier, 553 So.2d 931 (La. Ct. App. 1989). ...... ccc eceec eee ecee sence eee en ences 4

State v. Evans, 463 S0.2d 673 (La. 1985).....cccccccceccecceeeceeeceeeneeneeseeceeeesestes 4

State v. Falkins, 356 S0.2d 415 (La. 1978)........cceeceececeeceeeteecenceneeeeeeeeenses 4

State v. Felton, 522 So.2d 626, (La. App. 4th Cir. 1988)...........cccccceesee see eeceens 4

State v. Johnson, 229 So.3d 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2018)... ... ce ccecee ence ec enee cee eacaes 5

State v. Knapper, 579 S0.2d 956 (La. 1991)... ....cccccescescesceceeeeeeeeeuseueseeneesses 4

State v. Lee, 778 So.2d 656 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001)...... 0... cece cceceseeeeceeeesen teens 4

State v. Lindsey, 844 So.2d 961 (La. App 4 Cir. 2003)...........ccesceeeeeseessecarsntes 4

State v. Marshall, 660 So.2d 819 (La. App 4 Cir. 1995)... ccc cece eee e nee eeens 4

State v. Mims, 637 So.2d 1253 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1994)............cceccc cece eeeeeneeeues 4

State v. Olivier, 482 So.2d 301 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1996)..........cccecceececeeeseeeeevees 4

State v. Parker, 361 So0.2d 226 (La. 1978).........ccccccceeescece ence tenseteenceeseueeaes 4

State v. Perkins, 423 So. 2d 1103 (La. 1982)... 0.0... ccececceceee sense eeseaeeteceneats 4

State v. Peters, 406 So. 2d 189 (La. 1981)... . cece ccces eee etenneeeeeeenseeneeeees 4

viii

State v. Reeder, 608 So.2d 56 (La. App. 4th Cir, 1997)... 0... ccc cceceeeceeeeeeceeens 6

State v. Reeder 882 So.2d 602 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004)... ...ccccccesccccnceentennenaceees 7

State v. Reeder, 61 So.3d 686 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) occ ceccccsctecccee sen see sesesase ane sae 7

State v. Reeder, 107 So.3d 623 (LG 2013)... cee cec see cee cee cen cen teens tee cesses tee ate see ee

State v. Rosiere, 488 So.2d 965 (La. 1986).............cccccececceeceeseencececeeseusueans 4

State v. Thompson, 825 So.2d 552 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002)...... 0... cece e ec ece scence eens 4

State v. Walter, 514 So.2d 620 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1987).........cc ccc cceceeeee eee eeees 4

State v. Wells, 191 So.3d 1127 (La. App 4 Cir. 2016) 0.0... ceccece cece eee ee een 5

State v. Willie, 559 S0.2d 131 (La. 1990) oo eccsssctsseesessessseessssscescseesessssesseessees 27

Strickler V. Gre@ne. co. ccc ccc cc eee c cence eee ee ne ceneceteneee nena ee see eee eee eeeeeaeeaneatenens 19

United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976 voc ccc ccc ccc cec cee cee cee cen ten tae eae see state sessed d

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)......ccscsscsssesssssssessssessseessssseers 18, 24

United States v. Kohring, 637 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2010) ..........essccssseessesserescesssnees 25

Wearry v. Cain, U.S. _, 136 S.Ct. 1002 (2016)............ 00000 8, 21, 22, 23, 24

Federal! Constitution and Statutes

Amendment VI, United States Constitution.............ccccccssssssssssssccccccecccccceccessevees 3,27

Amendment XIV, United States Constitution.............ccccccssccccsesssseccecccecsscessssnseecesees 3

28 U.S.C. A. 2254... ce cccceneee ee ne ne ee eee neneeeeeea eee eneteteneeseeseetereeceentess 3,17

Fed Rule of Evid. art. 609(a)(2). .......cccsccssssesssseessssceseessncesseseseseasceesersetessneeneescns 16

Louisiana Constitution and Code Provisions

Article I, Section 16, Louisiana Constitution. ..........ccccccccccsscscsssscssssesesscseceeseeeee

La, Code of Evid. 609.1B.............cccccccssccscvceecccceseeeneetaueevasvcenenseeses

L.C.CY.P. art. 782... 0. ccc csccec eee cccecaaeeneseneesseeesesseesaeeessaueuesaseterenensas

Other Authorities

ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function and Defense

Function, 3-3.11 (3d ed. 1993)..........ccccececeseeccceeseveusvevecsesuseaecceeensens

Filosa, Gwen, N.O. man cleared in ’84 murder, New trial in Liuzza killing

brings an emotional end to epic case, TIMES-PICAYUNE, MAY 9, 2003,

AL Ad] ccc cece cece ectccssentenesucecenscscctecesceseeeceeaceeseeeersesunerecesennns

Perlstein, Michael, Jordan drops charges in 1975 murder; Two men freed

on eve of retrial, TIMES-PICAYUNE, June 24, 2003, at B-1...........ccee sees

U.S. Code and Admin. News (1974)..........ccccescccvcceceveseeseneusceesesneeeees

Woolf, Virginia, The Moment and Other Essays, (1948)...........cccceceeceeeses

eenee

aneose

NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

KUANTAU REEDER, Petitioner

Versus

DARREL VANNOY,

WARDEN OF THE LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY

Respondent

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE LOUISIANA FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner Kuantau Reeder respectfully requests that this Court issue a writ

of certiorari to review the judgment of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of

Appeal as affirmed by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and address

the important question of federal law presented.

OPINIONS DELIVERED IN THE COURTS BELOW

The October 20, 2020 decision of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of

Appeals denying Mr. Reeder’s petition for habeas corpus (978 F.3d 272 (2020)) is

set forth in Appendix A. The decision of the District Court for the Eastern District

of Louisiana (2014 WL 12815163)) which the Fifth Circuit affirmed is contained

in Appendix B and the Report and Recommendation of the federal magistrate

judge (2014 WL 12815163) is attached in Appendix C.

The highest state court to render a decision in this matter was the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. Its May 11, 2012 denial of Mr. Reeder’s

application for post-conviction relief (698 So.2d 56 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1997)) is

set forth in Appendix D. The Louisiana Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari

without reasons (107 So.3d 623 (La. 2013)) is contained in Appendix E.

STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE JURISDICTION

OF THE COURT IS INVOKED

Petitioner raised federal constitutional issues in his application for writ of

certiorari to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal which denied his writ

application on May 11, 2012, as set forth in Appendix D. Discretionary review was

denied without reasons by the Louisiana Supreme Court as documented in

Appendix E.

As noted above, after granting a Certificate of Appealability, the United

States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Mr. Reeder’s appeal of the decision of

the District Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief on October 20,

2020. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1) to review Mr. Reeder’s

petition for writ of certiorari.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the

right to ... be confronted with the witnesses against him ...

and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

U.S. Const. amend, VI.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

provides:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or the immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall

any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Introduction

The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office has a long and documented

history of failing to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense

in blatant disregard of this Court’s clear and unequivocal mandates in Brady v.

Maryland and Gigilio v. United States.’ Over the years, numerous cases, including

several defendants’ murder convictions obtained by the Orleans Parish District

Attorney’s Office, have been reversed following revelation that New Orleans

prosecutors withheld exculpatory or impeachment evidence.”

t 373 .S. 83 (1963) and 405 U.S.150 (1972).

? A list of cases in which the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office withheld exculpatory or

impeachment evidence was set forth in footnote 6 of Petitioner’s writ application to this Court in

Smith v. Cain and includes the following: “Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 441 (1995); Monroe

v. Blackburn, 607 F. 2d 148 (5™ Cir. 1979); Davis v. Heyd, 479 F. 2d 446 (5" Cir. 1973); State v.

Bright, No. 2002-2793 (La. 01/30/04); 864 So. 2d 638; State v. Cousin, No. 96-2973 (La.

4/14/98); 710 So. 2d 1065 (in capital murder case, “[t ] he prosecutor did not disclose this

obviously exculpatory statement to the defense prior to the trial”); State v. Lindsey, 02-2363 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03); 844 So. 2d 961; Michael Perlstein, Jordan drops charges in 1975 murder;

Two men freed on eve of retrial, TIMES-PICAYUNE, June 24, 2003, at B-1; State v. Thompson,

02-0361 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/17/02); 825 So. 2d 552; Gwen Filosa, N.O. man cleared in '84

murder, New trial in Liuzza killing brings an emotional end to epic case, TIMES-PICAYUNE,

MAY 9, 2003, at A-1 (after retrial, Thompson acquitted in less than one hour); State v. Lee, 00-

2429 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/4/01); 778 So. 2d 656; State v. Marshall 81-3115 (La. App. 4 Cir.

9/5/95); 660 So. 2d 819; State v, Mims, 94-0333 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1994); 637 So. 2d 1253; State

v. Falkins, 356 So. 2d 415 (La. 1978); State v. Parker, 361 So. 2d 226 (La. 1978); State v. Curtis,

384 So. 2d 396 (La. 1980); State v. Perkins, 423 So. 2d 1103 (La. 1982); State v. Evans, 463 So.

2d 673 (La. 1985); State v. Dozier, 553 So. 2d 931 (La. Ct. App. 1989); State v. Knapper, 579

So. 2d 956 (La. 1991); State v. Oliver, 94-1642, p. 30-34 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1996) (“[a] prosecutor

should not fail to make timely disclosure, at the earliest feasible opportunity, of the existence of

all evidence or information which tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense

charged or which would tend to reduce the punishment of the accused”) (citing ABA Standards

for Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function and Defense Function, 3-3.11 (3d ed. 1993)); State v.

Peters, 406 So. 2d 189 (La. 1981); State v. Dawson, 490 So. 2d 560, 563 (La. App. 4" Cir.

1986); State v. Felton, 522 So. 2d 626, 627 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1988); State v. Rosiere, 488 So. 2d

965, 969-71 (La. 1986) (failure to turn over statements of witnesses inconsistent with the

prosecution case); State v. Carney, 334 So. 2d 415, 418-19) (La. 1976); see also Monroe v.

Butler, 485 U.S. 1024 (1988) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of writ of certiorari in

capital case); Monroe v. Blackburn, 476 U.S. 1145 (1986) (same); State v. Walter, 514 So. 2d

620 (La. App. 4" Cir. 1987) (reversing where possible Brady evidence not produced until day of

This petition presents the Court with yet another case in which the Orleans

Parish District Attorney’s Office failed to disclose critical impeachment evidence

in a murder prosecution. In order to convict Kuantau Reeder of second degree

murder, the jury had to find that Earl Price, who was the prosecution’s only

eyewitness, was credible. Because of the State’s non-disclosure, the jurors made

their determination of credibility without knowing that Mr. Price had previously

been convicted of lying on a federal gun application form in which he swore that

the information contained therein was true and correct. As a result, the jurors in

Mr. Reeder’s case were deprived of this critical information and confidence in

their guilty verdict is seriously undermined.

A. State Procedural History

On October 7, 1993, Kuantau Reeder was indicted by an Orleans Parish

grand jury for the second degree murder of Mark Broxton. At his arraignment on

October 21, 1993, Mr. Reeder entered a plea of “not guilty.” The Loyola Law

School Criminal Clinic was appointed to represent Mr. Reeder and his attorneys

filed numerous pretrial motions on his behalf, including a motion for discovery

seeking the criminal convictions of all State witnesses. Mr. Reeder’s first trial on

trial).”

Since the Smith v. Cain footnote was written, the cases of Jones v. Cain, 151 So.3d 781

(La. App. 4 Cir. 2014); State v. Johnson, 229 So.3d6 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2018); and State v.

Wells, 191 So.3d 1127 (La. App 4 Cir. 2016) can be added to the list.

July 8, 1994 ended in a hung jury. Prior to commencement of Mr. Reeder’s second

trial, defense counsel filed a second discovery motion seeking production of the

rap sheets of the victim and all witnesses, including Earl Price, who was the State’s

only witness to the shooting. Instead of providing the defense with a copy of Mr.

Price’s federal rap sheet to which the Orleans District Attorney’s Office had

access, prosecutors provided defense counsel with a handwritten response listing

several Mississippi state felony convictions of Mr. Price and an Alabama

conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. They did not reveal his

federal conviction in Mississippi for lying on a gun application.

At the conclusion of his second trial on July 13, 1995, Mr. Reeder was

found guilty as charged. Court records do not indicate whether the verdict was

unanimous.’ Mr. Reeder was sentenced to a mandatory sentence of life in prison

without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence on July 19,

1995,

Mr. Reeder appealed his conviction to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of

Appeal which denied his appeal on July 16, 1997.‘ Mr. Reeder subsequently filed

a pro se application for post-conviction relief. Two attorneys were appointed by

the trial court on a pro bono basis to assist with the application and they filed an

3 Prior to passage of a constitutional amendment in 2018, Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 782 provided that a defendant could be convicted of second degree murder by a nonunanimous verdict, as long as ten of twelve jurors voted to convict. To date, no court record has

been located by counsel that reveals the composition of the verdict in Mr. Reeder’s second trial.

* State v. Reeder, 698 So. 2d 56 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1997).

amended petition on Mr. Reeder’s behalf. The trial court denied Mr. Reeder’s

application. The supervisory writ for review that was then filed with the Louisiana

Fourth Circuit was denied.”

Following the unexpected discovery of impeachment evidence about the

State’s star witness Earl Price, in the form of his Mississippi federal conviction for

lying on a gun application, new post-conviction counsel filed a second application

for post-conviction relief in state district court on behalf of Mr. Reeder in

December of 2009.° The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office did not contest

either the factual circumstances surrounding discovery of Mr. Price’s federal

conviction for lying, as detailed by post-conviction counsel, or trial counsel’s

affidavit that the conviction for lying had not been disclosed by the prosecution.’

The State contended that Mr. Reeder’s application was time barred. The trial

court agreed with the State; however, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed

this finding.* The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the State’s writ application to

review the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the matter to the trial court.

After consideration on the merits, the trial court denied Mr. Reeder’s post

conviction application on March 9, 2012. Mr. Reeder sought review of this ruling

> State v. Reeder, 882 So. 2d 602 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2004).

® The steps that led to discovery of the conviction were described in an affidavit by counsel that

was attached to the state court application for post-conviction filed on Mr. Reeder’s behalf.

ROA. 64.

® State v. Reeder, 10-1369, unpub. (La. App. 4th Cir. 12/2/10).

* State v. Reeder, 61 So. 3d 686 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2011).

by means of a writ application to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit. The court denied

his writ, finding that at the time of trial, the defense was aware of some of Mr.

Price’s felony convictions. It also held that since the jury was advised that Mr.

Price had a conviction for a crime of violence, the non-disclosure of his federal

conviction for lying “did not render the jury’s verdict suspect.”'° Mr. Reeder’s writ

application to the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied without reasons.""

B. Federal Procedural History

On November 22, 2013, counsel with the Tulane Law School Criminal

Justice Clinic filed a petition for habeas relief on behalf of Mr. Reeder in Federal

District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.'? The Orleans Parish District

Attorney’s Office filed a reply to the petition alleging that it was time barred; it

also argued that the petition should be denied on the merits. Mr. Reeder’s petition

was supplemented on July 25, 2016, with this Court’s decision in Wearry v. Cain."”°

The magistrate judge recommended that Mr. Reeder’s petition be denied

with prejudice concluding that it was time barred.'* Mr. Reeder timely filed his

Objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation and also filed a

'° State v. Reeder, 12-0529, unpub. (La. App. 4th Cir. 05/17/12) .

"' State v. Reeder, 107 So. 3d 623 (La. 2013).

'2 ROA. 6.

'3 Wearry v. Cain, 136 S. Ct. 1002 (2016)

'S ROA. 490.

supplement to the petition.” The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office did not

file a response.

On March 21, 2017, the district court ruled that Mr. Reeder’s habeas petition

as it related to his Napue claim was time barred.'* The court then ruled that Mr.

Reeder’s Brady-Giglio claim concerning the non-disclosed federal conviction of

Mr. Price for lying was not time barred; however, it found that this impeachment

evidence was not material and it denied Mr. Reeder’s petition. Counsel for Mr.

Reeder timely filed a Notice of Appeal'’: and after filing the necessary

documentation to proceed in forma pauperis, timely filed an Application for a

Certificate of Appealability with the appellate court on January 16, 2018.!®

On October 19, 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Court granted Mr.

Reeder a Certificate of Appealability to consider “whether the withheld evidence

that the State’s key witness had a prior federal conviction for lying on a federal

firearms application was material for purposes of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83

(1963).” The Court also granted Mr. Reeder permission to proceed with his appeal

in forma pauperis.

Oral argument was presented by video on August 31, 2020, and on October

20, 2020, the Fifth Circuit denied Mr. Reeder’s appeal. The Court held that “not

'S ROA. 524 (repeated at 548 and 565).

'© Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 213 (1959); ROA. 627.

'7 ROA. 666 (repeated 668).

'® ROA. 676 (repeated at 684).

withstanding the distinction” of a conviction for lying from other convictions, the

Louisiana Fourth Circuit’s ruling did not involve an unreasonable application of

clearly established federal law because “a reasonable jurist could conclude that the

undisclosed conviction was merely cumulative of the other convictions that were

disclosed to the defense or was rendered cumulative by the revelation to the jury of

at least one prior conviction.”

In light of this Court’s March 19, 2020 Order extending the time period

within which to file an application for writ of certiorari from 60 to 150 days due to

the Covid pandemic, Petitioner timely submits his application for writ of certiorari

with the Court.

C. Statement of Pertinent Case Facts

On April 13, 1993, Mark Broxton was shot multiple times outside the Julian

Food Store which was located across from the Fischer Housing Development in

the Algiers section of New Orleans. After shooting Mr. Broxton, the assailant fled

on foot, discarding the jacket he had been wearing either in or by a dumpster that

was located near the store.

Responding New Orleans police officers interviewed several people who

had been in or near the store at the time of the shooting. Among those interviewed

was a man named Earl Price who frequented the area and often purchased beer

'9 Reeder v. Vannoy, supra at

10

from the nearby Winn Dixie grocery store. Approximately three months after the

shooting, a homicide detective showed a six person photographic lineup that

contained a picture of Kuantau Reeder to Mr. Price. Mr. Price did not personally

know Mr. Reeder and had not named him as Broxton’s shooter The lineup also

contained the photograph of another suspect named Berjerack Johnson who -

according to trial testimony from one of the NOPD officers involved in the

investigation - had informed his girlfriend Kirshon Smith prior to the shooting that

he intended to make Broxton “pay” for socializing with her while he had been

incarcerated. The photo of Mr. Johnson depicted his complexion as lighter than his

true skin color. Mr. Price identified the photo of Mr. Reeder as the shooter.”

In its case-in-chief, the State called Earl Price as a witness. Mr. Price stated

that he was an eyewitness to the shooting and said he had picked out the photo of

Mr. Reeder as the shooter several months after the homicide.”' The State also

introduced hearsay testimony from a police officer that Broxton’s mother and

another witness told him that they had heard “word on the street” that Reeder was —

the person who shot Broxton.” Prosecutors introduced the transcript of Mr.

Reeder’s testimony at his first trial into evidence to prove he acknowledged having

a narcotics conviction. The transcript also contained Mr. Reeder’s testimony that

20 Ms. Smith testified at Mr. Reeder’s trial that, shortly after Mr. Broxton was shot, Johnson

phoned her to inform her of the shooting.

71 13,1995 Trial Trans. p. 95.

2? Td. at 43.

11

he had been playing basketball with several friends on a court in the Fisher

Housing Development at the time of Broxton’s shooting.”?

No State witnesses other than Mr. Price claimed to have witnessed the

shooting. There was no video footage of the shooting. The State introduced no

weapon and it presented no scientific or physical evidence that tied Mr. Reeder to

the shooting. The recovered jacket that was introduced into evidence was not

linked to Reeder. In addition, the State presented no motive evidence on the part of

Reeder and introduced no evidence to suggest he had ever threatened Broxton in

the past or made any incriminating statements following the shooting.

The defense presented the testimony of several persons who confirmed that

they were playing basketball at the Fisher Housing Development with Reeder at

the time of the shooting. In its cross-examination of these witnesses, the State

accused them of being convicted drug offenders and pointed out their friendship

with Reeder as motivation for them to lie.

In light of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the alibi testimony

presented by the defense, in order to convict Mr. Reeder, jurors had to find that Mr.

Price was credible. Because of the State’s Brady/Giglio violation, they were forced

to make this critical determination without the knowledge that Price had previously

3 Several witness were called by the defense and the also testified that Mr. Reeder had been

playing basketball at the time that Mr. Broxton was shit.

12

lied when swearing the information he provided to obtain a gun was true and

correct.

SUMMARY Of ARGUMENT

“You will find that Earl Price, with everything you know, is a

credible witness. He’s not perfect — when asked about his

convictions, he admitted ‘em right away. Not a hesitation, not a lie;

admitted them right away. ...

These were the words of the prosecutor during his closing argument in Mr.

Reeder’s murder trial — words spoken despite having failed to disclose that Earl

Price had previously been convicted in Federal District Court for the Southern

District of Mississippi of lying on a federal gun application.” As a result, this case

presents the Court with yet another example of the failure of the Orleans Parish

District Attorney’s Office to honor its Brady/Giglio obligation in a murder

prosecution.”°

Price’s non-disclosed conviction was “material” given its unique nature as a

crimen falsi and because it directly related to the jury’s credibility determination of

the prosecution’s key witness. Given the lack of any other evidence directly

incriminating Mr. Reeder, the non-disclosure of Price’s conviction for lying most

4 Tuly 13, 1995 trial transcript, p. 106.

?> This was a separate and distinct conviction from his Alabama conviction for being a felon in

possession of a firearm. Some of the reviewing courts seem to have confused the two convictions.

26 373 U.S. 83 (1965); 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

13

certainly undermines confidence in the jury’s verdict of guilty. The Louisiana

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal failed to follow established federal law in declining

to so find. As a result, Mr. Reeder should be granted federal habeas relief under 28

USC 2254(d)(1) and the denial of such relief by the United States Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals should be reversed.

ARGUMENT

A. The first two requirements for reversal of Mr. Reeder’s state

conviction for second degree murder based on a Brady/Giglo

violation are not in dispute.

There are three requirements that must be satisfied by a defendant in order to

prevail on a Brady-Giglio claim. They are:

1. the evidence was suppressed or withheld;

2. the evidence was favorable to the accused and/or constituted

impeachment evidence; and

3. the evidence was material to guilt or punishment.”’

Satisfaction of the first two requirements has never been in controversy in Mr.

Reeder’s case.

1. The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office has never contested

that it failed to disclose that its star witness Earl Price had a

federal conviction to Mr. Reeder’s counsel prior to his murder

trial as mandated by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1965) and

7 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1965); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972);

Lawrence y. Lensing, 42 F.3d 252, 257 (Sth Cir. 1994)

14

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

Despite two separate written discovery requests made by the defense, the

prosecutor’s handwritten response to the specific request for witness rap sheets did

not disclose that Earl Price, who was the only alleged eyewitness to the shooting of

Mark Broxton to testify at Mr. Reeder’s trial, had a federal conviction from the

Southern District of Mississippi for lying on a gun application. Throughout the

lengthy state post-conviction process and federal habeas proceedings, the Orleans

Parish District Attorney’s Office has never contended that it disclosed this

information.”* Its failure to disclose Price’s conviction for lying is the type of

prosecutorial misconduct that “corrupts . . . the truth-seeking function of the trial

process.”””

2. The non-disclosed conviction for lying goes directly to the issue

of Earl Price’s truthfulness and therefore constitutes impeachment evidence that is favorable to Mr. Reeder under Brady and

its progeny.

The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office also never contested that Earl

Price’s prior conviction for lying constituted favorable evidence that should have

been disclosed and could have been used by defense counsel to impeach Price’s

credibility. Under Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 609.1B, evidence of a

78 Criminal District Court Judge Darryl Derbigny, who was lead trial counsel for the Loyola

Law School Criminal Clinic at Mr. Reeder’s trial, executed an affidavit to this effect and his

affidavit was never contested by the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office. (See ROA. 64.).

?° United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S, 97, 104 (1976).

15

witness’ prior convictions admissible “upon the issue of credibility” in a criminal

trial.*” Convictions involving dishonesty are uniquely relevant to this issue.

In heightened recognition of the significance of prior convictions for crimes

of dishonesty, Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) overrides the usual federal

requirement that a criminal conviction must have resulted in a sentence of over a

year to be admissible and specifically provides that “evidence that any witness has

been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false

statement, regardless of the punishment.” (Emphasis added.) When discussing

Rule 609(a)(2), Congress made it clear that:

The admission of prior convictions involving dishonesty and

false statement is not within the discretion of the Court. Such

convictions are particularly probative of credibility and, under this

rule, are always to be admitted. Thus, judicial discretion granted

with respect to the admissibility of other prior convictions is not

applicable to those involving dishonesty or false statement.’!

(Emphasis added.)

Under both the Louisiana and federal evidence rules, had the Orleans Parish

prosecutors informed Mr. Reeder’s trial counsel that Earl Price had a federal

conviction for lying, it would have been admissible during the defense’s cross-

* The Seventh Circuit recognized this fact in Crivens v. Roth, 172 F.3d 991, 998 (7th Cir. 1999).

when it ruled that undisclosed evidence that the prosecution’s star witness had given alias names

when arrested and had committed other acts of dishonesty in the criminal justice system was

“distinguishable from other illegal conduct in general and was more damning to the witness’

credibility.”

7! IZ. quoting H.R. Conf. Rep. No 93-1597, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 9, reprinted in (1974) U.S. Code

Cong. & Admin. News, pp. 7098-7103.

16

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-46]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]