Comstock v. Humphries, No. 14-15311 [May 12, 2015]
Tuesday, May 12, 2015 by Robert W. Rainwater
The petitioner made a claim under Brady v. Maryland when the state failed to share with him the victim's statement that he may have lost the alleged stolen ring, therefore, supporting Comstock's defense at trial. The court looked at the three components of Brady: (1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, and (3) the suppression must have been prejudicial. The Court found that the all three components were established by the evidence and that "state court's contrary conclusion was an unreasonable application of Brady and its progeny. The court further held, that this was not a close case and when the key witness has reasonable doubts about whether a crime occurred the prosecution must share that information with the defense.