Smith v. Bosch

Background

Derrick Z. Smith was convicted of aiding and abetting first- and second-degree murder in Minnesota state court. Before trial, Smith requested recordings of jail calls from December 2016 and January 2017. Prosecutors did not provide the recordings until mid-December 2017, and Smith’s attorney learned they were available six days before trial. The disclosure included approximately 75 hours of recordings.

Smith’s attorney moved for a continuance so the defense could review the recordings. The state trial court denied the request and later denied a renewed request after the attorney had reviewed about eight hours of recordings. Smith was convicted. On appeal, Smith argued, among other things, that the denial of additional time prevented him from reviewing potentially favorable evidence. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.

Federal habeas petition and magistrate judge’s order

Smith then petitioned for federal habeas relief, asking the court to vacate his conviction and order a new trial. He claimed that the prosecution’s late disclosure violated due process under Brady v. Maryland, which requires disclosure of evidence favorable and material to the accused’s guilt or punishment.

The State argued that Smith had not fairly presented a Brady claim to the Minnesota Supreme Court and therefore had not exhausted the claim in state court. Magistrate Judge David Schultz concluded that Smith had presented both the factual and legal basis of the claim. The magistrate judge also concluded that the existing record was insufficient to recommend a decision on the petition and ordered the parties to submit additional documents, evidence, and briefing.

District court’s review

The district court explained that a magistrate judge’s dispositive decision—one that resolves a claim or case—is reviewed anew, while a nondispositive decision is reviewed only for clear error. Because the magistrate judge had not decided Smith’s petition or recommended how it should be resolved, the order was nondispositive. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error.

Exhaustion

The court affirmed the finding that Smith had fairly presented his Brady claim to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court stated that a petitioner need not cite Brady by name or present the claim in exactly the same form in state court. Smith had mentioned that the recordings might contain Brady material and argued that the prosecution’s failure to disclose them promptly impaired his defense. Under Eighth Circuit law, those allegations were enough to present the legal basis of a Brady claim.

Merits not yet decided

The court explained that the Minnesota Supreme Court had addressed the substance of Smith’s claim, but the magistrate judge had not yet determined whether the state court’s decision met the federal standard for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court rejected the State’s argument that the magistrate judge had improperly ignored the state court’s findings about admissibility and prejudice. Because the magistrate judge had not yet reached the merits, the court considered that objection premature.

Supplementing the record

The State argued that ordering production of the complete recordings and written transcripts violated Cullen v. Pinholster, which generally limits federal review under § 2254 to the record before the state court that decided the claim. Smith argued that the limitation did not prevent supplementation here because the state trial court’s denial of a continuance prevented him from reviewing and presenting the recordings.

The district court agreed that the magistrate judge’s order did not violate Pinholster. The court noted that Smith may have been prevented from fully pursuing a Brady claim when the state trial court denied his request for more time. The court cautioned that Pinholster required care going forward but held that it did not bar supplementation of the record under the circumstances described in the opinion.

Disposition

The court set aside the State’s objection and affirmed the magistrate judge’s order. The ruling required further documents, evidence, and supplemental briefing; it did not grant or deny Smith’s habeas petition and did not decide whether the late disclosure violated Brady or required a new trial.