White v. Pugh

Background

In 2017, a Stearns County jury found William Dumont White guilty of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a crime of violence. The firearm was found in the glovebox of a vehicle in which White had been the front passenger. The vehicle’s owner, Jill Vierzba, testified that she did not know the gun was there and had not seen White place it in the glovebox.

The prosecutor knew that Vierzba had a prior terroristic-threats conviction and was on probation for other offenses. The terroristic-threats conviction made Vierzba subject to a lifetime prohibition on possessing firearms, according to the opinion. The prosecution did not disclose this information to White or his lawyer, and the prosecutor did not correct Vierzba’s testimony that she was not prohibited from possessing a firearm and was not on probation.

White later learned of Vierzba’s criminal history and sought post-conviction relief in Minnesota state court. The state court found that the prosecution had violated the disclosure rule established in Brady v. Maryland but denied relief because White had not shown that the missing information affected the trial’s outcome. The Minnesota appellate courts upheld that result.

Federal Habeas Petition and Recommendation

White filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a federal court to grant relief from a state conviction when the state courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law or unreasonably determined the facts. He raised claims based on the prosecution’s failure to disclose Vierzba’s criminal history and probation status, alleged false testimony, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, the search of Vierzba’s vehicle, probable cause, and the state courts’ factual determinations.

The magistrate judge recommended granting White’s first claim based on the prosecution’s failure to disclose Vierzba’s criminal history and issuing relief that would require White’s release unless Minnesota moved to retry him within 60 days. The magistrate judge recommended denying the remaining claims. Both sides objected.

Brady Claim

Brady requires the prosecution to disclose evidence favorable to the defense that is material to guilt or punishment. Evidence may be favorable because it tends to show innocence or because it can be used to impeach a witness. Evidence is material when there is a reasonable probability that disclosure would have produced a different result, meaning the evidence is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

The court agreed with the magistrate judge that the undisclosed information was material. It could have shown that Vierzba had a motive to deny ownership or knowledge of the gun, contradicted her testimony that she could legally possess a firearm, and disproved her statement that she was not on probation. The court emphasized that the prosecution had argued that Vierzba was not prohibited from possessing a firearm, which helped counter the defense theory that the gun might have belonged to her.

The court also concluded that the state courts unreasonably determined that the information was not material. Although the state courts found sufficient evidence that White possessed the gun, the federal court found that there were no direct facts, apart from White’s presence in the vehicle, proving that he placed the gun in the glovebox. The ability to challenge Vierzba’s testimony and credibility was therefore crucial to White’s defense. The court overruled Pugh’s objection and concluded that White’s first ground for relief must be granted.

Other Claims

The court rejected White’s objection concerning trial counsel’s failure to discover and use Vierzba’s criminal history. The state courts had found that counsel requested the information in discovery, reviewed the government’s evidence, hired a private investigator to examine Vierzba’s jail telephone calls, and made a tactical decision to preserve Vierzba’s credibility as a favorable witness. The federal court held that the state courts reasonably evaluated counsel’s performance. It also stated that appellate counsel was not required to discover new evidence outside the existing record.

The court held that White procedurally defaulted his claim that counsel should have challenged the scope and duration of his arrest because he did not raise that argument in his petition for review to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court therefore overruled his objection without addressing the claim’s merits.

The court also held that White could not obtain federal habeas review of his Fourth Amendment challenge to the search of Vierzba’s vehicle because Minnesota provided procedures for raising that issue and White had a full and fair opportunity to use them. The court rejected White’s probable-cause argument because he had not fairly raised it and because Vierzba’s criminal history concerned her credibility, not whether facts supported prosecuting White. Finally, the court overruled White’s objection concerning the state courts’ factual determinations, agreeing with the magistrate judge’s analysis.

Disposition

The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety, overruled the parties’ objections, and granted White’s petition. It ordered that White be released from custody unless the State of Minnesota moves to retry him within 60 days of the judgment.