The court ruled today in In re Jenkins that the Attorney General has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence in response to a petition for writ of habeas corpus that alleges a Brady violation.
Petitioner Jasmine Jenkins was convicted of manslaughter for stabbing Britneeh Williams. Sade Williams, the victim’s sister, witnessed the incident and testified against Jenkins, refuting Jenkins’ claim of self-defense and stating that Britneeh had never been violent in the past. During postconviction proceedings, Jenkins’ counsel discovered an unpublished opinion on Lexis indicating that sisters “Brit. W.” and “Sade W.” had been prosecuted for aggravated assault and hate crimes as a minor.
Jenkins filed a habeas petition claiming that the the “Brit. W” and “Sade W.” mentioned in the opinion appeared to be the same individuals involved in this case, and that the prosecution committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose the violent history of Britneeh and Sade, which would have been relevant to Jenkins’ claim of self-defense.
The Attorney General opposed the writ petition but refused to say whether the parties in the unpublished opinion were the same parties involved in this case. The Attorney General described the Court of Appeal’s unpublished opinion as “an apparent printout of an unspecified and unverified Internet source.” The Second Appellate District, Division One, held that, even assuming the unpublished opinion involved the same parties, Jenkins had failed to show how the violent histories of Britneeh and Sade were relevant to her claim of self-defense.
When Jenkins petitioned for review, the Attorney General filed an answer stating that he had no obligation to disclose whether the unpublished opinion involved the same parties as this case. The Supreme Court granted review and limited the issue to the question question whether the Attorney General owes such a duty.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Guerrero, the Supreme Court concluded that the Attorney General does in fact owe both an ethical and a constitutional duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence in response to a habeas petition that alleges a Brady violation. The opinion concludes: we urge the prosecutors in this case, and in every other, to carefully consider the constitutional, ethical, and habeas corpus procedural duties that we have outlined herein to ensure that they faithfully bear the special responsibilities ascribed to the prosecution in our system of justice.”
