Wearry v. Cain
The Supreme Court summarily reversed the murder conviction of a Louisiana death row inmate, ruling that prosecutors' failure to turn over evidence undermining their two key witnesses violated his due process rights.
The Court found the withheld evidence — including proof one witness may have had a personal grudge, another sought a plea deal despite prosecutors' denials, and a third's account was medically implausible — was serious enough to undermine confidence in the verdict, even without full briefing or oral argument.
“The State’s trial evidence resembles a house of cards, built on the jury crediting Scott’s account rather than Wearry’s alibi.”
The Court's assessment of how weak the prosecution's case was without the withheld evidence.
How it got here: A Louisiana postconviction court denied relief on Wearry's claims; the Louisiana Supreme Court denied review; Wearry sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Michael Wearry was sentenced to death in Louisiana for the 1998 murder of Eric Walber, based largely on testimony from Sam Scott and Eric Brown. After his conviction became final, it emerged that prosecutors had withheld police records undermining Scott's credibility, evidence that Brown had sought a deal despite denials at trial, and medical records questioning whether an alleged accomplice could have physically committed the crime as described.
The question before the Court
Did prosecutors violate a death row inmate's due process rights by hiding evidence that could have discredited the witnesses who put him at the scene of a murder?
Why it matters
The ruling means a man who has spent years on death row gets a new trial rather than execution based on a conviction resting almost entirely on two witnesses whose credibility problems the prosecution concealed. It also signals that the Court will summarily correct Brady violations in capital cases even without full briefing, reinforcing prosecutors' disclosure duties nationwide.
What changes now
The case returns to the Louisiana courts for further proceedings, which will likely include a new trial since the conviction has been reversed. The Court did not address Wearry's separate ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, leaving that issue unresolved. This is a final merits ruling on the due process claim, not a temporary order, though litigation over a retrial will continue.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly did not reach Wearry's separate claim that his trial attorney provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate his alibi or the prosecution's witnesses. The ruling rests solely on the prosecution's failure to disclose evidence, not on any finding about defense counsel's performance.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Alito
“For good reason, we generally do not decide cases without allowing the parties to file briefs and present argument.”Alito's objection to the Court deciding the case summarily without full briefing.
Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, argued the Court acted improperly by summarily reversing a 14-year-old capital conviction without full briefing or argument on a fact-intensive Brady question. He contended each piece of withheld evidence, examined individually, likely would not have changed the trial's outcome, and that the case should instead proceed through normal habeas channels where lower courts could develop the record first.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied the rule from Brady v. Maryland that prosecutors violate due process by suppressing evidence favorable to the defense when that evidence is material to guilt, regardless of prosecutorial good or bad faith.
- Evidence is 'material' if there is any reasonable likelihood it could have affected the jury's judgment, and a defendant need only show the withheld evidence is enough to undermine confidence in the verdict, not that acquittal was more likely than not.
- The Court found the State's case depended almost entirely on two witnesses, Scott and Brown, whose credibility could have been further damaged by evidence that Scott may have coached a witness to lie and may have held a grudge, that Brown had sought a deal despite the prosecution's denials, and that a key accomplice's alleged physical actions were medically implausible.
- The Court held that the evidence must be evaluated cumulatively rather than piece by piece, and faulted the lower postconviction court for assessing each item in isolation and ignoring reasons a juror might have found the new evidence persuasive.
- Weighing the withheld evidence together against the thinness of the State's case, the Court concluded the new evidence was sufficient to undermine confidence in the conviction.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Brady v. Maryland (373 U. S. 83)
The Court applies Brady's rule that suppressing favorable evidence material to guilt violates due process.
Reaffirms Kyles v. Whitley (514 U. S. 419)
The Court relies on Kyles' requirement that withheld evidence be evaluated cumulatively, not piece by piece.