Sean Orth v. Brian Williams

facts—namely, that Zafranovich’s cooperation occurred in a proceeding after

Orth’s trial. The district court noted that although the criminal information in

Zafranovich’s 2006 case was filed after Orth’s trial, a Sparks Police Department

detective testified at the state post-conviction evidentiary hearing that Zafranovich

had also cooperated with law enforcement in 2003, before Orth’s trial. On appeal,

the parties do not contest that de novo review applies to the Brady claim.

3 On the merits of the Brady claim, the district court found that the first and

second Brady prongs were satisfied, but the third prong was not met because the

suppression of the evidence did not prejudice Orth.

Even assuming without deciding that evidence of Zafranovich’s cooperation

with law enforcement and May 24, 2005 meeting constituted impeachment

material, we agree that the third Brady prong was not met. The parties agree that

Orth thoroughly impeached Zafranovich at trial, so there was not “a reasonable

probability that, had [any additional impeachment] evidence been disclosed, the

result of the proceeding would have been different.”2 Parker v. County of

Riverside, 78 F.4th 1109, 1113…