Benjamin Wai Silva v. Jill Brown, Warden

Good Law
416 F.3d 980·2005 WL 1732765·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15252
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 26, 200504-99000California5,099 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

The State of California charged and tried Benjamin Wai Silva for two brutal homicides, along with kidnaping, robbery, and gun offenses, but did not disclose to the defense that the plea agreement that secured the testimony of the prosecution’s star witness, Norman Thomas, required Thomas not to undergo a psychiatric evaluation before testifying. As a result, the jury never learned of the considerable question as to Thomas’s competence to testify or of the secret deal the Lassen County District Attorney made to ensure that question remained unanswered until after Silva was tried. At issue in this appeal is whether the failure to disclose that deal was Brady error. We conclude that it was.

I. BACKGROUND

Silva’s case is before us for the second time. On our first consideration of the case, we remanded for the district court to determine whether there was Brady error: was there a deal such as Silva alleged; if so, did the prosecutor conceal it; and if he did, were the deal and its concealment material under Brady ? Silva v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 825, 855 (9th Cir.2002) (“Silva I”). The district court found that there was a deal and that it was not disclosed, but found that these facts…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.