Failure to Provide One Piece of Evidence Is Not Always a Brady Violation

Hineman was charged with first-degree child sexual assault based on the fact that the alleged victim told an investigator that the defendant inappropriately touched him. At the same time, there was a prior report from a therapist that stated the child did not report that Hineman inappropriately touched him. There was a later police report that summarized the report from the therapist. 

During the case, Hineman’s attorneys filed a request for "[a]ll evidence and/or other information which would tend to negate the guilt of the defendant.” The therapist’s report was not provided to his attorneys. At trial, Hineman was convicted and sentenced to 17 years of initial confinement and eight years of extended supervision.

Hineman appealed his conviction, arguing that:

● The State withheld exculpatory evidence

● He received ineffective assistance of counsel at several points in the case, including when his lawyer did not obtain the CPS report and by failing to make an opening statement.

An appeals court reversed the conviction, stating that it would have been impossible to impeach the expert who testified without having possession of the CPS report. The State appealed the reversal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 

The Piece of Evidence at Issue Was Not Material to the Case

Hineman’s argument was that he was entitled to a new trial under the Supreme Court’s rule in Brady v. Maryland. Brady was a landmark case that required the prosecutor to turn over all evidence to the defendant. Here, Hineman claimed that the State failed to produce a report from Child Protective Services that contained what he believed to be exculpatory evidence. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the failure to produce the report from CPS was not prejudicial error because the report was not material to the case. Moreover, Hineman had access to the same information in another report that he could have used at trial. Hineman’s lawyer had enough evidence to challenge the CPS investigator’s testimony at trial. 

In order for the defense to win an appeal on a Brady claim, they would need to show that they were prejudiced by the failure to produce certain material exculpatory evidence. Here, materiality is defined as “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Hineman already had the evidence in his possession, even if he did not have this specific report. Then, Hineman only made vague assertions that the jury “may want to know more” if they knew the identity of the therapist who wrote the report.

Contact an Eau Claire Criminal Defense Attorney Today

While Hineman’s counsel was not necessarily ineffective, they could have done a better job of learning which evidence may have been suppressed at trial and presenting his case. You need to hire an experienced attorney who can vigorously defend you in court. If you have been charged with a crime, call the Cohen Law Offices today at 715-382-9447 or send us a message online.