Byrd v. Owen

The habeas court granted relief to petitioner/appellee Jeffrey Owen after it was revealed that the prosecution failed to disclose an immunity agreement with its main witness at trial. We conclude that the habeas court’s grant of relief was proper. For approximately thirteen years, the State failed to disclose its immunity agreement with its primary trial witness, despite its obligation of disclosure under Brady v. Maryland1 and Giglio v. United States.2 Our review of recorded proceedings in the trial and habeas courts leads us to conclude that: 1 if the State’s immunity agreement with its primary trial witness had been disclosed as required, there is a substantial likelihood that the outcome of the trial could have been different; and 2 concealment of the agreement interfered with counsel’s ability to render effective assistance at trial and on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the habeas court’s grant of relief.

Owen was indicted in 1989 for a drug-related murder and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He waived his right to a jury trial upon the recommendation of counsel, was convicted at a bench trial, and was given a life sentence.