Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed consolidated bar disciplinary proceedings against prosecutors Stephanie Bradley Miller and Pamela Jean Kimbrough arising from the nondisclosure of inconsistent statements by a prosecution witness in a murder case. The court held that both respondents violated Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) by participating in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation. The respondents were publicly censured and ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Miller and Kimbrough violated the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to disclose an eyewitness's inconsistent statements concerning the location of the stabbing.
- Whether the respondents' use of the stipulation and related closing arguments constituted dishonesty or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c).
- What discipline and costs were appropriate for the violations.
Holdings
- Prosecutors must timely disclose to the defense known information that tends to negate guilt or mitigate the offense, including known inconsistencies in an eyewitness's account when the information bears on a defense theory. The respondents should have disclosed Padilla's contradictory statements.
- Both respondents engaged in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation in violation of Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) by failing to disclose the eyewitness's contradictory statements and participating in representations that the witness's account supported the State's theory.
- Both respondents should receive public reprimands and must pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.
Key quotations
“suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” (¶ 1)
“our responsibility is not to punish but to inquire into and gauge a lawyer's continued fitness to practice law, with a view of safeguarding the interest of the public, of the courts, and of the legal profession.” (¶ 32)
Factual background
While prosecuting Billy Michael Thompson for murder, Miller and Kimbrough interviewed eyewitness Jose Padilla, who gave inconsistent accounts about whether the stabbing occurred in a driveway or on the street. The prosecutors knew the defense was pursuing a self-defense and Stand Your Ground theory tied to the location of the stabbing, but did not disclose Padilla's inconsistent statements and used a stipulation and closing argument to portray his account as consistent with the State's theory. Thompson obtained a new trial after the nondisclosure was discovered, and the Bar then instituted disciplinary proceedings against both prosecutors.
Procedural history
The Bar alleged that Miller and Kimbrough, while prosecuting a murder case, failed to disclose inconsistent statements by an eyewitness concerning the location of the stabbing and then relied on a stipulation and closing argument asserting that the evidence supported the State's version. The trial panel recommended a public reprimand for Miller and dismissal as to Kimbrough. The Supreme Court rejected the differing recommendations, found both attorneys violated Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), publicly reprimanded both, and assessed separate costs.