Supreme Court rejects death row inmate’s appeal after co-conspirator’s confession to actual murder

The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up an appeal from a death row inmate in Louisiana who argues that the state ignored a confession from another inmate that potentially would have taken his death sentence off the table.

David Brown’s attorneys asked the justices to consider whether a confession from another man saying their client wasn’t involved in the 1999 killing of corrections officer Capt. David Knapps should have been turned over to them ahead of Brown’s trial, so he could have used it in protesting his death penalty.

Brown and five co-conspirators escaped Angola and assaulted a prison guard, who died.

Brown argued he wasn’t present when the guard was killed and didn’t intend on anyone being murdered. A co-conspirator, Barry Edge, had told another inmate that he and a different co-conspirator were present at the killing — not naming Brown.

The prosecution had the confession, and Brown’s attorneys say the statement could have helped their client in his proceedings and should have been handed over under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Brady v Maryland.

The 1963 landmark case held that prosecutors must hand over evidence to the defense that helps prove the defendant’s potential innocence.

A Louisiana judge had overturned Brown’s death sentence for the killing, but the state’s highest court reinstated it.

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to take up Brown’s appeal for a new sentencing hearing in light of the co-conspirator’s confession.

It would have taken four justices to vote in favor of hearing his case. The three Democratic appointees on the bench wanted to review Brown’s case.

A dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said she would have granted Brown’s appeal and ruled in his favor — finding Edge’s confession material to Brown’s defense and ability to avoid a death sentence.

“The prosecution’s obligation under Brady to disclose favorable, material evidence is a cornerstone of our Constitution’s commitment to a fundamentally fair trial,” Justice Jackson wrote. “Common sense dictates that such confessions are favorable and material to the guilt or enhanced punishment of the unnamed suspects.”

• This story is based in part on wire service reports.