Did the State suppress evidence under Brady in the extraordinary circumstances of this death penalty case?

QUESTION PRESENTED This is a death penalty case in which both the District Attorney and the original trial prosecutor support a new trial for Petitioner Toforest Johnson, who has spent the past 25 years on Alabama’s death row. Johnson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death based on the testimony of one key witness, Violet Ellison, who claimed that she overheard him confessing to the crime on a telephone call. In post-conviction proceedings, Johnson raised a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), alleging that the State suppressed evidence that Ellison was hoping to receive a reward and was later paid for her testimony. The Alabama courts dismissed the claim on procedural grounds, but this Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case after the State conceded that the dismissal was improper. Johnson v. Alabama, 137 S. Ct. 2292 (2017). On remand, the State claimed that its files contained “nothing about anyone applying for a reward or being granted a reward.” C3. Supp-3, R. 8. However, a retired state employee revealed to Johnson’s counsel that the State maintained a set of confidential reward files. C3. 94-95. After this information was conveyed to the post-conviction court, the State disclosed, for the first time, a reward file regarding Ellison. The file included a copy of a check for $5,000, which the State had paid to Ellison in secret after Johnson’s trial: Vie inGurGoneny, ALABAMA 30130-7002 , | WoL CEEer 10534001365 HARE TO: ~—-Q100 053 | I MS VIOLET! ELLISON : NOE aes | C/O-MR DAVID BARBER DA 4 The file also included documents, written by government officials, stating that Ellison was eligible for the reward payment because she had provided information pursuant to the State’s pretrial reward offer. Nevertheless, the Alabama courts again declined to find a Brady violation. The question presented is this: Did the State suppress evidence under Brady in the extraordinary circumstances of this death penalty case? i