#578 Jason Flom with Charles "Brandon" Martin

**Connor Hall** (0:04)
Hey, everybody, it's Senior Producer Connor Hall with more case updates and behind the scenes insights. And this week, we're talking about Charles Brandon Martin and the intersection of two forces in the post-conviction litigation world, Brady v. Maryland and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, otherwise known as EDPA. The latter puts restrictions on post-conviction proceedings, most notably limiting the power of federal courts to disturb state court rulings to only in cases where the rulings are contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly decided federal law, which can happen in the application of the precedent set in Brady v. Maryland, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that forbids hiding exculpatory evidence from defendants. Prosecutors favor pastime, am I right? Anyway, so when a state appellate court is deciding whether a Brady violation has occurred, two standards must be met. Was the evidence of innocence not disclosed to the defense before trial, and would it have made a difference for the verdict? Disputes arise over the subjectivity and human error that can creep into these decisions. So when such disputes are first settled by a state court, the matter can be raised again in federal court, at which point the state court decision can be disturbed only if that ruling is contrary to or an unreasonable application of the standards set out by Brady v. Maryland, that no fair-minded jurist could rule in the same way in light of the previously undisclosed evidence. So it's an incredibly high standard, which the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals felt was met in Brandon's case. To refresh you on Brandon's case, without getting too deep into the weeds, we have this Gatorade bottle near the scene of an attempted murder. It's got a mix of duct and medical tapes, an opening at either end, some ashes and soot, some hairs, three DNA profiles, one of which was the victims and none of which were definitively Brandon's.
An investigator opined that it might be a makeshift silencer, just like he had seen in a Steven Seagal movie. Not kidding. Without any testing to prove that theory, the state relied on witness testimony instead, that Brandon had done an internet search to learn how to make such a silencer before covering his tracks by getting rid of that computer. But years later, it's discovered that the state knew that wasn't the case. They knew Brandon hadn't destroyed the evidence. How?
Because they had it and had done forensic analysis pretrial and determined that no such internet search had ever occurred with not only that computer but for others.
Yet they presented that narrative through witness testimony that they knew was a lie. Meanwhile, others have always said that the Gatorade bottle was used for smoking weed. So this impedes the witness in question as well as undermine the silencer theory and whether or not this Gatorade bottle and subsequent DNA testing had any meaning to the case at all.
All that is left in this case, after that Brady violation, is a ballistics test that said the bullet fragments at the scene could have been produced by firearms made by one of 16 manufacturers. One of 16 manufacturers from whom Brandon and who knows who else had purchased firearms. And then there's the alleged motive which was dispelled by both the victim and Brandon's wife at trial. Lastly, there's a witness who claims that he saw Brandon and a would-be co-conspirator, who got acquitted by the way. This witness said that he saw them making something with a Gatorade bottle prior to the shooting, then admitted on the stand that he was testifying this way to protect his sister who was likely involved. So first, a state appellate court ruled that this was a material Brady violation. Then a higher state court reversed that decision. Brandon's team then filed a federal habeas petition, which received two rulings in their favor before reaching the justices of the United States Supreme Court, or maybe one of their lackeys from the Federalist Society. They ruled that the federal courts misapplied edpa and that a fair minded jurist could have still come to the same verdict based on the remaining evidence. I'd like you all to listen to our coverage and decide for yourselves if you think they got it right.
That instead of getting a new trial or dismissing his charges altogether, that the state never had to answer for fabricating a narrative. A narrative that was even raised during jury instruction. How destruction of evidence can constitute a consciousness of guilt.
Does this ruling set a precedent that allows such tactics? I mean, wasn't our system already permissive enough to prosecutors? While we're free to ponder the nature of this system, Brandon and so many others like him are living through it. I recently had a chance to speak with him. I mean, God, he was only free for like 10 months. First time I spoke to him in early 2025, he was still in prison.