Richard Vasquez, Jr. v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

Vasquez was sentenced to die for the capital murder of Miranda Lopez. More than twenty years later, Vasquez discovered that the State had acquired actual knowledge, before trial, that a critical piece of evidence used against him—a toxicological analysis—was unreliable. Nevertheless, the State knowingly offered testimony at trial that the toxicological analysis confirmed cocaine in Miranda’s system. Upon learning these facts, Vasquez promptly raised new challenges to his conviction and sentence. In response, the State effectively conceded that it had suppressed exculpatory information and essentially confessed error. Vasquez maintains that the habeas application he then filed to address Brady and Napue/ Giglio is not properly considered “second or successive.” The question presented is: When an inmate was unaware when he filed his first application for federal habeas relief of the State’s knowing suppression of exculpatory information and knowing reliance on false testimony, is a later-in-time application raising Brady and Napue/Giglio claims properly considered a “second or successive” application subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (3)(A)?