Wendell Griffin v. Baltimore Police Department

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-03387-JFM. [999686821]. [14-1494]

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 18

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1494

WENDELL GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT; JERRY LANDSMAN; DONALD KINCAID;
EDWARD BROWN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-03387-JFM)

Argued:

September 17, 2015

Decided:

October 27, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the
opinion, in which Judge Agee and Judge Harris joined.
Judge
Harris wrote a separate concurring opinion.

ARGUED: Charles N. Curlett, Jr., LEVIN & CURLETT LLC, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Daniel C. Beck, BALTIMORE CITY LAW
DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Sarah
F. Lacey, LEVIN & CURLETT LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. George A. Nilson, City Solicitor of Baltimore City,
Suzanne Sangree, Chief, Glenn Marrow, Deputy Chief, Police Legal
Affairs Division, BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellees.

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 18

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff

Wendell

Griffin

seeks

damages

for

police

and

prosecution withholding of evidence in violation of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), during his 1982 murder trial. The
district court dismissed his case, holding it barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, which prohibits § 1983 claims for damages that would
“necessarily
conviction.

imply
512

the

U.S.

invalidity”

477,

487

of

(1994).

a
For

plaintiff’s
the

prior

reasons

that

follow, we affirm.
I.
On

March

8,

1982,

Griffin

was

convicted

by

a

jury

in

Baltimore City Circuit Court for the April 22, 1981 murder of
James Williams Wise and also for a related weapons charge. He
was sentenced to life in prison. The Maryland Court of Special
Appeals affirmed Griffin’s convictions on April 4, 1983, and the
Maryland

Court

of

Appeals

denied

Griffin’s

petition

for

certiorari on April 11, 1984.
Griffin filed a pro se petition for state post-conviction
relief, but it was withdrawn without prejudice on February 23,
1993. He then filed another petition, this one claiming that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel, on April 19, 1995.
The

Baltimore

City

Circuit

Court

December 13, 1996.

2

denied

this

petition

on

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

On

Filed: 10/27/2015

October

31,

1997,

Pg: 3 of 18

over

fifteen

years

after

his

conviction, Griffin sought federal habeas relief in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland. The petition
was denied on June 11, 1998, and this court declined to issue a
certificate of appealability. Griffin v. Sizer, 161 F.3d 2 (4th
Cir. 1998).
Over a decade later, on June 10, 2010, Griffin filed a pro
se

petition

seeking

post-conviction

DNA

testing

of

certain

evidence pursuant to Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 8-201. In response
to this petition, the court appointed Griffin counsel, who filed
a Maryland Public Information Act request seeking records from
the Baltimore City Police Department. These documents allegedly
revealed

that

Baltimore

withheld

from

the

City

defense

Police

Department

exculpatory

evidence,

detectives
including

exculpatory photo-arrays, exculpatory witness statements, proof
of a break in the chain of custody over keys found at the crime
scene, and evidence that tended to inculpate another person.
On
conducted

August
an

4,

2011,

evidentiary

the

Baltimore

hearing

to

City

Circuit

consider

Court

Griffin’s

arguments. It found that Maryland had conducted a reasonable
search for evidence secured in connection with Griffin’s case,
and it indicated that it would address the question of whether
any withholding of evidence was intentional at a later hearing.

3

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 4 of 18

On February 2, 2012, Griffin again moved for state postconviction relief. Then, on May 23, 2012, the Baltimore City
Circuit Court granted Griffin’s unopposed motion to modify his
sentence to time served. Griffin was placed on three years of
unsupervised probation, but the probation was terminated early
on December 19, 2012.
Griffin,

no

longer

in

custody,

sued

the

Baltimore

City

Police Department and three of its former detectives for damages
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, noting that Griffin had “ample opportunity
to

seek

federal

review

.

.

.

prior

to

his

release

from

incarceration,” J.A. 108, dismissed his claims pursuant to the
bar set forth in Heck v. Humphrey. This appeal followed.
II.
We

shall

briefly

underlying

Heck

claim.

Heck,

In

problems

lying

schemes

The

before
the

relevant

§ 1983.

review

at

first

the

proceeding

Supreme

the

to

at

to

Court

problem

the

of

to

core

the

litigation:

goes

the

principles

of

Griffin’s

two

potential

major

statutory

identified

intersection

prisoner

outset

habeas

consistency.

corpus
If

a

and

§ 1983

plaintiff could win damages premised on the wrongfulness of a
still-valid

conviction,

there

would

be

“two

conflicting

resolutions” of a single controversy. Heck, 512 U.S. at 484. All

4

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 5 of 18

things considered, it would be best not to have law at odds with
itself.
The

second

Congress’s

problem

specified

goes

means

of

to

the

federal

proper

observance

post-conviction

of

review.

Habeas corpus, and not § 1983, is the exclusive federal remedy
for

state

prisoners

seeking

actual

release

from

confinement.

Preiser v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 475, 487-90 (1973). Congress has
limited this remedy, moreover, by requiring habeas petitioners
to

exhaust

their

claims

in

state

forums

and

by

limiting

a

federal court’s ability to review a state court’s adjudication
of the merits of a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. If, however, a
§ 1983 plaintiff could win damages premised on a still-valid
conviction,

then

that

plaintiff

could

circumvent

these

limitations and mount “a collateral attack on [a] conviction
through the vehicle of a civil suit.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 484.
The Supreme Court attempted to forestall these two problems
by

prohibiting

§ 1983

claims

implicating

issues

more

appropriately resolved via federal habeas corpus or state postconviction relief. Specifically, the Court held that
to recover damages for . . . harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that
the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid
by
a
state
tribunal
authorized
to
make
such
determination, or called into question by a federal
court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254.

5

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 6 of 18

Id. at 485. Through what has become known as the “favorable
termination requirement,” Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 64647 (2004), the Court ensured that § 1983 litigation would not
result

in

inconsistent

convictions

through

judgments

pathways

or

other

retrials

than

of

those

old

state

delineated

by

Congress.
Heck itself makes clear, however, that § 1983 actions that
do not “necessarily” imply the invalidity of a prior conviction
“should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar
to the suit.” Heck, 512 at 487. The need to avoid inconsistent
judgments

and

requirements

prevent

of

litigants

federal

habeas

from

evading
is

corpus

the

present

not

procedural
when

a

§ 1983 claim would not actually undermine a valid conviction. In
Skinner v. Switzer, for example, the Court held that Skinner’s
suit for DNA testing was cognizable under § 1983, because the
testing would not “necessarily” undermine the validity of his
conviction.

562

U.S.

521,

534

(2011).

It

might

instead

only

incriminate him further. Id.
While § 1983 suits seeking DNA testing may proceed around
the Heck bar, § 1983 actions based on Brady claims may not.
Skinner
testing,

itself
which

inconclusive
postconviction,

makes

this

may

yield

results,

a

necessarily

distinction

clear.

exculpatory,
Brady
yields

6

“Unlike

incriminating,

claim,
evidence

when

DNA
or

successful

undermining

a

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 7 of 18

conviction: Brady evidence is, by definition, always favorable
to

the

defendant

and

material

to

his

guilt

or

punishment.”

Skinner, 562 U.S. at 536; see also Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 (“We
now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence
favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where
the evidence is material.”). The Court’s careful explanation of
this

distinction

prevents

us

from

allowing

its

decision

in

Skinner to “spill over to claims relying on Brady.” Skinner, 562
U.S. at 536.
What we have here, then, are § 1983 claims predicated on
alleged
imply

Brady
the

violations

invalidity

of

which

would,

Griffin’s

if

proven,

necessarily

convictions.

And

those

convictions have not been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged
by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal . . .
or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. Under Heck, therefore,
they may not be collaterally attacked through § 1983 now.
That Griffin is no longer in custody does not change this
result.

The

Heck

bar

is

“not

rendered

inapplicable

by

the

fortuity that a convicted criminal is no longer incarcerated.”
Id. at 490 n.10. This rule prevents would-be § 1983 plaintiffs
from bringing suit even after they are released from custody and
thus

unable

to

challenge

their

conviction

through

a

habeas

petition. Were the rule otherwise, plaintiffs might simply wait

7

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 8 of 18

to file their § 1983 actions until after their sentences were
served, and thereby transform § 1983 into a new font of federal
post-conviction review.
Successful

resolution

of

necessarily

undermine

the

convictions.

Griffin’s

claims

Griffin’s
validity
would

§ 1983
of

appear

claims

would

Griffin’s
therefore

prior
to

fall

within the core of the Heck bar.
III.
Griffin argues, however, that he is not subject to Heck
even

though

his

claims

would

necessarily

undermine

his

convictions. He points to Wilson v. Johnson, which recognizes an
exception to the Heck bar in cases where a litigant “could not,
as a practical matter, [have sought] habeas relief” while in
custody. 535 F.3d 262, 268 (4th Cir. 2008). Griffin argues that
he

qualifies

successfully

for

this

pursue

exception

habeas

relief

because
while

he

could

“deprived

of

not
the

exculpatory evidence hidden by the police.” Appellant’s Op. Br.
at 37. There are several problems with his position.
In Wilson, this Court considered a § 1983 claim for damages
alleging that the State of Virginia improperly extended Wilson’s
sentence by approximately three months. Wilson, 535 F.3d at 263.
Wilson’s

case

Justice

Souter

filed

only

by

presented
in

Heck:

a

potential

because

individuals

who

8

problem

federal
are

“in

habeas

identified
suits

custody,”

28

may

by
be

U.S.C.

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

2254(a),

Filed: 10/27/2015

petitioners

with

Pg: 9 of 18

short

sentences

might

find

their

claims moot before they could prosecute them. Without § 1983 as
a

backstop,

these

petitioners

might

lack

access

to

federal

courts altogether. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 500-02 (Souter, J.,
concurring); see also Spencer v. Kenma, 523 U.S. 1, 20-21, 21
n.* (1998) (Souter, J., concurring). After accepting Wilson’s
assertion that exhausting his claims prior to his release was
impossible, see Wilson, 535 F.3d at 268 n.8, we held that his
action was cognizable under § 1983, id. at 267-68. Had we held
otherwise, Wilson would have been entirely “left without access
to a federal court.” Id. at 268.
We applied a similar rationale in Covey v. Assessor of Ohio
County. There, Covey was sentenced to not less than one and not
more than five years of home confinement. 777 F.3d 186, 191 (4th
Cir. 2015). He brought suit under § 1983 later the next year, by
which time his home confinement was complete. Id. at 198. We
held that Heck did not bar Covey’s claims “for purposes of the
defendants’ motions to dismiss,” and that the district court
should

decide

after

discovery

whether

Covey

was

“unable

to

pursue habeas relief because of insufficient time or some other
barrier.”

Id.

In

discussing

Wilson’s

holding,

moreover,

we

suggested that the Heck exception does not extend to just any
petitioner who, by virtue of no longer being in custody, cannot
seek

habeas

relief.

Rather,

the

9

exception

applies

only

if

a

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

petitioner

Filed: 10/27/2015

could

not

have

Pg: 10 of 18

“practicably

sought

habeas

relief

while in custody.” Id. at 197 (citing Wilson, 535 F.3d at 26768).
Together, Covey and Wilson delineate the Heck bar’s narrow
exception. A would-be plaintiff who is no longer in custody may
bring

a

§ 1983

claim

undermining

the

validity

of

a

prior

conviction only if he lacked access to federal habeas corpus
while in custody. 1
Griffin

did

not

lack

access

to

habeas

relief

while

in

custody. While Wilson had only a few months to make a habeas
claim, and while Covey had at most a little over a year, Griffin
had

three

habeas
petition

decades.

petition
was

And

Griffin

during

denied,

the

his

actually

time

fact

in

that

he

did

bring

custody.
was

able

a

federal

Although
to

file

his
it

demonstrates that the concern animating Wilson and Covey –- that
a citizen unconstitutionally punished might lack an opportunity
for federal redress if kept in custody for only a short period
of time –- is absent in this case.
Griffin argues that he never had the opportunity to achieve
meaningful habeas relief because evidence necessary to his case
1

Access to federal habeas corpus comes part and parcel with
the restrictions Congress has placed on invocations of the writ.
A statute of limitations’ expiration, for example, would not in
this sense deprive a petitioner of access to the federal courts.
By access we mean access to federal habeas corpus as provided
under the enactments of Congress that apply to a petitioner
during his time in custody.

10

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

remained

in

Filed: 10/27/2015

hands

the

Pg: 11 of 18

Baltimore

of

the

Police

Department.

Appellant’s Op. Br. at 28, 39. But likelihood of success is not
the equivalent of opportunity to seek relief. And even if it
were, nothing in the record suggests that Griffin sought the
relevant

records

(much

less

encountered

resistance

to

their

production) until he filed his Maryland Public Information Act
request in 2010. That law, meanwhile, has been in effect since
1970. Maryland Public Information Act Manual, 1-1 (13th ed.,
Oct.

2014).

Lack

of

information

did

not

take

away

Griffin’s

opportunity for meaningful habeas relief.
While
federal

our

Griffin’s

habeas
case

precedent
corpus
is

makes
is

further

clear

the

that

lawful

touchstone

undercut

by

of

the

access

our

fact

to

inquiry,

that

he

did

eventually receive actual notice of possible official misconduct
and still did not pursue additional federal habeas relief. In
declining

to

except

Humphrey,

Skinner,

Brady
562

claims

U.S.

at

from

the

536-37,

rule

the

in

Heck

Supreme

v.

Court

recognized that the adversary process does not as a rule require
a potential respondent to give notice to a potential petitioner
of every claim, meritorious or otherwise, that the petitioner
may possess. Griffin knew of possible police misconduct by, at
the latest, August 4, 2011, the date of his evidentiary hearing
in

the

Baltimore

City

Circuit

Court.

His

custody

did

not

terminate until over sixteen months later, on December 19, 2012.

11

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 12 of 18

The habeas “in custody” requirement, moreover, applies only at
the

time

of

filing,

not

throughout

the

case.

Carafas

v.

LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238-39 (1968); Wolfe v. Clarke, 718 F.3d
277, 286 n.10 (4th Cir. 2013). Griffin would have had only to
file his petition during those sixteen months. He did not do so.
In

sum,

Griffin

has

identified

no

impediment

to

habeas

access warranting an expansion of the Heck exception. In fact,
to dissolve the Heck bar for a damages suit some thirty years
after

a

still-valid

conviction

for

a

plaintiff

who

not

only

could but did file a federal habeas petition would permit the
Heck exception to swallow the rule.
IV.
It is important not to disassociate Griffin’s case from the
broader context of which it is part. The usual federal remedy
for

Griffin,

confinement,

as

for

all

is

habeas

those

who

corpus.

challenge

Congress

has

unlawful

state

simultaneously

provided and circumscribed this remedy so as to preserve the
sensitive balance between state and federal courts. The most
recent

major

Effective

habeas

Death

“principles

of

statute

--

Penalty

Act

comity,

finality,

the

(AEDPA)

1996
--

and

was

Antiterrorism
written

federalism”

and

with
in

the

mind.

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 436 (2000).
These concerns are not novel. The Supreme Court has long
recognized the importance of “the relations existing, under our

12

Appeal: 14-1494

system

Doc: 37

of

Filed: 10/27/2015

government,

between

Pg: 13 of 18

the

judicial

tribunals

of

the

Union and of the States,” and that “the public good requires
that those relations be not disturbed by unnecessary conflict
between courts equally bound to guard and protect rights secured
by the constitution.” Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 251 (1886).
Indeed, “the trial of a criminal case in state court” has always
been understood “as a decisive and portentous event,” Wainwright
v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 90 (1977), and one which commands a
decent measure of federal respect. Griffin’s conviction, after
all, is a state conviction, and it is one in which Maryland, the
rendering jurisdiction, retains an interest.
Limits on federal habeas corpus recognize, moreover, that
the states often already provide many avenues of post-conviction
relief. Maryland, for example, allows certain offenders who are
no longer in custody to challenge their convictions by means of
an “independent, civil action” known as a “petition for writ of
error coram nobis.” Smith v. State, 100 A.3d 1204, 1206 (Md.
App. 2014) (citing Skok v. State, 760 A.2d 647 (Md. 2000)).
Maryland also permits convicted persons to file petitions for
writs

of

actual

innocence

evidence.

Md.

Code,

Maryland

Constitution

Crim.

on

the

Proc.

empowers

13

basis
§

the

of

8-301.

newly

discovered

Additionally,

governor

to

issue

the
an

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 14 of 18

executive pardon. Md. Const. art. II, § 20, cl. 1. 2 And the
Maryland

Board

of

Public

Works

may

grant

compensation

to

pardoned persons. Md. Code, State Fin. & Proc. § 10-501. Each of
these

forms

of

relief

is

in

addition

to

Maryland’s

standard

direct appeal and collateral review procedures. See Md. Code,
Crim. Proc. § 7-101-09. Griffin may or may not qualify for any
or all of these remedies; that is for Maryland to decide. But
nothing

prevents

Maryland

from

creating

new

means

of

invalidating his convictions or paying him damages if it wishes
to do so. Maryland is an “independent sovereign[] with plenary
authority to make and enforce [its] own laws as long as [it]
do[es]

not

infringe

on

federal

constitutional

guarantees.”

Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 280 (2008).
As

the

Supreme

Court

recently

observed,

federal

habeas

corpus “intrudes” on state sovereignty “to a degree matched by
few [other] exercises of federal judicial authority.” Harrington
v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011). This observation is not
inapplicable to Brady claims like Griffin’s, which can take a
federal court deep into a state’s criminal case, and which may
not

be

amenable

to

a

quick

look-see.

2

Whether

alleged

Brady

Some courts have held that, while not strictly an
“expungement by executive order,” a pardon still suffices to
lift the Heck bar. See, e.g., Wilson v. Lawrence Cty., Mo., 154
F.3d 757, 760-61 (8th Cir. 1998); Snyder v. City of Alexandria,
870 F. Supp. 672, 681 (E.D. Va 1994). That question is not
before us, and we do not address it.

14

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 15 of 18

evidence was exculpatory might lend itself to a quick read, but
whether it was material, another critical element of a Brady
claim, cannot invariably be decided in a vacuum, but only by
reviewing
claims

the

may

total

thus

proceedings,

a

context

involve

process

of

an

the

state

exhaustive

which

in

turn

prosecution.

exhumation

implicates

of

the

Brady
state

Supreme

Court’s concerns about premature intrusions upon the established
principles of dual sovereignty. This intrusion, if brought in
habeas corpus, is constitutionally and statutorily authorized.
But collateral attacks are not to be undertaken with abandon or
in a manner that disregards the conscientious efforts of state
judges and juries both to provide and protect the safety of
their citizens and to safeguard their precious rights. All of
this

counsels

against

accepting

Griffin’s

invitation

to

turn

§ 1983 into some routine vehicle for challenging long-settled
state convictions.
We close by noting that our decision sounds in procedure,
not substance. We express no opinion on the actual merits of
Griffin’s Brady claims. Our holding is not meant to bar him from
seeking a remedy for possible police misconduct. The remedy of
habeas corpus was open to him in the past, and he may retain
state remedies he can pursue in the future. We hold only that
the vehicle he has presently chosen is not, at least not now, an
appropriate

one

under

Supreme

15

Court

and

circuit

precedent.

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 16 of 18

Should his convictions at some point be invalidated, he might
again attempt a § 1983 suit free of any Heck bar. Until then,
however, we must affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED

16

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 17 of 18

PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I join the majority’s opinion, which cogently explains the
principles underlying Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and
the federalism concerns that counsel federal respect for state
convictions.
proceed

And I agree that Griffin’s § 1983 suit cannot

consistent

with

Heck,

at

least

unless

and

until

his

state conviction is invalidated.
As the majority explains, Griffin was on notice of the
alleged Brady violation in his case at some point before August
4, 2011, the date on which the Baltimore City Circuit Court
conducted a hearing on Griffin’s Brady claim, and yet did not
pursue

federal

habeas

relief

then

sixteen months he spent in custody.
court

has

not

precisely

delineated

or

during

the

additional

Maj. Op. at 11-12. *
the

scope

of

the

Our
Heck

“exception” it recognized in Wilson v. Johnson, 535 F.3d 262,
265-68 (4th Cir. 2008), and Covey v. Assessor of Ohio County,
777 F.3d 186, 197-98 & n.11 (4th Cir. 2015).

But in a case like

this, where the petitioner’s full term of custody was more than
long enough to allow for access to habeas relief, see Maj. Op.
at 10, then I agree that the exception can apply only if the
petitioner

could

not

have

“practicably

sought

habeas

relief”

during that period of custody, id. at 9-10 (quoting Covey, 777
*

Citations
opinion.

to

“Maj.

Op.”

17

refer

to

the

majority

slip

Appeal: 14-1494

Doc: 37

Filed: 10/27/2015

F.3d at 197).
have

sought

Pg: 18 of 18

And whether or not Griffin “practicably” could

habeas

relief

before

he

actually

discovered

the

alleged Brady material, cf. Heck, 512 U.S. at 502 (Souter, J.,
concurring)

(suggesting

that

Heck

bar

does

not

apply

“to

a

person who discovers after his release from prison that . . .
state officials deliberately withheld exculpatory material”), he
has provided no explanation, in his pleadings or on appeal, as
to

why

he

could

not

have

pursued

habeas

relief

after

discovery and before the termination of his custody.

that

See Maj.

Op. at 12.
Finally,

I

important point:

echo

the

majority’s

clarification

of

an

Our holding expresses no view on the merits of

Griffin’s Brady claim and does not bar Griffin from seeking a
remedy for any Brady violation he has suffered.

Id. at 15-16.

On Griffin’s account, his allegations were substantial enough
that the Baltimore City Circuit Court was prepared to order a
new

trial

unless

the

government

agreed

to

prison after more than thirty years served.
is

indeed

Maryland
provide

meritorious,
that

a

has

remedy,

the
or

then

under

authority
to

Heck,
and

invalidate

his

release

from

If Griffin’s claim
it

also

is
the

Griffin’s

the

State

of

obligation

to

conviction

and

allow a federal court to do so under § 1983 and free of the Heck
bar.

18