Repository Collection 03
Claim II
SOURCE VERIFICATION ARCHIVE
Last Revised • July 2, 2026
This collection contains the publicly available authorities, court decisions, government records, investigative materials, and supporting documentation cited throughout Claim II of the Supplemental Motion. These sources support the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of exculpatory evidence, witness-related constitutional violations, and other issues presented in this claim.
Browse Supporting Sources
1"[Brady v. Maryland (1963)]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Verified Source
Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963)
Supreme Court of the United States
"[See also Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25 (1968): The prosecution cannot claim a witness is 'unavailable' without a good-faith effort to produce him]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Verified Source
Barber v. Page
390 U.S. 719 (1968)
Supreme Court of the United States
"[Sworn Statement of Scott Dutcher]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Verified Source
Sworn Statement of APD Officer Scott R. Dutcher
July 23, 1997
Defense Discovery
"[Transcription of Parkway Ranger Martin Golden's Tape Recording]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Verified Source
Transcript of U.S. Park Ranger Martin Golden Audio Recording
Recording: July 10, 1997
Transcript Certified: February 15, 1999
"[See also original MAR, pg. 31]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Referenced Court Filing
State v. Lyle Clinton May Motion for Appropriate Relief
March 6, 2003
Referenced Page 31
"[Tp. 1084]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Referenced Trial Transcript
State v. May Trial Transcript
Trial Transcript
Page 1084
"{Tp.1087, lines 19-25}"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Trial Transcript Entry
State v. May Trial Transcript
Buncombe County Superior Court Trial Record
Page 1087, Lines 19–25
"[Tp.1088, lines 1-12]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Referenced Trial Transcript
State v. May Trial Transcript
Trial Transcript
Page 1088 (Lines 1–12)
"[Tp.1222]"
"[Tp.1347, lines 1-3]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Referenced Trial Transcript
State v. May Trial Transcript
Pages 1222 & 1347 (Lines 1–3)
"[See 96 CR 062965]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Verified Court Record
State of North Carolina v. Darrell Elburt Godfrey
Buncombe County District Court Register of Actions
Case No. 96 CR 062965
"[See 94 CR 064346]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Verified Court Record
State of North Carolina v. Darrell Elburt Godfrey
Buncombe County District Court Register of Actions
Case No. 94 CR 064346
"[Ohio v. Roberts, 488 U.S. 56 (1980), the Court held such testimonial hearsay can be admitted only if: (1) the declarant was unavailable despite diligence to make him available, and (2) there was prior opportunity for crossexamination]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
United States Supreme Court Decision
Ohio v. Roberts
448 U.S. 56 (1980)
United States Supreme Court
"[Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 7791, 144 S.Ct. 1785, 219 L.Ed. 2d 420]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
United States Supreme Court Decision
Smith v. Arizona
602 U.S. ___, 144 S.Ct. 1785 (2024)
United States Supreme Court
"[See 53 also: Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986): confrontation violations require harmless error review; burden on the state to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt;"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
United States Supreme Court Decision
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986)
United States Supreme Court
"and State v. Hinnant 351 N.C. 277, 523 S.E. 2d 663 (2000)]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
North Carolina Supreme Court Decision
State v. Hinnant
351 N.C. 277, 523 S.E.2d 663 (2000)
North Carolina Supreme Court
"In Davis v. Washington (2005), the Court held testimonial statements are those "made in the course of police interrogation" when the "primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later prosecution.""
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
United States Supreme Court Decision
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006)
United States Supreme Court
"[Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 219, 94 S.Ct. 2253, 41/L.Ed 2d 20 (1974)]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
United States Supreme Court Decision
Anderson v. United States
417 U.S. 211, 219 (1974)
United States Supreme Court
"In Crawford v. Washington (2004) the Court held that admission of the defendant's wife's out-of-court statements to police officers, regarding the incident in which the defendant allegedly stabbed the victim, violated the Confrontation Clause, regardless of whether statements were deemed reliable by the court, where statements were testimonial and the defendant was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the wife."
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
United States Supreme Court Decision
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004)
United States Supreme Court
"[Tp.704; 1195-97]"
"[Tp.1089-91]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Trial Transcript Entry
State v. May Trial Transcript
Buncombe County Superior Court Trial Record
"[Tp.1271]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Trial Transcript Entry
State v. May Trial Transcript
Buncombe County Superior Court Trial Record
"[Tp.1277-78]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Trial Transcript Entry
State v. May Trial Transcript
Buncombe County Superior Court Trial Record
"[Tp.1278]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Trial Transcript Entry
State v. May Trial Transcript
Buncombe County Superior Court Trial Record
"[Tp.1324]"
"[Tp.1311]"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Trial Transcript Entry
State v. May Trial Transcript
Buncombe County Superior Court Trial Record
"State v. Miles, 222 N.C. App at 607, 730 S.E. 2d 816 (2012)"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
North Carolina Court of Appeals Decision
State v. Miles
222 N.C. App. 593, 730 S.E.2d 816 (2012)
North Carolina Court of Appeals
"In Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the Court held that to determine whether evidence not disclosed by the state was "material" for purposes of Brady, the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence is considered, rather than considering each item of evidence individually, and whether the favorable evidence would have made a different result "reasonably probable" in the prosecution"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
United States Supreme Court Decision
Kyles v. Whitley
514 U.S. 419 (1995)
United States Supreme Court
{"See also: United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985);"}
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
United States Supreme Court Decision
United States v. Bagley
473 U.S. 667 (1985)
United States Supreme Court
"Hoke v. Netherland, 92 F.3d 1350 (4th Cir. 1996);"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision
Hoke v. Netherland
92 F.3d 1350 (4th Cir. 1996)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
"Monroe v. Angelene, 323 F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2003): given the probability that if the state had disclosed impeachment evidence about a key prosecution witness, the defendant would not have been convicted, as the witness' testimony provided major evidence and the undisclosed impeachment materials would have rendered witness testimony far less credible."
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision
Monroe v. Angelone
323 F.3d 496 (4th Cir. 2003)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
"State v. McDowell, 310 S.E. 2d 304 (N.C. 1984)"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
North Carolina Supreme Court Decision
State v. McDowell
310 S.E.2d 304 (N.C. 1984)
North Carolina Supreme Court
"See State v. Lyle Clinton May Motion for Appropriate Relief, Claim II, pgs 90-97; March 6, 2003"
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
Court Filing Entry
State v. Lyle Clinton May Motion for Appropriate Relief
Claim II
Filed March 6, 2003
"In State v. Basden, 350 N.C. 579, 582-83 (1999), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that by allowing the defendant time to respond to the State's motion for summary denial of the defendant's motion to vacate denial of the MAR, the trial court "resurrected" defendant's MAR and made it "pending" for the purposes of MAR discovery provision."
As Cited in the Supplemental Motion
North Carolina Supreme Court Decision
State v. Basden
350 N.C. 579, 582–83 (1999)
North Carolina Supreme Court
Continue Your Research
Return to Source Verification Archive
Return to the Source Verification Archive and browse other sections of the Supplemental Motion.
Explore the Motion: Claim II
Return to the corresponding section of the Supplemental Motion.