N.D. Supreme Court hears appeal in Benjamin Williams murder conviction over alleged Brady violations

The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral argument in the appeal of Benjamin Williams, who a jury convicted in April 2024 of murder and unlawful possession of a firearm, on claims that prosecutors withheld impeachment and exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland.

Alexis Madlam, attorney for the appellant Williams, told the court that prosecutors failed to disclose a witness’s updated statement and information about Dr. Miller’s personnel issues before trial and that the combined nondisclosures denied Williams a fair trial. Madlam said the updated witness statement — from a witness identified in the record as Lynn Bersier — contained new information that turned that witness into an eyewitness and was provided to prosecutors about four days before trial. "We would want this case to be remanded so that Mr. Williams could have a fair trial and a new trial," Madlam told the justices.

Madlam argued the undisclosed items met the four-prong test for a Brady violation: (1) the material was in the government’s possession and favorable to the defense as impeachment evidence; (2) the defense did not possess the material and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence; (3) the evidence was suppressed; and (4) there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different if the material had been disclosed. She told the court Williams was charged in October 2022, the case went to trial April 1, 2024, and a jury returned a guilty verdict April 8, 2024.

Madlam also said the state failed to disclose impeachment material relating to Dr. Miller, the medical examiner, including a performance-improvement plan and allegations that an employee purchased a restricted substance on the doctor’s behalf. Madlam argued those personnel matters could be used on cross-examination to challenge credibility and that some records were not obtainable by open-records requests while an internal investigation was ongoing.

Julie Lawyer, representing the state, told the justices the prosecution provided the Bersier statement to the defense before Bersier testified and noted Bersier had been listed on the state’s witness list filed March 18, 2024. Lawyer told the court that the trial judge gave the defense the option to pause and call Bersier later in the trial to allow more preparation time, and that the defense declined the offered accommodation. On the personnel material for Dr. Miller, Lawyer said the relevant information either was not in Miller’s personnel file at the time of trial or would not have been impeachment material.

The attorneys also disputed competing characterizations of the prosecution’s closing argument and the significance of DNA testing. Madlam told the court the ATF testing excluded Williams from tested cartridge cases and the firearm; she said the prosecution nonetheless argued to the jury that Williams could be part of untestable or complex DNA mixtures. Lawyer responded that the state’s closing arguments were consistent with the evidence as presented and that the trial court gave curative instructions when objections were raised.

Justices — identified in the record as Justice Daniel Crothers, Justice Lisa Fair McEvers, Justice Jared Tufte and Justice John Jensen — asked questions about the timing of disclosures, whether the defense could have obtained the information earlier with reasonable diligence, and whether issues were preserved in the trial record or reviewable as obvious error on appeal. The court noted a separate motion for sanctions had been brought in the district court but distinguished that motion from the request for a new trial on Brady grounds.

After argument and rebuttal, the court took the case under advisement and did not announce a decision.

The appeal centers on whether late disclosure of a witness statement and personnel information about the medical examiner amounted to constitutional error requiring a new trial. The court’s written opinion will determine whether those nondisclosures, together with the state's trial conduct, met the legal standard for reversal and remand.