Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00077/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00077-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) No. CV 08-077-PHX-DGC (CRP)

Plaintiff, )

) No. CR 03-974-PHX-DGC

vs. )

) REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

)

)

NEIL RUSTY BOND, )

)

Movant/Defendant. )

__________________________________ )

The Court requested briefing on whether the evidentiary hearing should encompass

the issue of the failure to disclose audiotapes of conversations between Defendant and Social

Security Administration (“SSA”) employees. The parties have briefed the issue. For the

reasons discussed below, the Magistrate Judge recommends the District Court dismiss the

claims related to failure to make Brady disclosures. These claims will not be a part of the

evidentiary hearing.

Analysis

Bond maintains he made tapes of calls to SSA 1-800 numbers and received

information that only net income need be reported and residual income was excluded. The

Government denies that these three tapes ever existed. Regrettably, the search warrant

inventory apparently does not answer the question of whether the tapes ever existed. The

Government cannot disclose what it does not have.

Even if the tapes were lost, there is no prejudice to Defendant. Bond made a similar

tape in 2005, which was played to the jury. Moreover, Bond testified to the information he

Case 2:08-cv-00077-DGC-CRP Document 83 Filed 04/02/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

said was in the tapes, and that testimony was largely uncontroverted. Therefore, there was

no prejudice to Defendant. 

Finally, the issue was procedurally defaulted because it was not raised on appeal.

Given the ample evidence Bond presented on this issue at trial, it is not surprising that the

so-called Brady issue was not raised on appeal.

Recommendation

It is the recommendation of this Court that the District Court deny Defendant’s Brady

claim, identified as Ground Seven in this Court’s Report and Recommendation dated

December 31, 2008. (Doc 51). The Brady claim will not be a part of the scheduled

evidentiary hearing. The evidentiary hearing shall be limited to the issue of ineffective

assistance of counsel.

Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated February 3, 2009 (Doc 64), the ten day time limit

to file objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation shall be extended. After

this Court issues its Report and Recommendation as to ground Three, subsequent to the

evidentiary hearing, counsel for both parties shall have thirty days to file objections to the

recommendations of this Court on all seven grounds. If objections are not timely filed, they

may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that any objections filed are to be identified

with the following case number: cv-08-077-DGC.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner

and counsel for Respondents.

DATED this 2nd day of April, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00077-DGC-CRP Document 83 Filed 04/02/09 Page 2 of 2