Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-08-03441/USCOURTS-ca3-08-03441-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Josh Medina
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

The Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge of the United States Court of *

Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 08-3441

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOSH MEDINA,

a/k/a POLO,

a/k/a JOHN DOE

JOSH MEDINA, 

 Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 2-05-cr-00688-007

District Judge: The Honorable Norma L. Shapiro

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 9, 2010

Before: AMBRO, SMITH, and MICHEL, Circuit Judges *

(Filed:March 11, 2010)

Case: 08-3441 Document: 003110054456 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have 1

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

 Because we write only for the parties, we will presume knowledge of the record 2

and recount the facts only briefly.

2

 

OPINION

 

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Josh Medina was convicted of several crimes in connection with a

string of robberies. He now appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion for a new

trial, Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, which was based on an alleged Brady violation, Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). The evidence Medina accuses the government of

failing to disclose, certain statements made by his co-conspirators to the government

during the investigation, was not material because Medina was able to elicit the same

statements from the co-conspirators on cross-examination. Because the alleged Brady

violation fails, we will affirm the District Court’s denial of Medina’s motion for a new

trial.1

I.

Medina and five other individuals were charged with a string of robberies that

took place in 2004. All defendants except Medina pled guilty to some or all of the 2

robberies. Medina opted to proceed to trial and the government presented evidence

against him suggesting that he drove the getaway car and acted as lookout for the robbery

Case: 08-3441 Document: 003110054456 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
 Several months later, on November 8, 2007, Medina amended his motion for a 3

new trial. For purposes of this opinion, all references to Medina’s motion are references

to his amended motion.

3

of a laundromat, and that his gun was used in that robbery. On July 19, 2007, a jury

convicted Medina of (1) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, (2)

Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and § 2, and (3) possession of a firearm in

furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and § 2.

On July 20, 2007, Medina moved for a new trial under Rule 33 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure. He argued that the government committed a Brady 3

violation by withholding statements made to investigators by two of his co-conspirators,

George Rivera and Jacqueline White, in which they denied their involvement in certain

robberies. Rivera denied involvement in the robbery of a deli and White denied

involvement in the robbery of a self-storage facility. Medina contended that these

statements had significant impeachment value against another co-conspirator, David

Roman, who testified at trial that Rivera was present at the deli robbery and that White

was present at the self-storage facility robbery.

The District Court concluded that Medina’s motion lacked merit because he was

not prejudiced by the non-disclosures. At trial, Medina repeatedly challenged the

credibility of Rivera, Roman, and White and “[h]ad the government properly disclosed

[Rivera and White’s statements] prior to trial, it [was] highly improbable that [Medina]

could have called the witnesses’ credibility into greater question.” Accordingly, the

Case: 08-3441 Document: 003110054456 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
4

District Court denied Medina’s motion. Medina now appeals that denial.

II.

The sole issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the District Court correctly

denied Medina’s motion for a new trial based on an alleged Brady violation. 

“Ordinarily, we review a denial of a motion for a new trial under an abuse of discretion

standard.” United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36, 39 (3d Cir. 1993). “However, when a

Brady violation is alleged . . . we review the district court’s legal conclusions on a de

novo basis and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.” Id.; United

States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 202 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132,

134 (3d Cir. 1992); United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 1991).

To establish a violation under Brady, “a defendant must show that: (1) evidence

was suppressed; (2) the suppressed evidence was favorable to the defense; and (3) the

suppressed evidence was material either to guilt or to punishment.” Pelullo, 399 F.3d at

209 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Evidence is material if there is a reasonable

probability that, had [the evidence] been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would

have been different.” United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 348 (3d Cir. 2002), cert.

denied, 537 U.S. 859 (2002).

Even assuming that the first two requirements of a Brady violation were satisfied,

Medina has not shown that Rivera and White’s statements were material to his guilt or

punishment. See Pelullo, 399 F.3d at 209; see also Perez, 280 F.3d at 348. Medina

Case: 08-3441 Document: 003110054456 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
 White testified as follows: 4

Q: Well, the Government has agreed to withdraw the

charges for the Philadelphia Self-Storage, is that right?

A: Which they should cause I didn’t do it.

 On cross-examination by Medina’s counsel, Roman testified as follows: 5

Q: And the Philly Self Storage, that was when Jacqueline

White drove you and Evil to that place to rob and that

was the day it was raining, correct?

A: Correct.

 On cross-examination by Medina’s counsel, Rivera testified that he was not 6

involved in the deli robbery:

Q: The June 28th, 2004, robbery of Emerald Deli, you

[were] charged with that, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And, in fact, you took part in that, correct?

A: No.

On direct examination by the government, Roman contradicted Rivera’s testimony:

Q: Could you continue to explain what took place [during

5

argues that the contradictions between Rivera and White’s statements to the government

and Roman’s testimony could have been used to show that one or more of these

witnesses lied. This exact point, though, was made at trial.

On cross-examination by Medina’s counsel, White denied involvement in the selfstorage facility robbery. Roman, however, testified that White was involved in that 4

robbery. The same was true for Rivera—Roman claimed Rivera was involved in the 5

deli robbery, Rivera claimed he was not. During closing, Medina’s counsel attacked the 6

Case: 08-3441 Document: 003110054456 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
the deli robbery]?

A: This time my friend, we use his car this time. George

Rivera. We call him Gono. I called him up, because we

needed a driver. This time I went into the business with

Eville Vargas to rob them and he drove the van.

6

credibility of all three witnesses. He pointed out that Rivera and Roman’s testimonies

conflicted:

George Rivera. They’ve charged him with participating in the

robbery of the Emerald Deli[.] And now you see a consistent

pattern here of who’s willing to lie on the stand. I said, well,

Mr. Rivera, didn’t you commit that with Evil Vargas and David

Roman? He had the audacity to tell you no. Well, both can’t be

true, because Roman’s saying he committed it with [Rivera.]

He also asserted that White’s testimony regarding the self-storage facility showed that

either White or Roman were lying:

Jackie [White] is charged with robbing the Philly Self Storage.

I asked her, I said, you robbed Philadelphia Self Storage with

David Roman and Evil Vargas. I didn’t. I didn’t. Not me, that

case is still under investigation. Well, didn’t David Roman say

that, oh, it was Jackie [White] who robbed that with me? So,

[the government’s] witness that [it] wants you to trust beyond

a reasonable doubt, we know either Roman’s lying or she’s

lying. I don’t know what story is true, but the fact that there is

more than one story is a reasonable doubt.

Based on the record, we cannot say that the disclosure of Rivera and White’s

statements to the government would have changed the result of the proceeding because

Medina elicited similar statements from the two witnesses at trial. See Perez, 280 F.3d at

348. Medina was able to point out the inconsistencies between Rivera and White’s

Case: 08-3441 Document: 003110054456 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
 Medina’s argument that the non-disclosure of Rivera and White’s statements to 7

the government prevented him from challenging the credibility of the government’s

prosecution fails for the same reason. Medina successfully questioned the government’s

prosecution at trial by challenging each co-conspirator’s testimony and pointing out that

some of the co-conspirators benefitted in their plea agreements by cooperating with the

government. For example, during closing, Medina’s counsel said:

I asked Agent Majarowitz, I said, is it fair to say, Agent

Majarowitz, that all the information that they used to identify

people who were involved in these robberies came from -- and

they said he was the -- one of the first people in -- came from

your interviews with Jackie [White]? That’s correct. What if

there’s misinformation than what’s given? What if David

Roman and someone else aren’t telling the truth? David Roman

is not telling the truth, because I don’t know which truth you’re

supposed to believe, did George Rivera help him or didn’t he?

Did Jackie Wright help him or didn’t s[he]? Because she said

she didn’t and he says she did. Is he involved or wasn’t he?

Medina’s whole strategy at trial was to undermine witness credibility, which, in effect,

questioned the credibility of the government’s prosecution.

7

testimonies denying involvement in certain robberies and Roman’s testimony stating that

the two were involved in those robberies without the statements Rivera and White made

to the government. The jury was informed of those inconsistencies repeatedly by

Medina’s counsel, yet still convicted Medina. “[T]he government ma[de] [the] Brady

evidence available during the course of [the] trial in such a way that [Medina] [wa]s able

effectively to use it[.]” United States v. Johnson, 816 F.2d 918, 924 (3d Cir. 1987). 

Thus, “due process [wa]s not violated and Brady [wa]s not contravened.” Id. Medina

used the inconsistencies between the co-conspirators’ testimonies to suggest that at least

one of them was lying. The jury was simply not persuaded by that argument.7

Case: 08-3441 Document: 003110054456 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
8

III.

Even assuming that Rivera and White’s statements were improperly suppressed by

the government, Medina has failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that

the result of the proceeding would have been different had those statements been

disclosed. Therefore, we will affirm the District Court’s denial of Medina’s motion for a

new trial.

Case: 08-3441 Document: 003110054456 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/11/2010