Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02292/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02292-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Pedroncelli
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

United States u,1;rr of Appeab 

Tenth Cir::-t!it · UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT JAN ;J - '!9SrJ 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNIT.ED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

CHARLES PEDRONCELLI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

V • . 

JAMES PEDRONCELLI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

VERONICA FRANCISCO,. 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) . 

) 

) 

. ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) . 

No. 88-2292 

(D.C. No.CR-88-0058-2) 

(D.N.M.) 

No. 88-.2325 . 

(D.C. No.CR-88-0058-3) 

(D.N.M.) 

No. 88-2420 

(D.C. No.CR-88-0058-1) 

(D.N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel~ 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2292 Document: 01019958647 Date Filed: 01/03/1990 Page: 1 
Defendants James Pedroncelli, Charles Pedroncelli, and 

Veronica Francisco were convicted of conspiracy to manufacture and 

to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § ·846 (1982); maintaining 

a place to manufacture methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 856 (Supp. IV 

1986); and manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine, 21 

U.S.C. §§ 84l(a) (1), (b) (1) (C) (1982). We affirm. 

I. 

Prior to trial, the district court issued two orders 

partially granting Veronica Francisco and Charles Pedroncelli's 

·motions to produce evidence favorable to defendants .. The 

Government was ordered to furnish defendants all information 

required under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d)(2) and 16(a}, as well as 

material mandated under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (1982), 

and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

During the Government's opening statement at trial, it. was 

revealed that one witness, Rhonda Edwards, had been granted 

immunity in return for her testimony for the Government. It also 

became known that the Government had acceded to Ms. Edwards' 

request to be secrete9 in a motel room after some persons 

allegedly had thr~atened her, and that the Government had a taped. 

witness statement from Ms. Edwards. Both the immunity agreement 

and a transcription of the tape were made available to defendants 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2292 Document: 01019958647 Date Filed: 01/03/1990 Page: 2 
• 

during lunch break on . the first day of the trial. Ms. Edwards' 

direct testimony was given that afternoon, and cross-examination 

was delayed until the next day to give counsel for defendants an 

opportunity to study the material. The following morning, Ms. 

Edwards was cross-examined extensively, amoun~ing to over fifty 

pages of written transcript. 

Defendants Charles Pedrottcelli and Veronica Francisco argue 

that the prosecution's belated disclosure of the immunity 

agreement and witness statement on the first day of trial, and the 

Government's hiding of Ms . Edwards, constitute prejudicial error. 

We disagree. 

Since the Stipreme Court's decision in Brady, the prosecution 

has been obliged to provide to the defense material evidence in 

its possession which is favorable to the accused. Whether a Brady 

violation has occurred in the present case is a mixed question of 

fact and law, which we review de novo. See Bowen v. Maynard, 799 

F.2d ·593, 610 (10th Cir.) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 962 (1986). A 

Brady violation occurs when the def~ndant establishes''' (a) 

suppression by the prosecution after a request by the defense, (b) 

the evidence's favorable character for the defense, and (c) the 

materiality of the evidence.'" United States v: Bonnett, 877 F.2d 

1450, 1459 -(10th Cir. 1989) (quoting Talamante v. Romero, 620 F.2d 

784, 787 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 877 (1980)). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2292 Document: 01019958647 Date Filed: 01/03/1990 Page: 3 
The immunity agreement is clearly favorable to the defense as 

impeachment evidence. 1 See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 

(1972). Additionally, the prosecution's last minute disclosure of 

the requested agreement on the first day of trial conceivably 

could amount to "suppression" within the meaning of . Brady. But in 

this case, defendants have failed to show that the evidence was 

"material" under the standard set out in United States v. Bagley, 

473 U.S. 667 (1985). Evidence is material "only if there is a 

reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to 

the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different. A 'reasonable probability·• is a probability sufficient 

to undermine confidence in the outcome.II Id. at 682. See also 

United ·states v. Bonnett, 877 F.2d 1450, 1459-60 (10th Cir. 1989). 

We have reviewed· the record, and we Conclude that the evidence 

establishes defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt even 

absent Ms. Edwards' testimony. 

Surveillance of Veronic~ Francisco's residence and the 

methamphetamine laboratory location indicated that she played a 

key role in arranging the transaction. She left her residence 

shortly after. Mark Stone, the _drug purchaser, ·was seen entering 

it, and she went to the residence containing the laboratory. From 

1 Veronica Francisco and Charles Pedroncelli also assert that a 

statement given by Ms. Edwards to the FBI concerning an unrelated 

investigation of a murder should have been disclosed. No 

indication exists, however, that this statement was in the 

prosecutors' possession or that it has any bearing on Ms. Edwards' 

conduct. or credibility as a witness in the present case. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2292 Document: 01019958647 Date Filed: 01/03/1990 Page: 4 
• 

there, she was seen as she arrived at the situs of the 

transaction, where she was identified by Stone as his "source." 

Her fingerprints were also positively identified on various items 

in the methamphetamine laboratory. 

The evidence establishing Charles Pedroncelli's guilt absent 

Ms. Edwards-' testimony is equally overwhelming. Charles' 

fingerprints ~ere positively identified on glassware in the 

methamphetamine laboratory in the garage of the home wher~ he 

lived. His wallet was also found in the garage. Charles' 

attempts to evade search by lying to the officers that the garage 

was separately leased also strongly implicates him. Finally, 

surveillance indicated that the one pound _delivery by James 

Pedroncelli origiriated from the methamphetamine laboratory. 

Defendants have also failed to show that the late disclosure 

prejudiced their case such that they were denied their due process 

right _ to a fair trial. See United States v. Behrens, 689 F.2d 

154, 158 (10th Cir.) ("defendants have not demonstrated that the 

delayed disclosure Qf evidence deprived them of a fair trial''), 

cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1088 (1982). To the contrary, they had an 

opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Edwards concerning the immunity 

agreement and her statement, and they made use 0f it. Defendants' 

belief while preparing for trial that Ms. Edwards would not be 

granted ~mmunity and therefore would not testify was entirely 

unwarranted. We accordingly conclude that defendants Francisco 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-2292 Document: 01019958647 Date Filed: 01/03/1990 Page: 5 
I 

and Charles Pedroncelli have failed to demonstrate that the 

impeachment evidence was material or that the Government's 

belated disclosure prejudiced their right to a fair trial. 

Defendants' claim that the Government prevented them from 

speaking with Ms. Edwards is also meritless. The record shows 

that Ms. Edwards chose not to make herself available to the 

defense because of threats made against her. The Government~s 

assistance in relocating her thus did not interfere "with the free 

choice of a witness to speak with the defense~·· United States v. 

Pinto, 755 F.2d 150, ~52 (10th Cir . 1985) . 

II . 

During trial~ the Gov~rnment introd~ced into evidence various 

items from the methamphetamine laboratory~ Latent fingerprint 

samples on the items were identified by~ fingerprint expert as 

belonging to· defendants. Exhibit 51, a pie~e of cardboard cut 

from a Kerr Mason Jar Box, was introduced into evidence over the 

objection of defendant James Pedroncelli for lack of foundation. 

The fingerprint expert testified that the exhibit contained a 

latent print belonging to James. The trial court denied James' 

motion to strike the testimony. 

Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion 

in admitting into evidence the exhibit and the expert testimony 

-6-

Appellate Case: 88-2292 Document: 01019958647 Date Filed: 01/03/1990 Page: 6 
I · 

' 

relating to it. We review the decision to admit evidence under an 

abuse of discretion standard. See Mason v. United States, 719 

F.2d 1485, 1490 (10th Cir. 1983). We agree with James' counsel 2 

that, in light of the overwhelming evidence against this 

defendant, he ~annot demonstrate the substantial prejudice 

required to show that the trial court abused its discretion in 

admitting this essentially cumulative evidence. See United States 

v. Affleck, 776 F.2d 1451, 1456 (10th Cir. 1985) (admission of 

exhibits cumulative in nature not prejudicial); United States v. 

Johnson, 622 F.2d 507, 511 (10th Cir.) (corroborative ·and 

cumulative nature of admitted exhibits indicates no prejudice), 

cert. denied, 449 U.S. 953 (1980). 

We AFFIRM the convictions of all three defendants. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circui.t Judge 

2 James Pedroncelli's counsel filed a motion to withdraw under 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1978), on the basis that his 

client's appeal is frivolous. We grant .the motion. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 88-2292 Document: 01019958647 Date Filed: 01/03/1990 Page: 7