Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02807/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02807-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lamont Garrett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2807

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa

Lamont Garrett, also known as G, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 16, 2007

Filed: November 7, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Lamont Garrett was convicted by a jury on two counts of conspiring

to distribute and manufacture crack and powder cocaine. He moved for a mistrial

based on the government’s failure to comply with a pre-trial production order and

based on purported violations of “Garrett’s right to due process, the Jencks Act, Brady

v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, and the stipulated discovery

order.” Appellant’s Brief at 5. It is undisputed that the government failed to comply

with the stipulated discovery order in that the government disclosed certain prior

statements by three government witnesses after the time allowed under the order, but

Appellate Case: 06-2807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Entry ID: 3370370
1

The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

before those witnesses testified against Garrett. The district court1

 denied Garrett’s

motion for a mistrial, and Garrett appeals. 

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s discovery and evidentiary

rulings. United States v. Veith, 397 F.3d 615, 617 (8th Cir. 2005). We also review

for abuse of discretion the district court’s ruling on the motion for a mistrial. United

States v. Urqhart, 469 F.3d 745, 748 (8th Cir. 2006). Notwithstanding Garrett’s

allegation of the government’s numerous violations, Garrett has failed to articulate

how any of the late-disclosed material was exculpatory under Brady, how the

disclosures failed to satisfy the requirements of the Jencks Act, or how any actions by

the government in this case caused prejudice to Garrett’s defense. Garrett received

all materials related to the three government witnesses before those witnesses testified,

and on more than one occasion was granted the opportunity to question those

witnesses outside the presence of the jury. Not only has Garrett failed to articulate

how the government’s actions caused prejudice, our review of the trial transcript

convinces us that the district court correctly determined no prejudice occurred in this

case. In light of this conclusion, we hold that the district court acted well within its

discretion regarding the underlying discovery and evidentiary rulings and properly

denied Garrett’s motion for a mistrial.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed in accordance with Eighth Circuit

Rule of Appellate Procedure 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Entry ID: 3370370