Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07033/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Kevin Joseph Zink
Appellant

Document Text:

FIL~ D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals Tenth c:~uit 

MARO 4 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

KEVIN JOSEPH ZINK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 91-7033 

( D. C. No. 90- 65- S 

( E . D. Okla . ) 

Before SEYMOUR and BRORBY, Circuit Judges and BROWN, Senior 

District Judge.** 

The parties have stipulated that we may decide this case on 

the briefs. After examining the briefs and appellate record, we 

have determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

material ly assist the determination of this appeal . See Fed . R. 

App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument . 

Defendant Kevin Joseph Zink has appealed his c onvi ction as 

well as the denial of his motion for new trial. We have reviewed 

* 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. 

** The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior United St ates District 

Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designa tion. 

Appellate Case: 91-7033 Document: 010110226726 Date Filed: 03/04/1992 Page: 1 
the record and have fully considered his arguments. We are 

persuaded that the evidence was sufficient to establ ish beyond a 

reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly participated in a 

conspiracy to obtain a false passport for his fugitive brother. 

We are also convinced that the government did not commit a 

violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it 

inadvertently failed to find and deliver the grand jury testimony 

of certain people until after the trial. In this connection, we 

have concluded that the grand jury material does not meet the test 

of United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1984), which holds 

that in order for evidence to be material under Brady, there must 

be "a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed 

to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different." 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the denial of the motion for new trial 

and the judgment of conviction. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-7033 Document: 010110226726 Date Filed: 03/04/1992 Page: 2