2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-12-2008 

# U SA v . Z omb e r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-1287

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Z ombe r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 244. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/244NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F OR THE T HI RD DI S TRI CT

_____________ N os . 06- 1287/ 2230/ 07- 1933

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M I CHAEL Z OM BER , A ppel l ant

_____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 03- cr - 046- 2) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C ynt hi a M . R ufe

_____________ A r gued J ul y21, 2008 B e f o re : M c K E E , F U E N T E S , a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges

_____________ ( Fi l ed: N ovember 12, 2008)

_____________ Ge r a l d B. L e f

c o u r t[ AR GUE D] R e n a to C . S tab ile Ge r a l d B. Le f

c o u r t , P . C. 148 E . 78 St r eet

th N ew Y or k, N Y 10021 C ouns el f orAppel l ant2

Pat r i ck L. M eeha n R ober tA . Z auzmer Set h W eber J o s e p h F . M i n n i [ AR GUE D] U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce 615 C hes t nutSt r eet- #1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . I n t hi s combi ned di r ectappea l and col l at er al pr ocee di ng, M i chae l Z om ber chal l enges hi s convi ct i on forcons pi r acyt o comm i tm ai l fr aud and w i r e fr aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 371. O n di r ectappea l , he mai nt ai ns t hathi s convi ct i on and s ent ence sh o u ld b e v a c a ted f

o r six re a so n s: (1 ) th e e v id e n c e a t trial w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt h is convi ct i on; ( 2) he w as deni ed hi s Si xt h A m endment r i ghtt o eff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ; ( 3) t he governm enti m pr oper l yw i t hhel d evi dence t hats houl d have be en pr oduced unde rt he J encks A ct , 18 U . S. C . § 3500, and B r ady v. Mar yland , 373 U . S. 83 ( 1963) ; ( 4) he w as pr ej udi ced byt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s err oneous j ur yi ns t ruct i on on t he m eani ng of fr aud; ( 5) t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s cal cul at i on of hi s s ent ence undert he U ni t ed S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s w a s e rro n e o u s; a n d (6 ) th e D istric t C o u rt e rro n e o u sly o rd e re d h im to p a yre s titu tio n f o r n o n -c ri m in a l tr a n s a c tio n s n o t c h a rg e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. In hi s m oti on un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 5, Z om ber ar gu es that the judgm ent agai nsthim m ust be vac at ed due t o t he i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of hi s couns el and the s ame B r ady and J encks A ctvi ol at i ons he al l eges i n hi s di r ectappea l . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatt he governm entFor exampl e, Z om beradmi t t ed the fol l ow i ng: 1 Q : R i char d E l l i s as ked y ou t o w r i t e a f al s e l et t er , m aki ng up a s t or yt haty ou h ad a b u y er w il li n g to p aym o n eyfo r [o n e o f th e f ir ea rm s]. A : H e asked m e t o w ri t e a l et t er, y es. Q : A nd t hatl et t ers t at ed thaty ou w er e r epr es ent i ng a buy erw ho w as i nt er es t ed in p u rch asin g the [ firearm ]. A : Y es. Q : W h e n , in f

a c t, th e re w a s n o su c h b u y e r, is th a t rig h t? A : I ha d n o k n o w ledg e o f th e b u y er. Q : B utw hen y ou s ayy ou had no know l edge of t he buy er , I j us tw antt o be cl ear . N o s uch buy erexi s t ed. A : N ott o m yknow l edge. ( A pp. at544. ) Z om beral s o acknow l edged thatatone poi nthe w as conce r ned about “uncons ci onabl e mar kups of the pr i ces ” thatE l l i s char ged M urphyforguns . ( A pp. at 1 4 2 .) 3 fai l ed t o pr oduce e vi dence dur i ng Z om ber ’ s t r i al t hati tw as r equi r ed t o pr oduce unde rt he Jencks A ct , w e w i l l vacate Z om ber’ s conv i ct i on and sent ence a nd w i l l rem and t he case f o r a n e w tr ia l. I . Backg r ound B ecause w e w ri t e pri m ari l yfor t he b enef i tof the part i es, w e setfort h o nlyt ho se fac t s per t i nentt o t he i s s ues befor e us on appea l . Z om beri s an ant i que fi r earm s deal er w ho, al ong w i t h codef

endantand fe l l ow ant i que fi r earm s deal erR i char d E l l i s , w as i ndi ct ed on J anuary23, 2003 forcons pi r acyt o comm i tm ai l fr aud and w i r e fr aud. T he char ges s t emm ed fr om t hr ee f al s e and mi s l eadi ng l et t er s w r i t t en by , oratt he di r ect i on of, Z om berand El l i s . T he l et t er s w er e i nt ended t o i nduce J os eph M urphy , a col l ect orof ant i que fi r earm s m ade byt he Samuel C ol tM anufa ctur i ng C om pany , t o pur chas e at i nfl at ed pr i ces fourC ol tfi r earm s s ecr et l yow ned byZ om berand El l i s . W hi l e El l i s pl ed 1W h il e n o t entir elyclea r, the re co rd in d icates tha t th e g o v ern m en t had the G ates lett ers 2 p rio r to trial. Z o m b e r d id n o t d isc o v e r th e e x iste n c e o f th e lette rs u n til a f

ter trial. O n ly o n e o f th e lett ers, da ted D ec em b er 2 1 , 2 0 0 0 , co n tai n s the o ff er to se ll ; th e se co n d let ter, dat ed J anuary17, 2001, m er el ygi ves M urphy ’ s cont acti nfor m at i on, w hi ch he ha d not pr ovi ded i n t he fi r s tl et t er . B eca us e the part i es t r eatt he G at es l et t er s as a uni t , m aki ng no leg a l d istin c tio n b e tw e e n th e m , w e d o so a s w e ll. 4 g u iltyto th e c h a rg e in th e in d ictm e n t, Z o m b e r’s c a se w e n t to trial. A tt r i al , M urphyw as t he governm ent ’ s pr i m aryw i t nes s , and he t es t i fi ed thathe w oul d nothave pa i d w hathe di d fort he fi r earm s had he know n t hei rt rue val ue. O n D ece m ber15, 2003, a j ur yfound Z om bergui l t yof one c ountof cons pi r acyt o comm i tm ai l and w i r e fr aud. O n M a rc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , Z o m b e r f iled a m o tio n to v a c a te h is c o n v ictio n d u e to i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and B r ady vi ol at i ons . O n February28, 2005, t he D i s t r i ct C our tdeni ed hi s i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m w i t houtpr ej udi ce be caus e s uch cl ai m s ar e typi cal l yr es er ved forcol l at er al at t ack i n a mot i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255, r athert han bei ng per m i t t ed w i t hi n t he cr i m i nal cas e i t s el f oron di r ectappea l . T he D istri ct C o u rtd ism issed Z o m b er’s o ther c lai m s o n the m erit s. T h ree m o n ths later, Z om berfi l ed a s econd mot i on t o vaca t e hi s convi ct i on, i n w hi ch he a l l eged a n addi t i onal B r ady v io la tio n b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt a ls o d e n ie d th a t m o tio n . O n Sept ember 9, 2005, Z om berfi l ed a thi r d m ot i on t o vaca t e hi s convi ct i on, al l egi ng B r ady an d Jen ck s A ct vio lat ion s b ythe g o v ern m en t fo r fa il u re to d iscl o se lett ers M u rp h yh a d w ritten to b ill io n a ire B ill G a tes (th e “ G a tes lette rs” ) o f f e rin g to se ll h is f ir e a rm s c o lle c tio n “ a t c o s t w ith n o tr a d itio n a l m a rk -u p a n d n o d e a le r c o m m is s io n .” 2O n M ar ch 22, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconduct ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng t o det er m i ne 3 r es t i tut i on. A tt he hea r i ng, Z om berand El l i s ent er ed i nt o a s t i pul at i on thatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt c o u ld o rd e r re stitu tio n in th e a m o u n t o f $ 2 .2 m ill io n , w h e re Z o m b e r a n d E lli s w oul d eac h be l i abl e forhal f, or$1. 1 m i l l i on. B eca us e El l i s had al r eadypai d M urphy mo r e t h a n t h e r e s t i tu t i o n a mo u n t , p u r s u a n tt o a c i v i l s e t t l e me n ta g r e e me n tb e t we e n t h e m, t he C our tdi d notor derE l l i s t o payr es t i tut i on. W hi l e agr eei ng t hatt he C our tcoul d or der r es t i tut i on agai ns tZ om ber , hi s couns el obj ect ed t o t he fi gur es adopt ed byt he D i s t r i ct C our ti n comput i ng r es t i tut i on. O n M ar ch 27, 2006, t he C our tent er ed an a m ended cr i m i nal j udgm entt hati ncl uded a s ent ence of r es t i tut i on i n t he amount of $1. 1 m i l l i on agai ns tZ om ber . O n M ar ch 31, 2006, Z om berfi l ed a s econd not i ce of appea l , w hi ch i ncl uded the r es t i tut i on or der . W e ent er ed an or deron A pr i l 11, 2006, cons ol i dat i ng Z o m b er’s ap p ea ls ( 0 6 -12 8 7 /06 -22 3 0 ). O n M a y1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , Z o m b e r f iled a m o tio n w ith th e T h ird C irc u it t o sta yh is a p p e a ls 4 pendi ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r es ol ut i on of hi s § 2255 m ot i on, and w e gr ant ed the mot i on to s ta yo n J u n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 . 5 ( A pp. at172. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed thatm ot i on fr om t he benc h i n open court . T he C o u rt s e n te n c e d Z o m b e r t o th ir ty m o n th s in p ri s o n , th re e y e a rs o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e , a $75, 000 fi ne, and a $100 s peci al as s es s m ent , and i ts chedul ed a he ar i ng i n acc or dance w i t h 18 U . S. C . § 3664( d) ( 5) t o det er m i ne r es t i tut i on. Z om bert hen fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce 3 o f a p p e a l. Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , Z om berl aunche d hi s col l at er al at t ack w i t h a mot i on t o vaca t e, setasi de, or corr ectsent ence p ursuant t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 25 5, al l eging, am on g o t her t hings, t hatt he governm enthad comm i t t ed B r ady a n d Je n c k s A c t v io latio n s p re ju d icia l to h is d e f e n se . In d e n y in g th e m o tio n , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s f a ilu re to 4 pr oduce the G at es l et t er s di d notvi ol at e the J encks A ct . I tbegan i t s anal y s i s of the Je n c k s is su e w ith th e f

o llo w in g v iew o f

th e leg a l sta n d a rd :6 [U ndert he J encks A ct , ] t he governm enti s r equi r ed t o ‘ pr oduce a nys t at ement

. . . o f [a] w i t nes s i n t he pos s es s i on of the U ni t ed St at es w hi ch r el at es t o t he s ubj ectm at t eras t o w hi ch the w i t nes s has t es t i fi ed. ’ . . . A n exami nat i on of cas es appl y i ng t he Jenc ks A ct r evea l s t hat i t appl i es t o s t at ement s gi ven t o or t aken b y g o vernm entagent s , orr epor t s cr eat ed bygovernm entagent s , t hat di r ect l yr el at e t o t he w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m onyatt r i al . . . . T her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat th e Je n c k s A c t e n c o m p a ss e s c o llate ra l s tate m e n ts m a d e in a lette r th a t is to tally u n related to the crim inal inv esti g ati o n o r the p rof fe red co n tent o f th e w itn ess’s e v e n tu a l t e s t i m o n y. Zom berv. U

ni t ed Stat es , N o. 03- 46- 2, 2007 W L 853803, at*17 ( E . D . Pa. 2007) . T he C our tt hen des cr i bed w hyt he J encks A cthad notbeen vi ol at ed i n Z om ber ’ s cas e:

P e tit io n e r ha s n o t c ited a sin g le c a se in w h ich th e Je n c k s A c t w a s fo u n d to appl yt o t angent i al l et t er s orot herdocument s t hat w er e not s ent t o orpr ovi ded t o an i nves t i gat i ng offi cer , agent , orpr os ecut or . T he J encks A ct w as enac t ed t o deal s peci fi cal l yw it h actual s t at ement s gi ven t o governm entoffi ci al s by p o ten tial w itn e ss e s. F o r e x a m p le, if M u rp h yh a d m e t w ith in v e stig a tin g a g e n ts o r g o v e rn m e n t p ro se c u to rs a n d m a d e a sta tem e n t a b o u t th e v a lu e o f h is fi rearm s co l l ect i on , t he Jencks A ct w ou l d requi re the g ov ernm ent t o d i scl ose th a t sta tem e n t to d e f

e n se c o u n se l. S im ilarly , if M u rp h yh a d w ritten a lette r to

. . . one of the F. B . I . agent s i nves t i gat i ng t he cons pi r acy[, ] i n w hi ch he made a sta tem e n t co n c e rn in g th e v a lu e o f h is co llec tio n , th e Je n c k s A c t w o u ld lik e ly req u ir e d iscl o su re o f th at l ett er. . . . T h e Jen ck s A ct d o es n o t, h o w ev er, r eq u ir e di s cl os ur e of a let te r , unr el at ed t o t he cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on orpr os ecut i on, s entt o an uni nt er es t ed t hi r d par t y . T he C our t does not bel i eve t hat an offerfor sale inc lud ed in a lett er to a thir d p arty , w h o ll yu n related to the g o v ern m en t’ s i nves t i gat i on, cons t i tut es a “s t at ement ” under18 U . S. C . § 3500. I d. at*18. I n addi t i on t o deny i ng al l of the cl ai m s i n Z om ber ’ s § 2255 m ot i on, t he D i s t r i ct C our tdecl i ned t o i s s ue hi m a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t ybeca us e i thel d t hathe had f ai l ed to m a k e a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g th a t a n yo f h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts h a d b e e n v io la te d . I d.A s n o te d h e re in , i nfr a atn. 10, i tw oul d have be en bett eri f the § 2255 mot i on had bee n 5 deni ed w i t houtpr ej udi ce a tt he out s et , butw e ar e w her e w e ar e, and ourt r eatm entof the i s s ues on di r ectappea l i s unaff ect ed byt he exi s t ence of the § 2255 mot i on, exce ptt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our texpl i cat ed i t s r eas oni ng m or e ful l yi n t he cont extof rul i ng on t hatm ot i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have 6 j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) . “W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of def endant ’ s m ot i on fora mi s t r i al bas ed on a c l ai m of J encks err orunderan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” U n itedS ta tes v . Hill , 976 F. 2d 132, 139 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). 7 a t * 1 9 . Z o m b e r a p p e a le d th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n . O n O ct ober29, 2007, w e i s s ued an or dergr ant i ng hi s m ot i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yand cons ol i dat ed the appe al on h is § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n w ith h is d ire c t ap p e a l. 5 I I . D i s cus s i on 6 Z om beradvanc es a number of ar gum ent s forover tur ni ng hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . O ne i s di s pos i t i ve. H e ar gues t hathi s convi ct i on s houl d be vac at ed bec aus e, dur i ng t he tr i al , t he governm entw i t hhel d t he G at es l et t er s , w hi ch s houl d have be en p rod u ce d u n d er the Jen ck s A ct an d w h ich c o u ld h av e b ee n u sed to im p ea ch M u rph y ’s t e s t i m o n y. T he J encks A ctr equi r es t hat“[a ] ft era w i t nes s cal l ed byt he U ni t ed St at es has t es t i fi ed on di r ectexami nat i on, t he courts hal l , on m ot i on of the def endant , or dert he U ni t ed St at es t o pr oduce a nys t at ement . . . of the w i t nes s i n t he pos s es s i on of the U ni t ed St at es w hi ch r el at es t o t he s ubj ectm at t eras t o w hi ch the w i t nes s has t es t i fi ed. ” 18 U . S. C . A . § 3500( b) . I tgoes on t o defi ne a “ s t at ement ” t o i ncl ude “a w r i t t en s t at ement m ade bys ai d w i t nes s and s i gned orot herw i s e adopt ed orappr oved byhi m . . . . ” 188

U. S . C. A. § 3 5 0 0 ( e ) ( 1 ) . Z o mb e ra r g u e s t h a tt h e Ga t e s l e t t e r s a r e o b v i o u s l yM u rp h y ’ s o wn wr i t t e n s t a t e me n t s a n d a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e s u b j e c tma t t e ro f

M u rp h y ’ s t r i a l t e s t i mo n y . As s uch, Z om berr eas ons , t heys houl d have be en pr oduced byt he governm entno l at ert han a f t e rM u rp h y’ s d i r e c tt e s t i m o n y. T he D i s t r i ctC our t , how ever , hel d t hatt he G at es l et t er s ar e notJ encks m at er i al for t w o r eas ons . Fi r s t , t he C our teff ect i vel yr ead i nt o t he s t atut e an a ddi t i onal r es t r i ct i on on t he def i ni t i on of “s t at ement , ” namel yt hatt o be a “ s t at ement ” the i nfor m at i on ati s s ue m u s t h a v e b e e n p ro v id e d d ir e c tly to s o m e o n e in la w e n f o rc e m e n t. I n th e C o u rt ’s w o rd s , th e lette rs a re n o t su b

jec t to th e Je n c k s A c t b e c a u se th e y“ w e re n o t se n t to o r p ro v id e d to an i nves t i gat i ng offi cer , agent , orpr os ecut or . ” Zom ber , 2007 W L 853803, at*18. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s econd r eas on forhol di ng t hatt he G at es l et t er s ar e notcover ed byt he A cti s t hatt heyar e “unr el at ed t o t he cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on orpr os ecut i on. ” Id . We cann ot agr ee w i t h either of those con cl usi on s. A s t o t he fi r s t , i tr efl ect s an i nacc ur at e r eadi ng of the J encks A ct , as even the go vernm ent ackno w l edg es. (A pp el l ee’s B r. at54 . ) N othi ng i n the st atute di st i ng uis hes s t at ement s m ade t o a governm entagentfr om s t at ement s m ade t o any one el s e. I tdoes not m at t ert o w hom t he s t at ement i s m ade. W hatm at t er s i s t hatt he s t at ement r el at es t o t he w itn e s s ’s te s tim o n ya n d is in th e p o s s e s s io n o f th e g o v e rn m e n t. See G oldber g v. U ni t ed St at es , 425 U . S. 94, 103 ( 1976) ( T he A ct“r equi r es pr oduct i on of ‘ anys t at ement . . . of the9

w i t nes s i n t he pos s es s i on of the U ni t ed St at es ’ w i t houtanyl i m i t at i on t o s t at ement s m ade ‘t o a n a g e n t o f

th e G o v e rn m e n t.’ ” ). T he s econd r eas on gi ven byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , t hatt he l et t er s do notr el at e t o t he su b jec t m a tter o f

M u rp h y ’s te stim o n y , is f law e d a s a m a tter o f

f a c t an d law . It i s c lea rly err oneous as a fa ctual m at t erbeca us e the l et t er s s ol i ci tnegot i at i ons fort he s al e of the veryfi r earm s ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e, al bei tas par tof a l ar gers etof C ol tfi r earm s , and they re v e a l M u rp h y ’s a ss e ss m e n t o f th e v a lu e o f

th o se f ire a rm s. S in c e M u rp h ytes tifie d in es s ence t hatt he fi r earm s w er e notw or t h t he pr i ce thathe pai d fort hem, and s i nce the let ters sho w that h e w as in terested in se ll ing the f ir ea rm s fo r th at sam e p ri ce , w e a re per s uaded thatt he l et t er s ar e, as a mat t erof comm on par l ance and w i t hi n t he meani ng of th e Je n c k s A c t, “re late d ” to th e tes tim o n yM u rp h yg a v e a t trial. G i ven, t hen, t hatt he G at es l et t er s ar e M urphy ’ s ow n w r i t t en s t at ement s , t hatt hey r el at e t o M urphy ’ s t es t i m onyas t o t he val ue of the fi r earm s , and thatt heyw er e i n t he pos s es s i on of the governm entpr i ort o t r i al , t heyw er e s ubj ectt o di s cl os ur e undert he J encks A ct . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t o t he contr aryi s an err orof l aw and, t her efor e, cons t i tut es – i n t he i nfel i ci t ous phr as e w e ar e r equi r ed t o us e – an a bus e of d is c re tio n . Se e LaSal l e Nat ’ lBank v . Fi rs tConn. H

oldi ngG r . , LLC , 287 F. 3d 279, 288 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( “A n abus e of di s cr et i on occur s w hen the courtbas es i t s opi ni on on . . . an e rr o n e o u s le g a l c o n c lu s io n , o r a n im p ro p e r a p p lic a tio n o f la w to f a c t.” ).A l t hough Z om berar gues t hati ti s i m pos s i bl e t o as s i gn a mar ketval ue t o s om ethi ng as 7 su b jecti v elyd esirab le as a n an ti q u e, th ere w as e x p ert t esti m o n yat t ri al t h at a rati o n al j u ry coul d acc eptas es t abl i s hi ng t hatt her e i s a mar ketforant i que guns and thatt he guns had a d isc e rn a b le f

a ir v a lu e in th a t m a rk e t. 10 H avi ng det er m i ned thata J encks A ctvi ol at i on occurr ed, w e mustr evi ew t he re c o rd to d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s e rr o r i n c o u n te n a n c in g it w a s h a rm le s s . Hill , 976 F. 2d at141. T he t es tforhar m l es s err ori s w hetheri ti s hi ghl ypr obabl e thatt he e rr o r d id n o t c o n tr ib u te to c o n v ic tio n . U n itedS ta tes v . A li , 4 9 3 F . 3 d 3 8 7 , 3 9 2 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2007) . Speci fi cal l yi n t he cont extof the J encks A ct , “w e mustanal y ze the pr ej udi ce re su lti n g f

ro m th e n o n d isc lo su re o f th e [ e v id e n c e ] in ter m s o f its p o ten tial u se f

u ln e ss to t he def ens e . . . . ” Hill , 9 7 6 F .2 d a t 1 4 1 . W e conc l ude thatt he err orr es ul t i ng fr om t he governm ent ’ s w i t hhol di ng w as not h a rm les s in th is c a se . M u rp h yw a s th e g o v e rn m e n t’s m a in w itn e ss a n d tes tifie d a t len g th abouthow he w as defr auded byZ om berand El l i s . M uch of hi s t es t i m onydeal tw i t h t he val ue of the fi r earm s . I ndeed, a ce nt r al pr emi s e of the pr os ecut i on i s t hatZ om berand E l l i s pers uad ed M urphyt o p aya pri ce vast l yabo ve the t rue m arketvalue of the gu ns. 7 Si nce M urphyw oul d pr es um abl ybe r el uct antt o vi s i ton s om eone e l s e the cr i m e he a lleg e d lysu f

f e re d , h is o f

f e r in th e G a tes lette rs to se ll th e sa m e f ire a rm s “ a t co st,” o r, in otherw ords, att he p ri ce he p ai d, cou l d cert ai nlybe v i ew ed as co ntr adict i ng t he p rem i se th a t h e p a id m o re f

o r t h e f ir e a rm s th a n th e yw e re w o rt h .W e re co g n ize tha t ou r ha rm less erro r an aly sis also sp ea k s ind ir ec tl yto Z o m b er’s 8 B r ady ar gum entw i t h r es pectt o t he G at es l et t er s . H ow ever , w e nee d notrul e on that B r ady i s s ue bec aus e the J encks ques t i on i s di s pos i t i ve. 11 In the co ntextof ad dress i ng Z om ber’ s B r ady arg u m en ts, the D istri ct C o u rt 8 cons i der ed w hethert he governm ent ’ s w i t hhol di ng of the G at es l et t er s caus ed Zom berany pr ej udi ce. T he C our thel d t hati tdi d not . I t s fi r s tr eas on fort hathol di ng w as t hat“[t ] he v a lu e o f th e lette rs is q u e stio n a b le. W h ile M u rp h yo f f e rs to se ll h is c o llec tio n a t co st, now her e does he pr om i s e thatt he col l ect i on i s w or t h w hathe pai d fori t , nordoes he s ugges tt hathe has an al t ernat i ve buy erw ho i s r eadyand w i l l i ng t o paycos tfort he c o lle c tio n .” Zom ber , 2007 W L 853803 at*17. Second, t he C our ts ai d, “[g] i ven the q u a lityo f

M u rp h y ’s te stim o n yo n d ire c t an d c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n – a s [ d e f e n se c o u n se l] d e sc rib e d h im , h e w a s a ‘to u g h w itn e ss ,’ a ‘ v e ryg o o d w itn e ss ,’ a ‘ v e rysy m p a th e tic w itn e ss ,’ a n d a ‘v e ryf

o rm id a b le w itn e ss ,’

– th e lette rs w o u ld h a v e d o n e v e rylit tle to i m peac h hi s ext ens i ve t es t i m ony . ” Id . W e c a n n o t ag re e w ith th a t an a ly sis . It i s tru e th a t M u rp h yd id n o t ex p re ss lysta te i n t he G at es l et t er s t hatt he col l ect i on i s w or t h w hathe pai d fori t , butt hatm es s age a bout the v alue o f th e f

ir ea rm s is on e f

air i n fe ren ce fro m the lett ers a n d , g iven the leg al st an d ard w e mustappl y , one fa i ri nfer ence i s enough. Fur t her m or e, i ts eems c i r cul art o s ayt hatt he s i gni fi canc e of i m peac hm entevi dence s houl d be j udged i n l i ghtof the s t r ength of t es t i m onyt hatw as nots ubj ectt o t he i m peac hm entevi dence . M urphym ayw el l have12

been a “verygood w i t nes s , ” butt he j ur ys houl d have be en the one t o deci de w hetherhe rem ai ned credi ble aft er bei ng asked a bo ut the G at es l et t ers . In short , w hil e t he D i stri ctC ou rtt ho ug ht that “use of t he let t ers on cross exami nat i on m ayhave made a ve r ym i nori m pacton M urphy ' s w el l - es t abl i s hed cr edi bi l i t y [, ] ” id . , w e thi nk i tno s t r et ch t o bel i eve thata cr os s - exami nat i on of M urphy w i t h t he bene fi tof the G at es l et t er s m ayhave s eede d r eas onabl e doubti n t he mi nds of one orm or e j ur or s aboutt he al l eged c ons pi r acyt o defr aud M urphy . A j ur orm ayhave b e e n lef t w ith a re a so n a b le d o u b t ab o u t M u rp h y ’s tru th f u ln e ss in g e n e ra l, w h ich c o u ld have i m pact ed the j ur y ’ s w i l l i ngnes s t o cr edi thi s t es t i m onyand, byext ens i on, t he governm ent ’ s t heoryof the ca s e. M or e narr ow l y , a r eas onabl e j ur or , vi ew i ng t he G at es l et t er , m ayhave ha d a r eas onabl e doubtaboutt he ac tual val ue of the fi r earm s . M urphy h a d a s u f f i c i e n th i s t o r ya s a c o l l e c t o r , t h a th i s o wn o p i n i o n a b o u tt h e v a l u e o f t h e f i r e a r ms m ayh av e c arried s o m e w eigh t w ith the ju ry . W e d o n o t sug g est t h at t h ese are n ec essa ry o u tcom es o f th e G ates lett ers b eing av ail ab le fo r use b ythe d ef en se, on lythat theyare pot ent i al out comes s uffi ci entt o cons t i tut e pr ej udi ce t o Z om ber . T hus , w i t hhol di ng t he evi dence caus ed r eal pr ej udi ce, and w e ca nnots ayt hati ti s hi ghl ypr obabl e the err or r epr es ent ed byt hatpr ej udi ce di d notcontr i but e t o Z om ber ’ s convi ct i on.B eca us e Zom berw i l l have the oppor tuni t yfora new t r i al , dur i ng w hi ch he w i l l have 9 ac ce ss to the G ates lett ers a n d o ther inf o rm ati o n that h e a rgu es h e sh o u ld h av e h ad b ef o re t he fi r s tt r i al , hi s addi t i onal al l egat i ons of B r ady vi ol at i ons and i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ar e moot . W e fi nd no m er i ti n hi s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s on di r ectappea l r egar di ng err oneous j ur yi ns t ruct i ons , i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tt he convi ct i on, i m pr operG ui del i nes cal cul at i ons , and err oneous cal cul at i on of r es t i tut i on. B eca us e Zom ber ’ s di r ectappea l w as pendi ng w hen he f i l ed hi s § 2255 m ot i on, t he 10 D i stri ctC ou rtshou l d h ave d i sm i ssed i tw i t ho ut pr ej ud i ce. S ee K apral v. U nit ed S t at es, 166 F. 3d 565, 570 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( s t at i ng t hata col l at er al at t ack i s notappr opr i at e w hi l e a di r ectappea l i s pendi ng) . W e ac know l edge thatourear l i erdeci s i on t o s t ayt he di r ect app eal s w hil e t he D i stri ctC ou rtadjudi cat ed the § 2 25 5 m oti on w as perhaps no tt he m ost e f f icie n t co u rse o f

a c tio n , an d w e re g re t th a t itm a yh a v e m isle d th e D istric t C o u rt in to bel i evi ng t hati ts houl d adj udi cat e the § 2255 mot i on. R egar dl es s , t he pr opercour s e of act i on now i s fort he D i s t r i ctC our tt o vaca t e i t s deci s i on deny i ng t he § 2255 mot i on and di s m i s s i tw i t houtpr ej udi ce. 13 I I I . C oncl usi on A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e Zom ber ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence , and r emand t he c a se to th e D istric t C o u rt f o r a n e w trial c o n sis ten t w ith th is o p in io n . W e w ill a lso v a c a te 9 t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng Z om ber ’ s § 2255 m ot i on, and r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o di s m i s s t he § 2255 mot i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce. 10