2009 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 4-6-2009 

# U SA v . S h a b azz P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4364

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . S h a b az z " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1585. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1585T he H onor abl e Thom as S. E l l i s I I I , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct 1 C our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof V i r gi ni a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 4364

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M I LTON SHA BA ZZ, 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 N o. 05- cr - 00113 D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary8, 2009 B efor e: C H A G A R E S and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges , and EL L I S, D i s t r i ctJ udge 1 ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 6, 2009 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s i s an appe al bydefe ndantM i l t on Shabazz chal l engi ng hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i on and s eeki ng a new t r i al . I n par t i cul ar , Shabazz pr es ent s thr ee i s s ues forr evi ew : ( 1) w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in n o t se v e rin g h is tria l f ro m th a t o f

h is c o -d e f

e n d a n t, T a re ll S c o tt; (2 ) w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt g a v e e rro n e o u s ju ryin stru c tio n s w ith re g a rd to hi s entr apmentdefe ns e; and ( 3) w hetherther e w as a vi ol at i on of B r adyv. M ary l and, 373 U .S . 8 3 (1 9 6 3 ). W e w ill a f f ir m . I. 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. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew the j oi nderof def endant s under Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 8( b) de novo, and the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a m ot i on fors ever ance underFeder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 14 foran abus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. T hor nt on, 1 F. 3d 149, 152 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . W e r evi ew “the l egal s t andar d s t at ed i n t he [j ur y ] i ns t ruct i ons de novo . . . . ” U ni t ed St at es v. B oone, 458 F. 3d 321, 326 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . O n a B r adycl ai m , w e r evi ew ques t i ons of l aw de novo but t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i ons of fa ctundera cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d. U ni t ed St at es v . P erd o m o , 9 2 9 F . 2 d 9 6 7 , 9 6 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). II. A s w e w r i t e mai nl yfort he part i es , w e onl ybr i efl yr eci t e the fa ct s . Shabazz w ent t o t r i al w i t h Scot ton num er ous drug- r el at ed cha r ges , i ncl udi ng know i ngl yand3

i nt ent i onal l ydi s t r i but i ng coca i ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( C ) and co n sp ir ac yto d istri b u te co ca ine a n d co ca ine b ase in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1), (b )( 1 )( A ), ( b )( 1 )( C ), a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . T h e c h a rg e s s tem m e d f ro m a n in c id e n t b e tw e e n a D E A c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a n t, R onal d D avi s , and Shabaz z. O n Sept ember27, 2004, D avi s w as w al ki ng dow n M arket St r eeti n Phi l adel phi a on hi s w ayt o m eetw i th O ffi cerM arvi n Y oung w hen he encount er ed Shabaz z handi ng outfl y er s i n fr ontof the barbers hop w her e Shabaz z w or ked. Shabazz as ked D avi s w her e he w as goi ng, and w hen D avi s r epl i ed thathe w as g o in g to p u rc h a se a q u a rte r p o u n d o f c ra c k c o c a in e , S h a b a z z sta ted th a t h e c o u ld su p p lyit t o hi m . T hi s l ed t o a G overnm enti nves t i gat i on, and cha r ges agai ns tShabazz s t emm i ng fr om i nci dent s w hi ch occ ur r ed on Sept ember30, 2004, N ovember3, 2004, D ece m ber8, 2004, and A pr i l 28, 2005. Scot tw as al s o char ged w i t h conductbas ed on the N ovember3, 2004, D ece m ber8, 2004, and the A pr i l 28, 2005 i nci dent s as w el l as a s epar at e drug and w eapons char ge ar i s i ng fr om an i nci dentthatt ook pl ace on February16, 2006. A tthe tr ia l, S h a b a z z a rg u e d th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t e n tr a p p e d h im in to c o m m ittin g th e c ri m e s . T he j ur yfound hi m gui l t yof di s t r i but i ng coca i ne and c ocai ne bas e. H e w as acqui t t ed of th e c o n s p ir a c ya n d w e a p o n s c h a rg e s re la tin g to th e A p ri l 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 in c id e n t. III . A.S c o tt’ s re la te d c la im o f im p ro p e r j o in d e r h a s a lr e a d yb e e n re je c te d b yth is C o u rt . 2 U n it ed S tat es v . S co tt , 2 6 6 F . A p p ’x 2 0 6 , 2 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). A lth o u g h S h a b a z z a p p e a rs to a rg u e th a t itw a s th e jo in d e r o f c o u n ts th a t w a s in 3 err or , nott he j oi nderof hi s co- defe ndant , “i n a mul t i - defe ndantcas e . . . ‘ t he t es t s for j oi nderof count s and def endant s i s m er ged i n R ul e 8( b) . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. I r i zarr y , 341 F. 3d 273, 287 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . See al s o Scott , 266 F. A pp’ x at208 (find ing that w h il e S co ttfo cu sed o n R u le 8(a ), R u le 8(b ) co n tr o ll ed ). 4 S h ab az z f

ir st argu es th at he is en ti tl ed to a n ew tr ial b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed w hen i tdeni ed hi s m ot i on t o s everthe cha r ges r el at i ng t o t he February16, 2005 in c id e n t w h e re S c o tt, a c tin g a lo n e , so ld c ra c k c o c a in e . S h a b a z z c o n ten d s th a t th is 2 j o i n d e rw a s i m p r o p e rb e c a u s e h e w a s n o ti n v o l v e d i n th e F e b ru a r y1 6 , 2 0 0 5 i n c i d e n t . We di s agr ee. F ederal R ule of C ri m i nal Procedu re 8( b) provi des: [t ] he i ndi ctm ent. . . m aychar ge 2 orm or e def endant s i f theyar e al l eged t o have par t i ci pat ed i n t he s ame actortr ans act i on, ori n t he s ame se r i es of ac t s or t r ans act i ons , cons t i tut i ng an off ens e oroffe ns es . T he def endant s m aybe cha r ged i n one orm or e count s t ogetherors epar at el y . A l l defe ndant s need notbe cha r ged in e a c h c o u n t. Fed. R . C r i m . P. 8( b) . I n det erm i ni ng w hetherj oi nderw as pr oper , w e l ook t o t he 3 i ndi ctm ent , and nott o t he evi dence pr oduced a tthe tr i al . U ni t ed St at es v. I r i zarr y , 341 F. 3d 273, 287 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he G overnm entchar ged Scot tand Shabaz z w i t h a drug c o n s p ir a c yb e g in n in g in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 4 a n d e n d in g in A p ri l 2 0 0 5 . A p p e n d ix (A p p .) 6 6 . T he cha r ges per t ai ni ng t o Scot tal one w er e r el at ed t o t hi s over al l drug cons pi r acy , and thu s w ere p rop erlyjoine d . C f. U n it ed S tat es v . S co tt , 2 6 6 F . A p p ’x 2 0 6 , 2 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (“[I]t i s b ey o n d ca v il that the d rug an d w ea p o n s ch arg es stem m ing fro m S co tt ’s5

February2005 arr es tfordi s t r i but i on of cr ack c ocai ne ar e of ‘ s i m i l archar act er ’ t o t he d ru g c h a rg e s s te m m in g f ro m h is a c tiv itie s w ith S h a b a z z .” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 14, how ever , pr ovi des thati f the j oi nderof offe ns es ordefe ndant s i n an i ndi ctm ent“appe ar s t o pr ej udi ce a defe ndantorthe governm ent , t he courtm ayor ders epar at e tr i al s of count s , s everthe def endant s ’ tr i al s , or pr ovi de anyot herr el i ef thatj us t i ce r equi r es . ” Fed. R . C r i m . P. 14( a) . T he def endant m u st pro v e p rejud ice u n d er R u le 14 . U n it ed S tat es v . G o rec k i, 8 1 3 F . 2 d 4 0 , 4 2 (3d C ir . 1987) . Shabazz cont ends t hathe w as pr ej udi ced be caus e the evi dence of the drug deal i ng on February16, 2005 i m pl i ed thathe w as i nvol ved i n a “br oaderw eb of drug tr aff i cki ng” w i t h S c o t ta n d t h i s u n d e r m i n e d h i s d e f e n s e o f e n t r a p m e n t . A p p e l l a n tB r . a t3 0 . We di s agr ee. “T h ere is a p ref

ere n ce in the fe d era l sy stem fo r j o int tri als o f d ef en d an ts w h o are ind ict ed tog ethe r. ” Z af ir o v . U n it ed S tat es, 50 6 U . S . 5 3 4 , 5 3 7 (19 9 3 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). If jo in d e r is p ro p e r u n d e r R u le 8 (b ), “a d istric t co u rt sh o u ld g ra n t a s e v e ra n c e u n d e r R u le 14 onl yi f ther e i s a s er i ous r i s k t hata j oi nttr i al w oul d compromi s e a s peci fi c tr i al r i ghtof one of the def

endant s , orpr eventt he j uryfr om m aki ng a r el i abl e j udgm entaboutgui l tor i nnocenc e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. R ey er os , 537 F. 3d 270, 286 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T o s ucce ed on thi s cl ai m , Shabazz m us ts how “‘ cl earand s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng i n a mani fes t l yunfai rtr i al . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. B al t er , 91 F .3 d 4 2 7 , 4 3 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ).T h is in stru c tio n w a s: “ S o , y o u h a v e to se p a ra telyc o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e w ith 4 re s p e c t to e a c h d e f

e n d a n t a n d w ith c a re , b e c a u s e it is im p o rt a n t to e a c h o f th e d e f e n d a n ts . So, w hen y ou cons i derM r . Shabazz ’ s char ges , y ou have t o l ook atthe cha r ges as they r el at e t o M r . Shabazz . W hen y ou cons i derM r . Scot t ’ s char ges , y ou have t o cons i dert he char ges as t heyr el at e t o M r . Scot t . ” A pp. 752- 53. T he C our tcont i nued: “N ow , the e v id e n c e m a yo r m a yn o t o v e rla p o n p a rticu lar c h a rg e s, b u t ea c h d e f e n d a n t is e n tit led to y ourbes tand mosthones tj udgm enton eac h of the t en cha r ges thathave be en made. ” A p p . 7 5 3 . 6 E ven as s um i ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the mot i on to s e v e r, w e f

in d th a t S h a b a z z ’s v a g u e a lle g a tio n s o f p re ju d ic e d o n o t m e e t th is s ta n d a rd . In a d d iti o n , the D istric t C o u rt g a v e a lim iti n g in stru c tio n a s to h o w th e ju rysh o u ld cons i dert he cha r ges w i t h r egar d t o eac h defe ndant , and emphas i zed thatthe cha r ges s houl d be cons i der ed w i t h r egar d t o eac h defe ndanti ndi vi dual l y . T hi s l i m i t i ng 4 i ns t ruct i on cur ed anypot ent i al pr ej udi ce thatm ayhave e xi s t ed. Z afi r o, 506 U . S. at539 (l im itin g in s tru c tio n s “ o f te n w ill s u f

f ic e to c u re a n yri s k o f

p re ju d ic e ” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). See al s o Scot t , 266 F. A pp’ x at209. T her efor e, w e fi nd thatShabazz i s notent i t l ed t o a new t r i al on t hi s i s s ue. B. N ex t, S h ab az z a rgu es th at he is en ti tl ed to a n ew tr ial b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt c o m m itt e d v a rio u s e rro rs in its ju ryin stru c tio n a b o u t en tra p m e n t, i n c lu d in g f a ili n g to m a k e it su f

f icie n tlyc lea r th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t b o re th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f. A d e f

e n d a n t is en ti tl ed to an en tr ap m en t i n stru cti o n , “h o w ev er u n rea so n ab le th e jud g e w o u ld co n side r a ver di cti n favorof the def endantt o be, w hen the ac cus ed s how s ( 1) evi dence thatthe7

G overnm enti ni t i at ed the cr i m e, r egar dl es s of the amountof pr es s ur e appl i ed t o t he defe ndant , and ( 2) anyevi dence negat i ng the def endant ’ s pr opens i t yt o comm i tthe c ri m e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . J a n n o tti, 6 7 3 F .2 d 5 7 8 , 5 9 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). H o w ev er, w h il e e n tr ap m en t i s g en era ll ya juryq u esti o n , “the re m ayb e ins tanc es. . . w h ere t he evi dence i s s i m pl yi ns uffi ci entt o s ubm i tthe i s s ue t o t he j ury . ” I d. W e fi nd thatany err ori n t he j ur ychar ge w as harm l es s err or , as thi s i s an i ns t ance w her e the evi dence w as in s u f f ic ie n t to s u b m it th e e n tr a p m e n t is s u e to th e ju ry. O u r d e c isio n in U n ited S tate s v . A rm o c id a , 5 1 5 F .2 d 4 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 5 ), is i l l us t r at i ve. I n A r m oci da, w e found thateven though the G overnm entconce ded thatt he j ur ychar ge cont ai ned err oron w hi ch part yhad the bur den of pr oof on the entr apment i s s ue, t he err orw as harm l es s beca us e the def endantw as notent i t l ed t o an entr apment charge in the fir stplace. Id. at55 -56. Indeed , w e exp l ai ned that “byperm i t t i ng defe nse couns el t o ar gue the def ens e of e nt r apmentt o t he j uryand bychar gi ng the j uryon entr apment. . . t he tr i al j udge gave [the def endant ] m or e than he w as ent i t l ed t o. ” I d. at 5 6 . S e e a lso U n ited S tate s v . R e m o i, 40 4 F .3 d 7 8 9 , 7 9 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (f in d in g it un necessaryt o d et erm i ne w hethert here w as pl ai n err or i n the gi ven j urycharge b ecause th e d e f e n d a n t w a s “ s im p ly n o t e n title d to a n in s tru c tio n o n th e d e f e n s e o f e n tr a p m e n t” ). H er e, j us tas i n A r m oci da, Shabazz w as notent i t l ed t o a j urychar ge on entr apment , and anypos s i bl e err ori n t he j urychar ge w as thus harm l es s . I n an entr apment c a se , the d e f

e n d a n t h a s th e b u rd e n to sh o w b o th in d u c e m e n t b yth e G o v e rn m e n t toW e not e thateven i f w e w er e t o go on t o anal y ze the pr edi s pos i t i on el ementof 5 t he def ens e, Shabazz fai l ed t o pr es entevi dence t o r i s e t o t he l evel of s how i ng thathe w as notpr edi s pos ed t o comm i tt he cr i m e. T hough none ar e conc l us i ve, cert ai n fac t or s gui de t hi s C our t ’ s det erm i nat i on as t o pr edi s pos i t i on, i ncl udi ng “( 1) the cha r act erorr eput at i on of the def

endant , i ncl udi ng anycr i m i nal r ecor d; ( 2) w hetherthe s ugges t i on of cr i m i nal a c tiv ityw a s in iti a llym a d e b yth e G o v e rn m e n t; (3 ) w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n t w a s e n g a g e d in th e c rim in a l ac tiv ityf

o r p ro f it; (4 ) w h e th e r th e d e f

e n d a n t ev id e n c e d re lu c tan c e to c o m m it t he off ens e, over come onl ybyr epea t ed G overnm enti nducementorper s uas i on; and ( 5) t he natur e of the i nducementorper s uas i on s uppl i ed bythe G overnm ent . ” W r i ght , 921 8 comm i tt he cr i m e as w el l as hi s ow n non- pr edi s pos i t i on t o comm i tthe cr i m e. U ni t ed St at es v. W r i ght , 921 F. 2d 42, 44 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . I n W r i ght , w e expl ai ned that “i nducementbyl aw enfor cementoffi ci al s m ayt ake manyform s , ‘ i ncl udi ng per s uas i on, fr audul entr epr es ent at i on, t hr eat s , coer ci ve t act i cs , har as s m ent , pr om i s es of r ew ar d or p le a s b a s e d o n n e e d , s ym p a th yo r f ri e n d s h ip . . . .’” Id . a t 4 5 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). H ow ever , w e not ed that“mer e s ol i ci t at i on bythe governm ent , w i t houtm or e, i s not ‘i n d u c e m e n t.’ ” Id . (c ita tio n o m itte d ). H er e, t her e w as no evi dence of i nducement . T he G overnm enti nform antt es t i fi ed t hathe enc ount er ed Shabaz z, Shabazz as ked hi m w her e he w as goi ng, and Shabaz z vol unt eer ed t o s uppl yhi m w i t h drugs aft erthe i nform ants t at ed thathe w as goi ng t o buy th e m . A p p . 1 4 8 -4 9 . T h is is n o t th e typ e o f c o n d u c t th a t rise s to th e lev e l o f in d u c e m e n t, oreven t o t he l evel of “mer e s ol i ci t at i on. ” B eca us e Shabaz z fa i l ed t o s how thatthe G overnm enti nduced hi m t o comm i tthe cr i m e, he w as notent i t l ed t o a j uryi ns t ruct i on on entr apment , and anyerr or s cont ai ned i n t hati ns truct i on w er e harm l es s . A r m oci da, 515 F. 2d at55- 56. 5F .2 d a t 4 5 (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h e C o u rt h a s c o n sid e re d th e se f a c to rs in lig h t o f

th e f a c ts of thi s cas e and ha s concl uded thatShabazz di d notes t abl i s h t hathe w as notpr edi s pos ed t o comm i tt he cr i m e. A l t hough hi s ar gum enton t hi s poi nti s a bi tuncl ear , Shabazz al s o cl ai m s that 6 t her e w as a B r adyvi ol at i on beca us e Shabaz z bel i eves the i nform antl i ed atthe tr i al w hen he s ai d t hathe w as on hi s w ayt o buydrugs forthe D E A w hen he e ncount er ed Shabaz z on Sept ember27, 2004, and the G overnm entfai l ed t o t el l hi m thatthe i nform antw as lyin g . T h is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt, w h ich f o u n d , in t he cont extof Shabaz z’ s cl ai m i n t hatC our tthatD avi s per j ur ed hi m s el f ( a cl ai m w hi ch he does notr evi s i ton appea l ) , t hatw hi l e R onal d D avi s ’ s t es t i m onym ayhave be en i ncons i s t entw i t h O ffi cerY oung’ s , the t es t i m onym ayhave be en “the r es ul tof inco n sist en t m em o ri es o r an inn o ce n t bu t erron eo u s rec o ll ec ti o n . ” A p p . 4 8 n . 2 1 . In addi t i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound, t he i ncons i s t encyr el at ed t o a “t angent i al m att er ” and t her e w as “no l i kel i hood” that“the out come of [the] tr i al w as aff ect ed bythe conf

l i ct i ng te s tim o n y .” Id . 9 C. Fi nal l y , Shabazz cont ends t hata B r adyvi ol at i on occurr ed w hen the G overnm ent f a iled to d isc lo se th e p a ym e n t v o u c h e r h isto ryf o r its c o n f

id e n tial in f

o rm a n t, w h ich w o u ld have s how n t hathe w as notpai d on Sept ember27, 2004, the dat e of hi s fi r s tdrug- r el at ed enco un t er w i t h S hab azz. S hab azz argues t hat this un derm i ned his entr apm ent defense beca us e he c oul d have us ed the paym entvoucherhi s t oryof the i nform antt o i m peac h t he cr edi bi l i t yof the i nform antand the pol i ce of fi cerw i t h w hom he w or ked. 6 I n B r adyv. M ary l and, t he Supr eme C our thel d t hat“the s uppr es s i on bythe pr os ecut i on of evi dence favor abl e t o an ac cus ed . . . vi ol at es due pr oces s w her e the evi dence i s m at er i al ei t hert o gui l tort o puni s hm ent , i r r es pect i ve of the good fa i t h orbad fai t h o f t he p rosecut i on . ” 37 3 U . S . 83 , 87 (1963 ). E vidence is m at eri al “i f t here i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yt hat , had the evi dence been di s cl os ed t o t he def ens e, the r es ul tofS h a b a z z a lso c laim s th a t h e is e n tit led to a n e w trial b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt d id 7 n o t o rd e r th e p ro d u c tio n o f th e p a ym e n t v o u c h e r. F o r th e re a so n s g iv e n a b o v e , this a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. 10 t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent , ” and “ [t ] he r ever s al of a c onvi ct i on i s r equi r ed u p o n a sh o w in g th a t th e f a v o ra b le e v id e n c e c o u ld re a so n a b lyb e tak e n to p u t th e w h o le cas e i n s uch a di ffe r entl i ghtas t o underm i ne conf i dence i n t he ver di ct . ” Y oungbl ood v. W est V ir g inia, 5 4 7 U . S . 8 6 7 , 8 7 0 (20 0 6 ) (cit ati o n s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). In as s es s i ng a pot ent i al B r adyvi ol at i on, w e t ake i nt o acc ountthe pot ent i al eff ectof the m i s s i ng evi dence “i n l i ghtof the t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s and w i t h an aw ar enes s of t he di ffi cul t yof r econs t ruct i ng” the w aythe pr ocee di ngs w oul d have be en i f the mi s s i ng e v id e n c e h a d b e e n in c lu d e d . U n ite d S ta te s v . B a g le y , 4 7 3 U .S . 6 6 7 , 6 8 3 (1 9 8 5 ). W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e re w a s n o B ra d yv io latio n h e re . E v e n if th e v o u c h e rs h a d b e e n d isc lo se d , the re h a s b e e n n o d e m o n stra tio n th a t th e y“ c o u ld r eas onabl ybe t aken t o putt he w hol e ca s e i n s uch a di ffe r entl i ghtas t o underm i ne confi dence i n t he ver di ct . ” See Y oungbl ood, 547 U . S. at870. 7 I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.