# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 29 57

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

Pla in ti ff - App el le e

v.

Alex an de r Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez
Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 15 , 20 18 Fi le d: Aug us t 2 , 20 18 (Un pu bl is he d)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d ERI CKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Alex an de r Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez w as co nvi ct ed by a j ur y of poss es sio n wit h in te nt
to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e c o n ta in in g

m et ha m ph et am in e. He was se nt en ced to a te rm of 17 0 m on th s’ im pr i s o n men t an d fiv e y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. He no w ap pe al s th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r a ne wtri al on th e gr ou nd s of : 1) an al le ge d Brad y v i o l a t i o n, an d 2) pu rp or te d “ ne wly di sc ov ered ” ev id en ce. We affir m

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

The ev id en ce at tri al su gg es te d t ha t Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez st ol e a la rg e q ua nt it y of dr ug s fro m a de al er in Tex as an d tra ve le d to Fl or id a in th e co m pa ny of an

acco m pl ic e, Y u n io r Fl or ez-Ve li z. He th en dr ov e wit h an ot he r acco m pl ic e, Yul io
Cerv in o- Hern an de z, to Nebr as ka to sel l s om e o f th e st ol en dru gs

.

On Se pt em

be r 22 , 20 15 , Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez an d Cerv in o- Hern an de z were i n

a h o t e l r o o m in Neb ras ka whe n po li ce, act in g on a ti p, rai de d th e ro om

. W he n Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez was as ke d to pr od uc e hi s id en ti fic at ion, he lift ed a m at tre ss on on e of th e be ds
, rev eal in g t w o s mal l ba gs an d an ot he r ba g co ns is te nt wit h pa ck ag ed

m et ha m ph et am in e. Obs erv in g th is
, an of fic er as ke d Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez if th ere was

an y th in g un de r th e be d. Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez rep li ed ba ck
, “ a li tt le bi t.” Dur in g th e

se arch
, th e po li ce di sc ov ered a la rg e tru ck ba tt ery an d an el ect ro ni c sc al e by th e be d.
Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez’s fin ge rp rin t was fo un d on th e sc al e. C a s t e ll an o- Ben it ez was

arre st ed

.

Fro m jail , Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez p la ced m ul ti pl e cal ls to Fl or ez-Ve li z (wh o h ad

rem a i n e d in Fl or id a) to co m e to Neb ras ka to se ll dr ug s. W it h th e as si st an ce of

co op erat in g wit ne ss es an d co nf id en ti al in fo rm an ts , th e po li ce lo cat ed a n d arre st ed Fl or ez-Ve li z in Nebr as ka wit h fo ur po un ds of m et ha m ph et am in e.

W hi le ou t on bo nd
, Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez pl aced m ul ti pl e ph o n e c a l l s to a

co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t, va gu el y refe ren ci ng so m et hi ng of va lu e th at co ul d be fo un d in th e tru ck

. A r med wit h th is in fo rm at io n, th e po li ce reex am in ed th e co nf is cat ed

tru ck ba tt ery, whi ch ha d be en p l a c e d i n th e lo st an d fo un d pr op ert y se ct io n in th e

-2

-Sh eri ff’s Offi ce. The se arch rev eal ed th at th e ba tt ery co nt ai ne d ne arl y fiv e ki lo gr am s

of m et ha m ph et am in e.

Dur in g pr et ria l pr ep arat io ns , Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez m ainta in ed hi s in no cen ce an d hi s be li ef th at th e co op erat in g wit ne ss es co ns pi red to fram e hi m

. Dur in g di sc ov ery, Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez’s at to rn ey as ke d th e go ve rn m en t whe th er Fl or ez

- V e li z an d
Cerv in o- Hern an de z were ev er de ta in ed to ge th er. The go ve rn m en t’s rep res en ta ti on s

on th is is su e were, ta ke n as a who le , m is le ad in g

. Th e g o v ern m en t fir st pr od uc ed a
rep or t co ve rin g th e Sal in e Co un ty J ai l’s reco rd s. It st at ed th at th e two “ were ne ve r h o u s ed to ge th er at an y ti m e in th e Sal in e Co un ty Ja il .” In a la te r em ai l req u e s t i n g
st ip ul at io ns fo r tri al
, a n A U S A a sk ed if, “ si nc e he ha d go ne th ro ug h so m uc h wor k

to ge t th e reco rd s,” de fen se co un se l wou ld st ip ul at e to th e fact th at Fl or ez-Ve li z an d
Cerv in o- Hern an de z “ ne ve r cro ss ed pa th s i n t he ir c us to dy.”

Co nt rary to th e go ve rn m en t’s rep res en ta ti on s, Fl or ez-Ve li z an d
Cerv in o- Hern an de z ha d be en ho us ed to ge th er. A cl os e e x a mi na ti on of th e Sal in e Co un ty Ja il rep or t s ho wed th at Flo rez- Veli z an d Cerv in o- Hern an de z sp en t a pe rio d of twen ty-on e da y s in a Dawso n Co un ty, Neb ras ka
, jail

. The rep or t di d no t pro vi de

an y fu rth er in fo rm at i o n ab ou t th e pe rio d of co nf in em en t in Dawso n Co un ty. The

em ai l by th e AUSA wen t so far as to rep res en t th at th e two ha d n ev er cros se d pat hs whi le in cu st od y

. In fact
, th ey ha d be en ke pt in th e sa m e la rg e cel l at th e Dawso n faci li ty for m or e th an twen ty day s.

A t tri al
, Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez pu rs ue d th e th eo ry th at th e co co ns pi rat or s wer e fram in g hi m

. As part of th at st rat eg y , he el ic it ed te st im on y th at se pa rat ed pr is on ers

m ay be ab le to co m

m un ic at e. Tha t te st im on y di sc us se d ch al le ng in g or di ffi cu lt way s of co m m un ic at in g, su ch as by pa ss in g no te s. Oral te st im on y fro m th e co op era t i n g wit ne ss es du rin g tri al do wnp la y ed th ei r rel at io ns hi p an d co ns pi cu ou sl y om it te d th at th ey ha d sp en t a si gn ifi can t le ng th of ti m e in jail to ge th er. C a s t e ll an o- Ben it ez was

co nv ic te d a nd sen te nc ed to 17 0 m on th s i n p ris on

.

-3

-Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez la te r di sc ov ered th at Fl or ez-Ve li z an d Cerv in o- Hern an de z

ha d sp en t ti m e in jail to ge th er. Upo n th is di sc ov ery, he fil ed a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

un de r Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 33
, al le gi ng a Brad y vi ol at io n. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e 1

m ot io n. The co ur t ru le d: 1) th e ev id en ce was no t su pp res se d be c a u s e “rea so na bl e di li ge nc e” wou ld ha ve le d de fen se co un se l to req ue st th e Dawso n faci li ty’ s reco rd s,

an d 2) ev en if th e ev id en ce ha d be en su pp res se d, th e ev id en c e w a s no t m at eri al in li gh t o f th e o th er ev id en ce i n t he reco rd

.

Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez al so co nt en de d th at he sh ou ld rece i v e a ne w tri al on th e ba si s of “ ne w ev id en ce”— two le tt ers ob ta in ed by th e de fen se aft er tri al

. A le tt er fro m Ang el Mer id a Herre ra in di cat ed th at Herre ra ha d be en ho us ed wit h Fl or ez-Ve li z an d
Cerv in o- H e r n a n d e z at th e Dawso n Co un ty faci li ty. Herre ra rep or te d th at he

ov erh eard th e pa ir di sc us si ng ho w t o m ak e su r e an un as su m in g Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez

was co nv ic te d. A se co nd le tt er, pu rp o r t e dl y fro m Cerv in o- Hern an de z, ta un te d
Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez and sa id he was on ly in jail be cau se he ha d m ad e th e m is ta ke of li fti ng up th e ho te l m at tre ss

. The di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at th e Herre ra le tt er wou ld no t ha ve al te red th e ou tc om e of th e tri al
, whi le th e Cerv in o- Hern an de z le tt er was

“ co m pl et el y de vo id ” o f rel ev an t i nf

or m at io n.

II

. Dis cus si on

W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r ne w tri al ba se d on a Brad y vi ol at io n fo r

an ab us e o f d i s cret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Rea ve s, 64 9 F.3 d 86 2, 86 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Deav au lt , 19 0 F .3d 92 6, 92 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )). W e li ke wis e

rev ie w a de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al ba se d on ne w ev id en ce fo r a n a b u s e of di sc ret io n

. U n it ed St at es v. Has ke ll
, 46 8 F.3 d 10 64
, 10 76 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Park er, 26 7 F.3 d 83 9, 84 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )). A di st ric t co ur t m ay

The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Gerra rd
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka

.
-4

-gr an t a m ot io n fo r ne w tri al if t he “ in te res t o f jus ti ce s o re qu ire s.” Fe d. R. C rim. P.

33 (a). The de ci si on is wit hi n th e di sc ret io n of th e tri al co ur t, bu t “ [u ]nle ss th e di st ric t

co ur t ul ti m at el y de te rm in es th at a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce wil l oc cu r, th e jury’ s ve rd ic t

m us t b e a l l o w ed to st an d.” Uni te d St at es v. Cam po s, 30 6 F.3 d 57 7, 57 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ).

Brad y req ui res pr os ecu to rs to di sc lo se to th e de fen se “ a l l mat eri al ev id en ce fav or ab le to th e accu se d, in cl ud in g im pe ach m en t an d ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce.” Uni te d
St at es v. Ro bi ns on , 80 9 F.3 d 99 1, 99 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). Tha t du ty ex te nd s to m at eri al

ev id en ce whi ch pr os ecu to rs are th em se lv es un aware of bu t whi ch is kn own to ot he rs
act in g on th e go ve rn m en t’s be ha lf in th e cas e. Id

. (ci ti ng Ky le s v. W hi tl ey , 51 4 U.S.
41 9, 43 2- 34 (1 99 5) ). To es ta bl is h a Brad y vi ol at io n, th e de fen da nt m us t sh ow th at 1) th e pr os ecu ti on su pp res se d ev id en ce, 2) th e ev id en ce was fav or ab le to th e accu se d,

an d 3 ) th e ev id en ce was m at eri al to th e is su e of gu il t or pu ni sh m en t. Uni te d S ta te s

v. St ur di va nt , 51 3 F.3 d 79 5, 8 0 3 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 08 ). W he n de te rm in in g whe th er

ev id en ce is m at eri al
, “ [t]he qu es ti on is no t whe th er th e de fen da nt wou ld m or e li ke ly th an no t ha ve rece iv ed a di ffer en t ve rd ic t wit h t h e e v i d en ce, bu t whe th er in it s ab se nc e he rece iv ed a fai r tri al
, un de rs to od as a tri al res ul ti ng in a ve rd ic t wort hy of

co nf id en ce.” Ro bi ns on , 80 9 F.3 d at 99 6 (c i t i n g S t r ic kl er v. Green e, 52 7 U.S. 26 3,
28 9- 90 (1 99 9) ). The ev id en ce m us t be vi ewed in th e co nt ex t of al l ot he r ev id en ce pu t be fo re t he jury in th e cas e. See Un it ed Sta te s v . W rig ht , 86 6 F .3d 89 9, 9 08 -1 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (d is cu ss in g o th er re le va nt ev id en ce i n t he im pe ach m en t co nt ex t).

W e fin d th at th ere was no Brad y vi ol at io n be cau se th e ev id en ce was no t

m at eri al

. W e reco g n i z e th at th e ev id en ce m ay ha ve affe ct ed th e cred ib il it y of two

2
of th e co op erat in g wit ne ss es , bu t ot he r ev id en ce co nc lu si ve ly an d ov erwh el m in gl y

es ta bl is he d Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez’s gu il t. See Uni te d St at es v. Pen dl et on , 83 2 F.3 d 93 4,

Bec au se we de ci de th at th e ev id en ce was no t m at eri al
, we ne ed no t reac h th e 2
qu es ti on whet he r th e ev id en ce was act ua ll y su pp res se d.

-5

-94 1 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 16 ) (fi nd in g no Brad y vi ol at io n whe re “ th e te st im on y of th es e two

w i t n es se s was no t es se nt ia l to pr ov in g [a de fen da nt ’s] gu il t be cau se th e ot he r

ev id en ce of hi s gu il t was ov erwh el mi n g” ). Fo r ex am pl e, th e ph y si cal ev id en ce ob ta in ed in th e m ot el ro om an d th e co nt en ts of Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez’s m on it or ed ph on e

ca l l s rel at ed to th e tru ck ba tt ery are in de pe nd en t pi eces of ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h gu il t, su ch th at we can be su re th e tri al res ul te d “ in a ve rd ic t wor th y of

co nf id en ce.” Th e d i s t r i c t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by co nc lu di ng th at Brad y di d n ot co m

pe l a n ew tr ia l. 3

Si m il arl y , th e ne w ev id en ce di d no t warra nt a ne w tri al

. To ob ta in a ne w tri al

on th e b as is of ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce, a d efen da nt m us t s ho w: 1 ) th e ev id en ce

was un kn own or un av ai la bl e to th e de fen da nt at th e ti m e of tri al
, 2) th e de fen da nt was du ly di li ge nt in at te m

pt in g to un co ve r th e ev id en ce, 3) th e ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce is m at eri al
, an d 4) the ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce is su ch th at it wil l pro ba bl y res ul t in an acq ui tt al up on ret ria l. Has ke ll , 46 8 F .3d at 1 07 6 (q uo ti ng Park er, 2 67 F.3 d at 84 6)

. Fo r es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e reas on s as no te d ab ov e, a ret ria l wou ld be un li ke ly to

res ul t in an acq ui tt al ev en if th e two le tt ers were co ns id ered

. Bo th le tt ers rel at e to th e

m in ds et of on e or bo th co co ns pi rat or s in of feri ng te st im on y

. The ot he r ev id en ce of
Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez’s gu il t is co nc lu si ve ev en ab se nt th at te st im on y

. Any im pl ic at io n
cont ai ne d in th e le tt ers th at Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez was un aware of th e m et ha m ph et am ine is co nt rad ic te d by hi s own act io ns an d st at em en ts du rin g an d fo ll owi ng th e rai d. The di st ric t co ur t p ro pe rly exer ci se d i ts di sc ret io n i n d en y in g a ne w tri al

.

W e do no t m ean to m in im iz e t h e A U S A ’s co nd uc t in th is m at te r. The 3

r e p r e se nt at io ns m ad e were in erro r, as se rte d wit h su ch co nf id en ce so as t o b e

m is le ad in g, an d crea te d th e po te nt ia l fo r a se rio us pr ob l e m. Non et he le ss , th e
ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce of Cas te ll an o- Ben it ez’s gu il t le av es us free fro m do ub t th at th e v erd ic t i s wo rth y

of c on fid en ce.

-6

-II I. Con cl us io n

W e aff irm.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-