## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2034 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A NA S S ALEM, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:06- cr-181- LA-3

—L ynnA delm an, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 14, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 25, 2009

Befo re C UDAH Y, K ANN E , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, Cir cu i tJudge. A f t er a h ot ly c on te st ed j u ry tria l, A n as Sa lem w as co n vic te d of w itn es s in tim id at ion, in vi ol ati on o f18 U .S. C. § 1 512(b) ( 2) ( A ) , and posse ssing a fi re ar m i n further ance o fthato ffen se , in vi ol ati on o f 18 U
. S
. C. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i )
. Ona pp e a l, h e a r g ue s that he deserves a new tri albec ause, unti li t was to o l ate to b e u s e ful, the g o v e r nme ntf a i l e d t o turn o v e rev i dence2 N o. 08

- 2034 th ati ts s ta rwi tn es s, Carlo s Lo pez , was i nv o l ve d i n a m urder f or w hi ch he has never been charg ed. Th e first h i n tS a l e m h a d o fth i s p o t e nt i a lmu r d e rc h a r g e c a me m om ents bef or e Sale m was to be sente nced w hen c ou nself orthe gov er nm ent handed hi s l aw yera copy o f a p lea a g r e e m en t fo r B en n y M ar tin ez , a d efe n d an t in an ot h er fed er al c rim in al c as e. M ar t in ez ad m itt ed in that ple a agree m ent that he had gunned dow n ri val g an gmem be r, Adan Sotelo. Butthe pl ea a g r ee m en t als o d isc los es th a t M a r tin ez w as n ’t a lon e d u rin g th is m urder. There with hi m , l yi ng i n w ai t forS ote l o, was Carl os Lopez. T h e p lea ag re em en t id en tifie s L op ez by n am e , a n d it i ndi ca te s th atLo pez made so m e f o r m o fs ta te m en t ab o ut th e m ur der

. Appar en tly, Lo pez de sc ribed ho w he an d M ar tine z hi d i n a n a l l eyg an g way wai tingf o rS o te l o , a nd w hen S ot elo r ounded the corner, M ar ti nez s hot hi m to dea th

. Lo pez a nd M ar tine z th en fl ed th e m ur ders ce ne tog e t h er, find ing refuge at M artinez’s gran d m oth er’s re si dence a few bl ock s a w ay. But L op ez h as neverbee n c h a r g ed w ith an y c rim e re lat ed to h is in vo lve m en t in the S ote l o hom i ci de. That, Sa lem co ntends, r ai ses an i nfer en ce tha t Lo pez c ur r i ed f av o rwi ththe g o ve r nm en t i n e xc ha ng e f o rhi s ag r ee i ngt o t es ti fy a g ains t S al em. And the f act that evi dence ofthe So tel o m urder w as n ot discl ose d to him befor e t ri ali s why he be l i eve s he deser ves a new one. The di st r i ct co ur t den i ed hi s r eque st, th o ugh, fin di ng th at even i fthe evi dence had bee n dis cl ose d, ther e was no r eas on abl e pr obab i l i ty ofa differ ent v er dict

. But, o nN o. 08

- 2034 3

I n th e f al l of2005 , tha tinve s t i gat i on re s ul t ed i n a n i ndi c t m en t 1 charging 49 gan g m em bers, i ncluding L opez, Sale m ’ s brother, Sa dam , and fel l ow Lat i n Ki ng, M ar c us Col i n, with r ac ke t ee ri ng and rel ated cr im es . In a d d iti on to the RIC O count, Lop ez was hitw ith a n u m ber ofdrug and gu n counts, s om e ofw hich c ar ri ed m anda t or y m i ni m um s , c onsecuti ve s en t en c es , an d s t atut or y m ax i m um s ofl i fe i n pr i s on. the r eco rd be f or e us, we c on cl ud e that deci si on was pr ematur e. Lo pez ’ s st at ement ab o ut th e S o te l o ki ll i ng has nev erbee n turne d overto S alem norhas i t e ven be enpr o duce d t o the c o ur t. Thi s ra i se s que st i o ns abo ut whe the r o the r e v i de nc e f a v o r ab l e t o S a l e m mi ght b e l ur k i ngo utthe r e an d no t co nt aine d i n the r ec o r d. But S a l e m di dn ’ tg e ta c ha nc e to de v e l o p tha tr e c o r d, becau se the c o ur t den i ed hi s r eque stf o ra n e vi den ti ary he ar i ng . W e co nc lud e tha t was a n e r r o r . S o we r emand f orsuch a hear i ng.

I . B a c kg r o und L op ez w as th e all eged victim ( an d the gove rnm en t’s pr i nc i palwi tn es s) o n the wi tn es s i nt i m i dat i o n a nd gun charg es aga i nst S al em . A t tr i al, Lopez tes ti fi ed that Sal em accused Lopez ofbeing a sn itc h ag ai nst the Lati n K i ngs str eetga ng ( w hi ch he was) , and th at, al ong w i th ano ther 1 Lati n K i ng, M ar cus Col i n, S al em bea t hi m up and threa te ne d t o sh o o thi m. Sal em ’ s att or ne y we ntt o s o me l ength to att em pt to i m peach Lop ez ’s credibi l i ty. S he questi oned Lop ez a b out the RI CO , drug, and gun char ges pend i ng ag ai nst hi m , and she ra i sed the i nfe re nce that4 N o. 08

- 2034 Lopez w as curr yi ng f avor w i th the go ver nm ent. Defense c ou n se l speci fi cal l y a ske d Lop ez i fhe ha d heard o f U
. S. S. G. § 5K 1.1 o r knew that co oper ating with the g overnm en t w as th e only w ay ou t from un d er the m an d atory m i ni m um s he f ac ed. He de ni ed know i ngabo uta ny benefi t forco oper ati on but tes ti fi ed that he w as coo perat
i n gs i mp l y b e c a u s e h e w a s a v i c t i m. Several othe r w itness es, includ ing L op ez’s m oth er, co r r o bo r at ed p arts o fLo pez ’ s st o r y, tho ugh n o o ne t e s t i fi e d t o s e e i n gth e g u n o rth e b e a t i n g . P h o t o s , h o weve r, sho w ed som e superfi ci ali nj uri es to Lopez’ s nec k an d f ace , c o ns istentw ith th e beatin g he say s he su ffer ed. The j ury co n vi cted S al em , and the dist ri ct cour t s entence d him to 14 4 m onths ofi m pri sonm ent. Shor tl y a fterthe cour t e nter ed the j ud gm ent, S al em m ove d fo r a new tr i alunder F ed er alRule o fCri m i nal Pro cedure 33 b as ed o n new l y di sco ver ed evi dence. That ev i den ce , S al em ar g ue d, r ev ealed tha t th e g o ve r nm en t had v i o l a t e d Brady v . M aryl and, 373 U
. S. 83 ( 1963 ) . Th is new ev i dence cam e in the f or m o f a ple a a gr eem ent for an o th erLa tin Ki ngmem be rna m ed Benny M ar tine z. The ple a a gr eem ent, di scl ose d to Sal em ’ s co u n se lafter Sal em was convi cted

— in fact, d eli ve r e d to Sal em ’s co uns elj us t m i nut es b ef ore s en te nc i ng

— re veal ed that M ar ti nez had pl eaded gui l ty to the hom i ci de ofa ri val gang m em ber, A dan Sot el o. The ag re em ent a l so re veal ed th at L op ez ha d been i nv olved i n Sotelo’s m urd er. A p p arentl y, Lopez had a dm i tte d in a sta tem ent that M arti nez and he hi d i n an a ll ey w ai ting f orS ote l o, and w hen So te lo c am e a ro u n d th e c or n er , M ar tin ez gu n n ed h imN o. 08

- 2034 5 dow n, and then he and M ar tine z ra n fro m the m urder scen e to hid e togeth er at the resid en ce of M ar t in ez’s gr andm othe r. Lopez had al so sta ted tha t Sot el o w as k i l l ed o n b eh al fo fhi s g an g, the La tin Ki ng s, t o pr ev en t Sotelo, a m em ber of a rivalgang ( th e Spa nish Cob ras), fro m r eta l i ating f ora Lati n K i ngs s hoot i ng t hat had taken place sh ortly before th e m urd er. Sal em ’ s counselrequeste d that the gov er nm ent di scl ose al lmate r i als im pl i ca tingLo pez i n S o te l o ’ s m ur der

. The gov er nm ent turned ov erse ver aley ew i tn ess and pol i ce re port s, but non e identi fi ed the perpetr ato rs bynam e. M or eov er, no re portco ntai ned any s ta te m ents by Lopez, ev entho ugh s uchs ta te m en ts w er e r efer en ce d i n the M ar ti nez pl ea agr eem ent, and the go ve rn m ent has not, at l eas t t o thi s p oi nt, di scl ose d w hethersuch s tat em ents actual l y e xi st, a n d ifso , i n w hat for m o r w ho has them

. Lopez, how eve r, has never been charged with an y c rim e re lat ed to th e So te lo h om icid e. I n hi s Rul e 3 3 m oti on fornew t ria l, S al em al l ege d that th e e vid en c e o f L op ez ’s in vo lve m en t in th e So te lo h om icid e c ou ld be u se d to im p ea c h L op ez ’s t es tim o ny

— th e j ur y c o ul d i nfertha t Lo pez was t es ti fy i ng aga i ns tS a l e m i n e xc ha ng e f o rthe g o v e r nme ntn o tp r ose cuti ng Lopez forhi s par ti ci pati on in the So telo hom i ci de. (E ve n if L op ez w as n otth e t rig ge rm an, h e s t i ll cou ld face acc om p li c e o r acces sory li abili ty.) H en ce, in Salem ’s vie w , th e gov er n m en t’s failu re to d isc los e th i s e v ide nc e b e f o r e t r i a lv i o l a t e d Brady . The di strict court con clud ed otherw ise and , a fte rde ny ing Sal em ’ s r equest f oran ev identi ar y hea ring, deni ed S al em’ s m o ti o n for n ew t r i al

. The c o ur t he l d tha t th e6 N o. 08

- 2034

A bri efj ur i s di c t i ona l no t e befor e we addr es s Sa l em ’ s c l ai m on 2 the m eri ts
. O rdinari ly, w hen a d is tr ic t c ourt denies a Ru le 33 mot i o n f o r n e w t r i a l b a s e d o n n e wl y d i s c o v e r e d e v i de n c e , we re qui re the par t y t o fi l e a s epa ra t e not i c e ofappe al aft erthe di s t ri c tc our tr ul es onthe Rul e 33 m ot i on, e venifthe defen dant h a s a lr ea d y ap p ea le d h is c o n v ic tio n . See U ni t ed Sta t es v. Harvey, 959 F .2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir

. 1992) ( “W hen a dis tr ic t c our tden i es a m oti on f or ne w tr i al whi l e an appe al fro m the under l yi ng j udg m en ti s pe ndi ng, a s epa ra t e, t i m el y no t i c e of appe al ‘ i s a j ur i s di c t ion al p re di c at e t o a ppel l at e re vi ew’ ofthe d en ia l o f th e n ew tr ia l m o tio n .”); seeal so Jo hns o n v . U n i te d S tat es , 24 6 F .3d 65 5 , 65 8 -5 9 (6t h C ir . 20 0 1 ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. D ougl as , 8 7 4 F .2d 1 1 4 5 , 1 1 6 2 (7 th C i r . 1 9 8 9 ); cf
. A m m ons v. G erl i n ger, 54 7 F .3d 724 , 72 6 (7th C ir. 20 08 ) (per cu riam ) (disc us s i ng f ai l ur e t o fi l e s ec ond n oti c e ofappe al an d l ac k of ju ri sd ic tio n in civ il c a se s); K i tchen v . U n ite d S tat es , 227 F. 3d 1 0 1 4 , 10 1 7 -2 2 (7t h C ir . 20 0 0 ) (sa m e, in i n effe ct iv e-a ssi sta n ce -o fco u n se l co n te xt ). Bu t se e U ni t ed Sta t es v. Thornt on , 1 F. 3d 149, 157- 58 ( 3d C ir . 1990) ( holding that app el lat e j uris dicti on of denial ofm ot i on f or ne w tr ial notc ont i nge ntons ec ond n ot i c e of a p p e a l ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . D a v is , 960 F. 2d 820, 824 ( 9th Cir

. 1992) (sa m e); U ni t ed Sta tes v. Wi l so n , 89 4 F .2d 124 5, 125 1-52 ( 11 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) (sam e); Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Bur ns , 66 8 F .2d 855 , 85 8 (5th C ir . 19 8 2 ) (sam e). Sa l em fi l ed o nl y on e not i c e ofappe al an d did s o m onths befor e the dis tr ic t c ourt denied his m oti on f or new tr ial

. So o rd in a ri l y S a le m w o u ld n ee d a se co n d n o tic e. H o w ev er , if a d efend an t files his m o t i on f or new trial b ased on new ly d is- (co n tin u ed ...) So tel o hom i ci de evi dence w ou l d have be en i nadm i ssibl e, and i n any eve nt, would not have gi ven r i se to a r easo n ab le p ro b ab ili t y of a d iffer en t v er d ict . Sale m ap p ea ls th atde ci si o n. 2N o. 08

- 2034 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 c ove re d evi denc e no l at erthan10 days a fter ent ry ofthe ju d g m en t, a sec o n d n o tic e i s n o t r eq u ir ed

. S ee Fe d. R. App. P. 4 (b )(3)(C ) a n d 4(b )(3)(A )(ii); Trenkle r v. U n i te d S tat es , 268 F. 3d 1 6 , 2 1 & n .4 (1 st C ir . 20 0 1 ); cf
. Am mons , 54 7 F
. 3d a t72 6 ( ex pl ai ni ng 1 0- day r ul e i n c i v il ca ses). Sa l em fi l ed h i s Rul e 33 m ot i on only 7 day s afterthe j ud gm ent w as ente red. Being w ithin the 10- day l im it, S al em ’ s fi rs tno t i c e ofappe al gi ves us j ur i s di c t i on to hearhis app eal o f t h e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s denial ofhis Ru le 33 m ot i on. I I . Discussi on Brady re qu ire s the go ver nm ent t o disc l ose ev i dence m at er ially f a v o r ab le t o th e a c c u se d

. Yo un gb lo o d v . W est Virginia , 54 7 U .S. 86 7, 86 9 (2 00 6); Brady, 373 U
. S. at 87. That o bl ig at i o n e xt en ds to e vi den ce tha t te nds t o i m pea cha g o v e r nme ntwi tne ss. Young b l ood, 547U .S. at 8 69 ; U nited Sta tes v. B agley, 473 U
. S. 667, 676 ( 1985 ). Fa ilure to d isclose su ch ev iden ce, w he th er i nt en tional or inad vertent, can enti tl e the acc used to a new tr i al

. Stric kl e rv. Gre e ne, 52 7 U.S. 263, 28 1- 82 ( 1999 )
. The Brady obl i gat i on a p p l i e s e v e n wh e n th e s u p p r e s s e d ev i den c e i s kn o wn on ly to p olic e a n d n otto p ro se c u to rs . Youngb l ood, 54 7 U
. S. at86 9- 70. The evi dence of th e So tel o hom i ci de w as not disc l ose d p rior to tria l (th e g ov er n m e n t d oe s n otco n te n d th at it on ly lea rn ed of th is m at te r aft er tria l) a n d w a s a rg u ab ly f avo rabl e to Sal em . S o Brady ’ s r equi re m ent that the undiscl ose d e vi dence be m ater iallyf avo rabl e t o the a ccused i s ce nt r alt o thi s ca se . The d ist r i ctc o ur t f o und the So telo hom i ci de evi dence i m m ate ri al

. That’ s a deci si on8 N o. 08

- 2034

w e re vie w for a b u se of d isc r e t i o n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pali vos , 486 F.3d 250 , 255 (7th C ir. 2007). Evidence i s m ate ri al “i f ther e i s a ‘ re aso nabl e pr obab i l i ty’ th at, ha d the e vi den ce b ee n d i sc l o se d t o the de fen se , the re su lt of t h e p ro c ee d i n g w ou ld h av e b ee n d iffer en t.” Youngb l ood, 54 7 U.S
. at87 0 ( quoti ng Stric k ler, 52 7 U.S
. at 28 0); s e ealso Ky l e s v. W hit ley, 514 U
. S. 419, 433-34 (1995 ). O f course , thi s m eans that onl y a dm i ssibl e e vi dence can b e m at er ial, for o n ly a d m iss ible ev id en c e c ou ld p os sib ly lea d to a d iffer en t v er d ict
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si l va , 71 F. 3d 66 7, 67 0 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ). T o d em on st ra te a “r ea so n ab le pr o babi l i ty, ” S al em m us t sh o w tha t th e g o ve r nm en t’ s no nd isc los u re “u n d er m i n e[d ] co n fid en c e in th e v er d ict .” Kyles , 514 U .S. at 4 35
. W ha t t roub les us abou t this case i s tha t it ap p ears Sal em neve r had a suffi ci ent o pp or tuni ty to m ake that sh ow ing. W ithou t an ev iden tiary hearing, w e’re l eft w ondering wh at othe r evi dence abo ut Lopez’ s invol vem en t in th e So te lo h om i c i d e i s o u t t h er e. C f. U nited Sta tes v. D i m as , 3 F.3 d 1 01 5, 1 01 8 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3) ( di sc us sing need f orev i denti ar y hea ring wh er e r eco rd was i nadequate t o deci de Bra dy issue). Fr om M ar ti nez’ s pl ea agr eem ent, i t a pp ear s Lopez gave a re aso nabl y deta i l ed sta tem ent about the m urder, and i t i m plie s th at the s tat em en t w as giv en t o l a w en for c em en t. A n d p re su m ab ly th e fe d er al g ov er n m en t c on sid er s itto be rea so n ab ly re liab le

— the s am e Offi ce o fthe U ni ted S tates A tto rney t h a t prose cu ted Salem i nc lud ed a des cription of L op ez’s sta tem ent in th e M ar ti nez pl ea agr eem ent, as ser ti ng tha t i t was parto fthe f acts th at the g ove rnm ent c oul d i ntro
du c e at a tr i alo fM ar ti nez t o prove hi s guil t o fga ng-N o. 08

- 2034 9

re l ate d cri m es beyo nd a reaso nabl e doubt. Yet, nei ther Sal em nor th e d i str i ct c ourthas eve r see n that sta tem ent. Sh ou ld th er e in fac t b e s u c h a st at em e n t, it c ou ld ser i ousl y underm i ne Lopez’ s cr edibi l i ty. Fr om the gov er nm ent’ s ( and the d i str i ct c ourt ’ s) per spectiv e, th ou gh , th at d oe sn ’t m a t t e r. T h e e vid en c e w ou ld ha ve bee n inad m issible and , rega rd less, Lop ez w as th orou gh ly im p ea c h ed attria l a n d t h e o th er w itn es se s’ t es tim ony and the inj ury photos co rro b or ate d his st or y. S o, ac c or d in g t o th e g ov er n m en t, an y w ay you slic e it th e So te lo h om icid e e vid en c e is im m at er ial. O n th e re c or d as it st an d s n ow , w e c an n otbe so ca te go rica l

. Pr o o fo fb i as or m o ti ve t o l i e i s admi ss ibl e i m pea ch

m e n t e vid en c e. U nited Sta tes v. A bel , 4 69 U. S
. 4 5 ( 19 84) ; s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. M ans ke, 18 6 F
. 3d 7 70, 77 7 ( 7th Cir
. 19 99) ( “[ Pro ofo fbi as] i s the quin te ssenti al l y a pp ro p riate topic for c r o ss-ex am ination.” (quo tation om itted ))
. I nd eed, exposing a w i tness ’ s m oti ve to l i e i s a “co re value” of th e Six th A m e n d m en t’s C on fro n ta tio n C lau se . U nited State s v. R ec endiz , 5 57F
. 3d 511, 5 30 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( ci ting U nite d States v. Sm ith , 454 F.3d 707, 714 ( 7 th Cir. 2006)). A nd a partym ay i ntro du ce e xtrinsic ev idence to sho w it. U nited Sta tes v. M cG ee, 408 F.3d 966 , 981 -8 2 (7th Cir. 20 05 ). U n d er th es e p rin c ip le s , c ou rt s ro u tin ely ad m it ev i den ce su g g es tinga wi tn es s cur r i ed f av o rwi ththe gov er nm ent in exchange f orh i s t est i m ony as proo fo fbi as or m ot ive to te st ify fa lse ly. E.g
. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Li nde m ann , 85 F. 3d 1232 , 12 43 (7t h C ir. 19 96) ( ci ti ng A bel , 46 9 U.S
. at 53). So tho ugh the gov er nm ent i s co rr ect that F ED . R. E V ID . 60 8(b) woul d b arS al em’s cou ns elfr o m i nt r o ducing evid en ce of the S o telo hom ici d e to de grad e L op ez’s10 N o. 08

- 2034 ch ar ac te r, tha t ev i den ce c ou l d b e admi ss ibl e to de m o nst rate Lopez’ s incenti ve to l i e t o avo i d a m urder charg e. See A bel , 46 9 U.S . a t 55-56 ( disc ussi ng how proo fo fbi as d iffers from eviden ce p rohibited by Ru le 608(b))

. The spars e r ecord on the S ote l o hom i ci de see m s t o h ave tainted the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s co nsi derat i on o fadm iss ibi l i ty. The co urt hel d that th e ev idence would nothave be ena dm i ss ibl e as pr o o fo fb i as , b ec au se, “ The r e is no evi dence thatLopez has r ecei ved a ‘p ass ’ f orhi s invol vem en t in th e So te l o m u rd er ba se d on h is c oo p er at ion in th is c ase , wh i ch co uld be aro n hi s cr edibi l i ty. ” U ni ted Sta tes v. Sa lem , N o. 06 -C R -18 1, 20 08 W L 35 4 04 71 , at *6 (E .D . W is. A u g. 13 , 200 8). T h e g ov er n m e n t r es ta te s t h is ar gum en t o n appe al

. The c o ur t was c o r r ec t th atthe r ec o r d l ac k s di r ec t evide nc e th atLo pez was g i ve n i m m uni tyo n a murde rc ha r g e. But, a s i t st an ds no w, the re c or d ap p ea rs to be inc om p let e. A n d , fr om w h at M ar tinez’ s pl ea agr eem ent s ays abo ut Lopez’ s s tat em ents to pol i ce, i t l i kely i s inc om ple te. I fther e’ s s om e a dd i ti onal evi den ce c ontained i n l aw enf or cem ent fi l es that sugge sts L op ez w as i nvol ved w i th the m urder, o r that he r ec ei ve d a b en efi t f o rc o o per at i ng w ith th e g o ve r nme nt, s u c h i n f o r ma t i o n c o u l d p r o v e f a v o r ab l e t o S a l e m. Th e p l ea agr eem ent a l one sugge sts thatLopez was a par ti ci pan t i n the l y i ng - i n- wai t m ur dert o pro te ctthe Lati n K i ngs’ inter est s, and not a m er e witness. A nd ev en wi th o u ta n o t e fr o m th e U. S
. At t o r n e y o rth e l o c a lD
. A. ex p ressly outlining a no-ch arges-for- testim ony q u id pro qu o, suc h ev iden ce co u ld b e ad m issible to show Lop ez’s m oti ve to tes ti fy a gainst S al em . H owever, witho ut an ev i den tia r y he ar i ng, S al em was c uts ho r t i n de m o n-N o. 08

- 2034 11 st ra ti n g t h a t L o p e z ’ s in v o l v e m e n t in t h e S ot elo hom i ci de shows bi as. The sam e g oes f orth e gove rnm ent’ s ( and the di str i ct co ur t’ s) c o m par i so n t o o urde ci si o n in U ni t e d S t at e s v. Puli do , 6 9 F
. 3d 19 2 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) , a nd the a r g um en t that the S ote l o hom i ci de evi dence w ou l d onl y di str act th e ju r y a nd thu s be inad m issible un d er F ED . R. E V ID . 40 3. InPul i do , the de fen se s o ught to q ue st i o n o ne o fthe gov er nm ent’ s k ey w i tness es about hi s pot enti ali nvol vem en t in a tri p le m urd e r to sugg est th at th e w itness ’s “uncom fortabl e s tatus as a m urder suspect
. . . l ed hi m to co o per at e wi ththe g o vernm ent
. ” 69 F
. 3d at1 99
. The dist ri ct c ourtbl ock ed that l i ne o fquest ion i ng be cause th e c ou rtco n c lu d ed it w ou ld on l y d i s tr ac t t h e jur y. Id. at 2 0 2
. We u p h e l d th a t d e c i s i o n, i n p a r t, b e c a u se t he re cor d l acke d any e vi dence t h at the w i tness was in vo lve d i n t h e m u rd er s. Id. Po l i ce ha d “ r ul ed o ut[ th e w i tness ] as a suspect i n the m urde rs , ” the witnes s w as not i den tifie d as the per petra tori n two pol i ce lin eu p s, an d a w i t n e ss to th e t rip le m u rd er st at ed cle ar ly tha tthe Puli do w itn es s w as n otatth e s c en e. Id. at19 8. I n thi s ca se , ho wev er, the r ec o r d do es no t su ppo r t th e n ot ion th at L op ez w as bla m ele ss in t h e So te lo m u rd er . In f act, the re cor d i m pli es the o pp os i te. A nd ev en tho ugh att r i a lLo pe z de ni e d kno wi ngab o uta nyb e ne fi twh a t s oeve r he m i ght r ecei ve f ort es tify i ng, such a s a l ower sente nce under U.S

. S. G. § 5 K 1. 1, he was nev eras ked abou t the m urd er and w hy he h asn ’t beencha rged

. So notwiths tandi ng anyd eni alo fa benefi t forte sti fyi ng, defe nse c oun se l w as neverabl e t o ra i se the infe re nce o fs uc h a b e ne fi tf o rthe j ur y . Wi tho utfur the rdevel o p-12 N o. 08

- 2034

m en t o fthe r ec o r d, we cann o t det er m i ne whethe rthe p robati ve val ue o fthe So tel o hom i ci de evi dence w as substa nti al l y o utw ei ghed by the dange r that such evi dence w ill m isle ad or c on fu se th e jur y. See F ED . R. E V ID . 40 3. T h e g ov e r n m e n t fu rt h er co n te n d s t h at th is e vid en c e is i na dm i ss ibl e be ca us e it ’ s cumul at i ve o fo th eri m pea ch

m ent b ase d on Lop ez ’ s m oti ve to l i e. Thi s co ntenti on d oveta il s into the secon d portion of th e govern m en t’s o ve r al la r g um en t ( ac ce pte d b y the district co ur t) tha t th e S o telo hom ici d e is im m aterial for Brady pu r po s e s . F ro m th atpe r spe ct i ve , i t’ s j us t o ne mor e sh r ed o fi m pea ch

m en t e vid en c e, of w h ich th e jur y h ea rd a gr ea t d ea l. We r e c o g n i z e th a t, o r d i n a r i l y, n e wly d i s c o v e r e d i mpe ach m ent e vi dence w i l lnotwarra nt a new tr i alunder Brady . Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta te s v . R eyes , 54 2 F
. 3d 588, 59 6 ( 7th C ir
. 2 00 8)
. I t’ s o fte n c um ul at i ve o fo th eri m pea ch

m en t e vid en c e p re se n te d attria l. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. E rvin , 54 0 F
. 3d 623, 63 1- 32 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. But that’ s no t a c at eg or ica l ru le. SeeU n ited St ates v. Ta glia , 92 2 F
. 2d 4 1 3 , 4 1 5 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 9 1 )
. We ’ v e r e c o g n i z e d th a ti n s o me i nstance s, such as w hen the gov er nm ent’ s ca se re sts “en tirel y on th e un corroborat ed testi m ony of a si ngl e witness, ” new i m peachm en t evi dence co uld be m at er ial. Id. True, Lopez w as notthe gov er nm ent’ s o nl y witness an d hi s te sti m o ny was c o r r o bo r at ed to s o m e ex te nt
. But he was the gov er nm ent’ s s t a r w i tness

— wi th o u th i m, ther e s i m plyi s no cas e a t a l lo n thes e charges. N o othe r w i tness sa w a gun orthe beatin g. N orwas the othe r evi dence i n any w ay ove rwhelm i ng. Fo r exam ple ,N o. 08

- 2034 13 Lopez’ s fri end, S hane Bach , t est i fi ed that he was w i th Lope z e a r l y o n the ni g ht o f the c r i me i n qu e s t i on. Bach tes ti fi ed that he hear d Sal em as k Lop ez w hy he w as “s ni tch i ng ” an d he ar d S al em o rM ar cus Co l i n a skthe othe r whe the r he ha d “ o ne i n the c ha mbe r, ” r e fe r r i ng to w hethera gun w as l oaded and re ady to fi re . But Bach ne ver saw the g un. And Bac h l at era dm i tt ed th athe ne ver he ar d S alem threat en Lop ez an d that they w ere ta l k i ngabo utpeo p l e who th eyhe ar d wer e co o per at i ng ag ains t th e Lat i n Ki ng s. Ba cha l so di d no t wi tn es s the al l ege d beating. L op ez’s m oth er also corroborat ed pa rt of he r son’s st ory

— she s ai d s he s aw Lo pez wi thS al em ea r l i eri n the eve ni ng and Lopez look ed w or ri ed w hi l e he scr am bl ed ar ound the house l oo ki ng f or“paperwork ” ( w hi ch Lopez tes ti fi ed he t ol d Salem w as how he woul d prove that he was n’ t a sn i tc h)

. Lo pez ’ s m o th ers aw Lo pez l ea ve , a nd te st ified th at w h en w e c am e b ac k, h e h ad inju rie s t o h is ne ck an d f ac e ( whi chthe pho to s al so c o nfi r m ed)

. But ag ain, Lo pez ’ s m o th erne ve rsa w a gun, no rhe ar d a ny thre ats o r i nti m i dati on. A nd a m othe r’ s desi re notto se e her son behi nd bar s m i ght a lso decre ase the w ei ght o f he rt es ti m o ny, tho ugh we r ec o g ni ze tha t to b e a j ury concern, noto urs. The o nl y o th er r el ev an t wi tn es s was an F BI Age nt w ho interview ed M arcu s C olin, w ho refus ed to testify afterbeing ca l l ed to the sta nd

. But the w ay i n w hi ch i n f or m ati on fro m Col i n’s i nter vi ew cam e into evi dence w as odd. Though bei ng ca l l ed to the sta nd bythe defe nse, the a gent m enti oned thatCol i n to ld h i m thatS al em had14 N o. 08

- 2034 a gun and had o rche str ate d the Lopez ki dn ap p ing. Bey o nd i t s s t r a ng e i nt r o du c t i o n, we s e e o the r r e a s o ns to que st i o n the i m p act ofthi s te st i m o ny . The g o ve r nm en t didn’tm enti on i t a t cl osing argum ents nori n i ts appell ate bri ef s. A nd the dist ri ct c ourtdi dn ’ t m enti on i t in i ts o pi ni o n ei th er . S o i t’ s deb at ab l e whethe rthi s te st i m o ny re ached the j ury’ s e ar s with any f or ce. I n th e en d , t h is cas e cam e d ow n to w he th er the j ury bel i eve d Lop ez’ s s tory. H e was the vic ti m . N o othe r w i tness pro vi ded a com ple te narr ati ve, st ar t to fin i sh, o f th e ev en ts tha t led t o S al em’ s ch ar g es . No o ne s aw the gun, hear d the threa ts, o r saw the beating. O therev i dence corroborat ed only bits and pieces of L op ez’s acco un t. So hi s cr edibi l i tywas c r uci al, a nd b o tt o m l i ne , was the onl y r eali ssue the j ury had to deci de. N one th eless, a s th e govern m en t po ints ou t, Salem ’s counselat tem pt ed to at tackLopez’ s cr edibi l i ty at tr i al by ask i ng hi m abo ut hi s m oti ve to l i e. C ounselcr oss exam i ned Lopez on the RI CO , drug, and gun co unts th athe was f ac i ng, s o m e of w hi chc ar r i ed a m ax i m um sente nc e o fl i fe i n pr i s o n a nd ma nd a t o r y mi ni mums of fi ve and ten y ear s. A nd she as ked wh etherLopez was tes ti fyi ng in exchange f orl eni ency

— she s peci fi cally ask ed w hetherh e had hear d of“s ubstanti alas si sta nce” an d U
. S. S. G
. § 5K 1.1. Th ou gh Lop ez d en ie d i t, Salem ’s co un s e lt r i e d t o r a i s e the i nfe r e nc e o fa n i nc e nt i v e to te st ify fa lse ly t o cu rry fav or w ith th e g ov er n m en t. T h is i s e sse nti al l y the sa m e ba si s o n w hi c h S ale m would se ek to introd uc e the Sotelo hom ici d e m atter. S ti l l, o n the sp ar se r ec o r d b efo r e us , we ar e unc o nvince d that every p ossible piece o f evid en ce of Lop ez’sN o. 08

- 2034 15 p ar tic ip at ion in t h e So te lo h om icid e m u stbe im m at er ial. This i s not j ust evi dence of anothe r drug or gun cr im e. M urder i s fun d am ental l y di ffer ent fro m o thero ffenses . A s t h e Su p re m e C ou rtrec en tly ac kn ow led g ed , “th er e is a di stinc tio n bet w een intenti onalfi rs t- degre e m urder o n the o ne h a nd a nd no nh o mi c i de cr i mes ag a i ns ti nd i v i du al pe rs on s, ev en in c lu d in g ch ild ra p e, on t h e o t h er .” K enn edy v. Lo ui s i ana , 12 8 S
. Ct. 26 41, 26 60 ( 2008 )
. A ll othe r cri m es aga i nst ind i vi du al s “ cannot be c om pared to m urder i n thei r ‘ seve ri ty and i rr evo cabi l i ty. ’ ” Id. ( ci ting C oke r v . Georgia , 43 3 U.S
. 58 4, 59 8 ( 1977 ) )
. Ind eed, fi rs td egree m urd er hold s a un iqu e po siti on in ou r society’s no ti o n o fc r i m i na l i ty
. Tha t fi r st
- deg r ee murde ri s th e onl y c ri m e ag ain st the per son that com m ands the death penal ty, the J usti ces have obs er ve d , “i s a n expres si on o f th e c o mmu n i t y ’ s b e l i e fth a tc e r t a i n c r i mes a r e th e mse lve s s o g r iev ou s a n affro n t t o h u m an ity th at th e o n ly ad eq uate re sponse m ay be the penal ty ofdeath. ” Gregg v. G eorgi a , 428 U .S. 15 3, 18 4 (1 97 6). So to sa y th at th er e is no r ea so nabl e pr o babi l i tytha t th e j ur y c o ul d r ea cha di ffer en t r es ul t, e ve n if the e vi den ce s ho wed tha t th e go ve rn m en t’s st ar w itn es s w as n ev er ch ar g e d f o r h is di r ec t i nv o l ve m en t i n a v i olent gan gmurde r, i g no r es the di ffer en ce s be twe enthe d rug a nd gun c r i m es abo ut w hi ch Lopez was questi oned and fi rs t- degre e ho m i ci de. N ot onl y doe s s oc iety vi ew m urder differ entl y than othe r cri m es, but so m i ght Lopez, wh i ch co uld sh ow an en h a n c e d inc en tiv e t o lie. Fo r im p ea c h m en t p u rp os es , a cr i m i na ldefend an t o n t r i ali s en ti tl ed to r ev ea lt o the j ur y no t o nl y whatb en efi ts a wi tn ess i s r ec ei ving, b ut al so w hat he perce i ves he m ay re cei ve. A s w e j u st16 N o. 08

- 2034

Mo r e o v e r , L o p e z a c r o s s th e b o a r d de n i e d a n y k n o wl e dg e 3 of an y b en efit for testify ing
. O f cou rse, the jury w as free n o t to bel i eve h i m. B u th i s n o ta dmi t t i n g t o e v e n b e i n g a wa r e of “s ubs t ant i al assi s t anc e” or U. S. S. G. § 5K1. 1 di m i ni s he s the value ofthe im peachm ent evidence by som e m eas ure, how ever sligh t. note d, m urder pu ts a di ffer en t kind ofpenal ty i n pla y. T h o u g h mu r d e r i s n o t g e n e r a l l y a fe d e r a l o ffe ns e, a nd W iscons in d oe s n o t hav e the de ath pen alty ( W iscons in’s st iffes t sen te n c e is life w ith ou t p ar ole, s ee W IS . S T AT . §§ 940. 01( 1); 93 9. 50( 3) ( a) ; 97 3. 014( 1g) ) , Lopez f aced charg es u n der RI CO f orhi s g ang- re l ate d acti vi ti es. M urder com m i tte d “f orthe pu rpos e of

. . . m ai ntai ni ng o r increas ing p ositi on in an ente r p rise engaged in rac keteering activity” is p un ishab le by dea th

. 18 U
. S. C
. § 1959(a)(1)
. So al though S al em ’ s co unselm ade the j ury aw ar e o f L op ez’s po ssible l ife sen ten ces, the j ury n e ver he ard about a pos sibl e sen tence o fdeath. ( A nd i t di d not hearabo ut the potenti aleffect ofa W i sco nsi n m urder sen ten ce of l ife w ithou t pa role. ) Ifa greeing to testify m ean t the differen ce bet w een l if e a nd de ath, the j ury m ight ha ve inferred that Lop ez ha d an even m ore pow erful i ncenti ve to tak e the st and and test i fy f avo rabl y for th e g o v er n m en t. In t h is s en se , th ou gh im p ea c h in g, ev iden c e of the S ote l o m urder m i ght no t be cum ula ti ve o fo th er im pea ch m en t ev i den ce . On th i s r ec o r d, tho ugh, 3 we c annot c om e to a fi r m c o nc l us i o n o n thi s i m po r ta nt que st i o n. To b e s u r e , we a r e n o tg r a n t i n gS a l e m a n e w t r i a l

. B ut w e a re notaffi rm i ng the deni al ofo ne ei ther

. W i thout aN o. 08

- 2034 17 ful l err ec o r d, we ca nno t su ffi ci en tlyr ev i ew whe th erthe So te lo h om icid e evid en c e w as m at er ial. T h e rec or d ind ica te s th ata t leas t so m e ev i den ce , tha t o fa s ta te m en t o fLo pez hi m se l f an d the c o ndi ti o ns unde rwhi chhe m ad e it, i s s till u n re ve ale d . W ith th at in m in d , w e re c all o uro pi ni o n in Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Di m as , which r efl ects preci sel y the r ati onal e foro ur deci si on in thi s ca se: Though w e r eco gni ze the e xperi enced di str i ct j udg e’ s f ami l i ar i tywi tha l la spe cts o fthi s ca se , the so m ewha t spa r se r ec or d l ea ve s us wi ths er i o us questi ons abou t w hat i m pact the Brady m ate ri al m ight ha ve h ad on th e j ury. Bec au se of these li ng eri ng doubts w e feel com pel l ed to vacate th e order denyi ng a new tr i aland re m and for the l i m i ted pu rpos e o fal l owing the di str i ct c ourtto hol d an evi denti ar y hea ring o n thi s i ssue. D i m as , 3 F. 3d at 101 8 (ci ti ng Barka us kas v. La ne, 87 8 F
. 2d 1031 , 1 0 3 4 (7th Cir. 1989)). On rem and, the c ourtm ust firs t s at isfy its elf th a t a l l th e e vid en c e o f L op ez ’s ro le in th e Sotelo hom ici d e has been turn ed over. Th en the cou rt s ho ul d c o ns i der w he the rthe e v i de nc e wa s a c t ua l l y s up p re ss ed by th e p ro se c u tio n an d w h et h er Sa lem c o u ld h av e u n c ov er ed it w ith rea so n ab le d ilige n c e. Id. at10 18- 19. N ext, the cour t s houl d reex am i ne the adm i ssibi l i ty of th at ev id en c e . Id. at1 01 9. F i na l l y, s ho ul d the c o ur t co nclud e the eviden ce w ou ld be ad m issible, t h e cou rt shoul d exam i ne wh etherther e is a re aso nabl e pr obab i l i ty th at th e o u tc om e in Sa lem ’s c as e w ou ld ch an ge . Id.18 N o. 08

- 2034 I I I . Concl usio n W e V ACATE the deni alo fS al em ’s m oti on fora new t r i a l a n d R EMA ND f o ra n e vi den ti ary he ar i ngc o ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

8- 25- 09