# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 35 03

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ran da ll Trem ay n R ob in so n, al so kn own as Di rty Rob

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 25 , 20 15

Fil ed : J an ua ry

5, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

In Ju ne 20 12

, Ran da ll Trem ay n Ro bi ns on
, a fo rm er of fic er of th e Lit tl e Ro ck

, Ark an sa s, Po li ce Dep art m en t (LRPD), was ch arg ed in a m ul ti -co un t in di ct m en t wit h

di st rib ut in g on e-h al f po un d of m ari juan a to a co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t (CI)

, co ns pi rin g

an d at te m pt in g to ai d an d ab et po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 10 00 po un ds of

m ari juan a, po ss es s in g a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a dr ug -tr affi ck in g cri m e, an dm is pr is io n of f e l o n y. The ch arg es st em m ed fro m al le ga ti on s th at Ro bi ns on
, in hi s

of fic ia l ca pa ci ty as a p ol ic e o ffi cer, p ro vi de d pro te ct io n for sh ip m en ts of m ari juan a

be in g del iv ered to dr ug tra ffi ck ers in Lit tl e Ro ck . Rob in so n p ro ceed ed to tri al on a

su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, an d in Ju ly 20 13

, a jury fo un d hi m gu il ty of di st rib ut in g on eha lf po un d of m ari

juan a to a C I bu t was un ab le to reac h a ve rd ic t on th e rem ai ni ng

co un ts

. The go ve rn m en t th en di sm is se d th e fir earm co un t, a n d th e di st ric t co ur t 1

de cl ared a m is tri al on th e rem ai ni ng co un ts

. In Feb ru ary 20 14

, Ro bi ns on was ch arg ed

in a th ird su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t wit h th e co un t s o n w h ic h a m is tri al was de cl ared

an d wit h ne w c ou nt s al le gi ng th at he ha d us ed a te le ph o n e to co m m it an d faci li ta te

a dr ug fel on y an d th at he ha d m ad e m at eri al fal se st at em en ts to ag en ts of th e Uni te d

St at es

. A jury fo un d Ro bi ns on gu il ty of m ak in g m at eri al fal se st at em en ts

, bu t

acq ui tt ed hi m on th e rem ai ni ng c o u n t s

. Th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Ro bi ns on to 2

co nc ur ren t on e-m on t h t e r ms of im pr is on m en t on th e two co nv ic ti on s. Ro bi ns on

ap pe al s, an d we a ffi rm

.

Ro binso n fir st arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to di sc lo se ev id en ce fav or ab le

to hi s de fen se in vi ol at io n of Brad y v. Mar y la nd

, 37 3 U.S. 83

, 87 (1 96 3)

, an d th at th e

di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al ba se d on th at

vi ol at io n, se e U n i te d St at es v. San ch ez-F lo rez, 53 3 F.3 d 93 8, 94 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )

(s ta nd ard of rev ie w). The al le ge d Brad y vi ol at io n w a s r e l a te d to th e te st im on y of

th en -LRPD Dete ct iv e Ch arl es W eav er at Ro bi ns on ’s f i r s t t r ia l. W eav er, who was

em pl oyed by th e LRPD bu t as si gn ed to th e FBI at th e ti m e of Ro bi ns on ’s tri al

,

te st ifi ed th at on Aug us t 4, 20 09

, h e m et wit h a CI, arra ng ed fo r th e CI to co nd uc t a

co nt ro ll ed bu y of m ari

juan a fro m Ro bi ns on
, pr ov id ed th e CI wit h $6 00 in LRPD bu y

m on ey
, to ok po ss es si on of th e m ari juan a aft er th e co nt ro ll ed bu y was co m pl et ed

, an d

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Mo od y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, n ow re ti red

.

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 2

th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-pr ep ared th e po li ce rep or t do cu m en ti ng th e ev en ts

. It was th is tra ns act io n th at fo rm ed

th e b as is for Ro bi ns on ’s m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on

.

In Decem be r 20 13

, aft er hi s fir st tri al ha d en de d in th e m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti on

co nv ic ti on bu t be fo re hi s se co nd tri al be ga n, Ro bi ns on fil ed a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

. Ro bi ns on ha d rece nt ly le arn ed th at in A u g u s t 20 13

, th e LRPD ha d in it ia te d an

in ve st ig at io n in to di sc rep a nc ie s in LRPD pr op ert y -ro om do cu m en ta ti on fil ed by

W eav er. The in ve st ig at io n res ul te d in al le g a t i o n s th at W eav er ha d fo rg ed th e

si gn at ur es of two pr op ert y own ers on LRPD pr op ert y -ro om re ce ipt s in Fe br ua ry 20 13

, fal se ly in di cat in g th at he ha d ret ur ne d ro ug hl y $9 ,00 0 in cas h t o i t s own ers whe n,

in st ead

, he ha d pr es um ab ly ke pt th e cas h fo r hi m se lf. W eav er li ed to in ve st ig at or s

whe n h e was qu es ti on ed ab ou t t he in ci de nt s, i ni ti al ly ass ert in g t ha t h e ha d retu rn ed

th e cas h to it s own ers an d la te r reca nt in g t h a t s t a te m en t. W eav er was fir ed by th e

LRPD in Sep te m

be r 20 13

, al th ou gh th e al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t hi m ha d no t be en fin al ly

de te rm in ed

. As is ap pa ren t fro m th e se qu en ce of ev en ts

, bo th th e in it ia l di sc ov ery of

t h e s e d i sc rep an ci es by th e LRPD an d th e en su in g in ve st ig at io n oc cu rred aft e r

Ro bi ns on ’s firs t t ria l.

Ro bi ns on arg ue d in hi s ne w tri al m ot io n th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d a du ty un de r

Brad y to di sc lo se th is m is co nd uc t pr io r to W eav er’s te st im o ny at Ro bi ns on ’s

tri al —ev en if th at m is co nd uc t was kn own on ly to W eav er hi m se lf at th e

ti m e—b ecau se W eav er was a m em be r of th e pr os ecu ti on te am an d, as su ch

, hi s

kn owl ed ge of hi s own wro ng do in g was at tri bu ta bl e to th e go ve rn m en t. See Ky le s v.

W hi tl ey
, 51 4 U.S. 41 9, 43 7- 38 (1 99 5)

. Ro bi ns on arg ue d th at W eav er’s m is co nd uc t

was m at eri al im

pe ach m en t ev id en ce th at reas on ab ly co ul d ha ve affe ct ed th e ou tc om e

of hi s tri al

. Afte r a he ari ng
, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Ro bi ns on ’s m ot io n, co nc lu di ng

th at be cau se W eav er al on e h ad kn owl ed ge of h is own m is co nd uc t an d b ecau se th at

m is co nd u c t w a s co m

pl et el y un rel at ed to th e cas e ag ai ns t Ro bi ns on
, W eav er’s

kn owl ed ge wou ld no t be at tri bu te d to th e pr os ecu ti on

. The co ur t al so no te d th at th e

go ve rn m en t’s cas e di d no t res t so le ly on W eav er’s te st im on y , be c a u s e LR PD

-3

-Dete ct iv e Ri ck Kis er, who al so te st ifi ed at Ro bi ns on ’s tri al

, ha d pe rs on al ly ob se rv ed

Ro bi ns on ha nd th e CI a pl as ti c-wra pp ed pa ck ag e th at was la te r pr ov ed to co nt ai n on eha lf p ou nd of m ari

juan a.

On ap pe al , R ob in so n rei te rat es hi s Brad y -v io la ti on arg um en ts , a ss ert in g th at

he is en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al on t h e mar iju an a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on be cau se th e

gove rn m en t im

pr ope rl y supp re ssed m at eri al im pe ac hm en t ev ide nc e re ga

rd ing W ea

ve r

an d th at he is en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al on th e fal se -s ta te m en t co nv ic ti o n b ecau se th e

m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n of Brad y was in tro du ced at

hi s s eco nd tri al to sh or e u p t he go ve rn m en t’s o th erwi se weak cas e.

Und er Brad y an d it s pr og en y , pr os ecu to rs ha ve a du ty to di sc lo se to th e de fen se

al l mat e r i 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. See Ky le s, 51 4 U.S. at 4 32 -3 4; Uni te d Stat es v. Bagl ey
, 47 3

U.S. 66 7, 67 6 (1 98 5)

. Thi s du ty ex te nd s no t on ly to ev id en ce of whi ch a pr os ecu to r

is aware
, bu t als o to m at eri al “ fav or ab le ev id en ce kn own to th e ot he rs act in g on th e

go ve rn m en t’s be ha lf in th e cas e, in cl ud in g th e po li ce.” Ky le s, 51 4 U.S. at 43 7. Su ch

ev id en ce is “ m at e r i a l ” on ly if th ere is a “ reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y ” th at

, ha d it be en

di sc lo se d, “ th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g w o ul d ha ve be en di ffer en t.” St ric kl er v.

Green e, 52 7 U.S. 26 3, 28 0 (1 99 9) (q uo ti ng Bag le y , 47 3 U.S. at 68 2)

. “ The qu es ti on

is no t whe th er th e de fen da nt wou l d mo r e l i ke ly th an no t ha ve rece iv ed a di ffer en t

ve r d i c t w i t h th e ev id 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 wor th y of co nf id en ce.” I d

. a t 28 9- 90

(q uo ti ng Ky le s, 5 14 U.S. at 4 34 ).

Bec au se “ [a] pr os ecu to r ha s a du ty to di sc lo se e v i d e n ce kn own by po li ce

of fic ers
, ev en if no t kn own by th e pr os ecu to r,” a pr os ecu to r ha s an at te nd an t du ty to

le arn of su ch ev id en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Ty nd al l, 52 1 F.3 d 87 7, 88 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ).

Thi s at te nd an t du ty to l e a r n of m at eri al an d fav or ab le ex cu lp at or y or im pe ach m en t

ev id en ce ne ce ssa

rily an ti ci pa te s th at a pr os ecu to r wil l ha ve an op po rtu ni ty to di sc ov er

-4

-su ch ev id en ce th ro ug h th e ex erci se of reas on ab le d i l i g e n c e. In a cas e su ch as th is

,

h o w e v e r
, whe n th e ev id en ce at is su e is m is co nd uc t by a go ve rn m en t wit ne ss
, an d

th at m is co nd uc t is un rel at ed to th e in ve st ig at io n o r pr os ecu ti on of th e de fen da nt , i s

k n o w n o nl y to th e wit ne ss hi m se lf, an d co ul d no t ha ve be en di sc ov ered by th e

pr os ecu to r th ro ug h th e ex erci se of reas on ab le di li ge nc e, we are rel uc ta nt to co nc lu de

th at su ch e v i d e n c e sh ou ld be im pu te d to th e pr os ecu to r. See Uni te d St at es v.

Ro bi ns on
, 62 7 F.3 d 94 1, 95 2 (4 th Ci r. 20 10 ) ( n o t in g th at co ur ts ha ve refu se d to

ex te nd th e Brad y im

pu te d- kn owl ed ge do ct rin e if it “ wou ld c ut ag ai ns t th e ag en cy

pr in ci pl es un de rlyin g im

pu te d kn owl ed g e an d wou ld req ui re pr os ecu to rs to do fu ll

i n te rv ie ws an d ba ck gr ou nd ch eck s on ev eryone who to uc he d th e cas e”); se e al so

Uni te d St at es v. Kern

, 12 F.3 d 12 2, 12 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ); cf. Uni te d St at es v. Lee Van g

Lor, 70 6 F.3 d 12 52

, 12 59 (1 0t h C i r .) (n ot in g in su pp res si on -h eari ng co nt ex t th at

,

re g a r d l e ss of Brad y ’s ap pl ic at io n, “ [w]e do no t th in k pr os ecu to rs ha ve a du ty to

in ve st ig at e of

fic ers ’ act io ns in en ti rel y un rel at ed cas es jus t in cas e so m e im pe ach in g

ev id en ce m ay

sh ow u p” ), cert . den ie d, 1 34 S. Ct. 6 79 (20 13 ).

W ha te ve r th e reac h of Brad y ’s im pu te d- kn owle dge doc tr ine in ot he r si tu at io ns
, Ro bi ns on ha s fai le d to sh ow th at th e al le ge d Brad y ev id e n c e w a s materi al

. U n di sc lo se d ev id en ce, in cl ud in g im pe ach m en t ev id en ce, is “ m at eri al ” fo r Brad y

pu rp os es on ly if it “ co ul d reas on ab l y b e t ak en to pu t th e who le cas e in su ch a

di ffer en t li gh t as to un de r mine co nf id en ce in th e ve rd ic t.” Ky le s, 51 4 U.S. at 43 5.

Here

, We a v e r w a s no t th e on ly of fic er to te st ify ab ou t th e co nt ro ll ed dr ug bu y th at

res ul te d in Ro bi ns on ’s m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on

. As no te d by th e di st ric t

co ur t, Dete ct iv e K i s e r
, w ho was as si gn ed to co nd uc t vi su al su rv ei ll an ce of th e

co nt ro ll ed bu y , te st ifi ed th at he ob se rv ed Ro bi ns on an d th e CI arri ve at th e lo cat io n

f o r th e bu y , th at he id en ti fie d Ro bi ns on whe n Ro bi ns on ex it ed hi s ve hi cl e at t h a t

lo cat io n, th at Ro bi ns on an d th e CI “ m ad e an ex ch an ge ,” an d th at he s a w R o b i n s o n

ha nd th e CI a pl as ti c-wra pp ed pa ck ag e th at was la te r co nf irmed to co nt ai n m ari

juan a.

Eve n if ev id en ce reg arding W eav er’s m is co nd uc t ha d be en di sc lo se d to Ro bi ns on an d

ha d be en us ed to im

pe ach W eav er’s te st im on y , th ere is no reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at

-5

-Ro bi ns on wou ld ha ve be en acq ui tt ed of th e m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti o n ch arg e, gi ve n

Kis er’s ey ewit ne ss te st im on y

. W e are sa ti sf ie d th at Ro bi ns on rece iv ed a fai r tri al th at

res ul te d in a ve rd ic t wor th y of co nf id en ce. See St ric kl er, 52 7 U.S. at 28 9- 90

. The

di st ric t co ur t th us di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Ro bi ns on ’s m ot io n fo r a ne w

tri al on th e m ari

juan a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on

.

Bec au se th e m ari

juan a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on was no t ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n of

Brad y , we reject Ro bi ns on ’s arg um en t th at th e go ve rn m en t’s i n t ro du ct io n of th at

co nv ic ti on at hi s se co nd tri al en ti tl es hi m to a ne w tri al on th e fal se -s ta te m en t ch arg e.

Lik ewis e, we reject Ro bi ns on ’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of th e m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on

. See Uni te d St at es v.

Hor to n, 75 6 F.3 d 56 9, 57 9 (8 th Ci r.) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 5 S. Ct

. 12 2

(2 01 4)

. Evi de nc e is ad m is si bl e un de r Fed e r a l R u l e of Evi de nc e 40 4( b) if it is “ (1 )

rel ev an t to a m at eri al is su e; (2 ) si m il ar in ki nd an d cl os e in ti m e to th e cri m e ch arg ed ; (3 ) pr ov en by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce; an d (4 ) if th e po te nt ia l pr ejud ic e do es

no t su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh it s pro ba ti ve va lu e.” U ni te d S ta te s v . Tho m as
, 39 8 F.3d

10 58

, 10 62 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). A pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r di st rib ut i n g d r u g s is “ rel ev an t

un de r Ru le 40 4( b) to sh ow kn owl ed ge a n d i n t e n t t o co m m it a cu rren t ch arg e of

co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e dr ug s.” Hor to n, 75 6 F.3 d at 57 9. Mo reo ve r, “ [p ]rior fel on y

d r u g co nv ic ti on s are rel ev an t to sh ow in te nt an d kn owl ed ge in a dr ug pr os ecu ti o n

whe n a de fen da nt m ak es a ge ne ral d e n i a l de fen se
, whi ch ne ces sa ril y pl aces th e

de fen da nt ’s st at e of m in d at iss ue .” Uni te d Stat es v. Ba nk s, 70 6 F.3d 90 1, 90 7 (8t h

Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hawki ns
, 54 8 F.3 d 11 43

, 11 47 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )).

The th ird su pe rs ed in g in di ct men t ch arg ed Ro bi ns on wit h two dr ug -rel at ed co un ts

, in cl ud in g co ns pi racy to ai d an d ab et th e di st rib ut io n o f mar i ju an a. His earl ie r

m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on w a s t hu s rel ev an t an d ad m is si bl e to sh ow

kn owl ed ge an d in te nt

. In ad di ti on
, Ro bi ns on ’s de fen se at hi s se co nd tri al was th at he

ha d no kn owl ed ge of th e m ari juan a be in g tra ns po rte d in th e ve hi cl e he was fo ll owi ng

an d th at he di d no t kn ow why he ha d bee n ask ed to fo ll ow th at ve hi cl e in hi s po li ce

cru is er. Thi s ge ne ral -d en ia l de fen se pl aced R o b i n s o n’s st at e of m in d at is su e, an d

-6

-ev id en ce of hi s earl ie r m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on was rel ev an t to sh ow

kn owl ed ge

.

Ro bi ns on ci te s Uni te d S t a t e s v. Bu rk he ad , 6 46 F.2 d 12 83 (8 th Ci r. 19 81 ), in

su pp or t of hi s arg um en t th at be cau se th e m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on res ul ti ng

fro m h i s fir st tri al was “ a se pa rat e co un t on th e sa m e in di ct m en t” as th e co un ts

ch arg ed at hi s se co nd tri al

, th at co nv ic ti on sh ou ld no t ha ve be en ad m it te d. In

Bu rk he ad

, a co ns pi racy co un t was se ve red fro m th e in di ct m e n t

, a n d th e de fen da nt

was th erea fte r co nv ic te d aft er a tri al on th e rem ai ni ng su bs ta nt iv e co un ts

. At th e la te r

tri al on th e c on sp ira cy co un t, th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht to in tro du ce ev id en ce of th e

earl ie r co nv ic ti on s on th e un de rlyin g su bs ta nt iv e co un ts to im pe ach th e de fen da nt

. W e he ld th at th e ev id en ce was m or e pr ejud ic ia l th an pr ob at iv e an d th us in ad m is si bl e

be cau se th e earl ie r co nv ic ti on s were ba se d on su bs ta nt iv e co un ts th at m ad e up th e

co ns pi racy. Id

. at 12 85

. In th e pr es en t cas e, ho wev er, Ro bi ns on ’s fir st co nv ic ti on

was ob ta in ed on a co un t ch arg ed in th e su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, whi le hi s se co nd tri al

in vo lv ed co un ts ch arg ed in th e th ird su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t. Mo reo ve r, Ro bi ns on ’s

m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on was ba se d on a si ng le co nt ro ll ed bu y in Aug us t

20 09

, du rin g whi ch Ro bi ns on di st rib ut ed on e-h al f po un d of m ari juan a to th e CI. The

dr ug -rel at ed co ns pi r a c y an d at te m pt ch arg es se t fo rth in th e th ird su pe rs ed in g

in di ct m en t, on th e ot he r ha nd

, were ba se d on fact s un rel at ed to th at di sc reet s a l e
, in vo lv in g in st ead “ pr ot ect io n” se rv ic es an d ot he r il le ga l co nd uc t oc cu rri ng in 20 12

. Thu s, th e m ari

juan a-d is tri bu ti on co nv ic ti on was pr op erl y ad m it te d at th e se co nd tri al

.

Ro bi ns on ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by de cl in in g

to recu se aft er hi rin g on e of Ro bi ns on ’s fo rm er at to rn ey s as a la w cl erk

. Ro bi ns on ’s

fir st tri al was co nd uc te d in th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of

Ark an sa s in Ju ly 20 13 by Ju dg e Ja m es M. Mo od y , who co nt in ue d to ov ers ee th e cas e

un ti l Feb ru ary 28

, 20 14

, at whi ch ti m e th e m at te r was reas si gn ed to Ch ie f Ju dg e Bri an

S. Mi ll er in an ti ci pa ti on of Ju dg e Mo od y ’s ret ire m en t. On Mar ch 5, 20 14

, Mar ga ret

“A nn ie ” Dep pe r, who was em pl oyed at th e ti m e by th e la w fir m rep r e s e n t i n g

-7

-Ro bi ns on
, en te red an ap pe aran ce in Rob in so n’s case

, bu t o n Ap ril 2, 20 14

, sh e was

gr an te d le av e to wit hd raw. So m et im e la te r th at m on th

, Ch ie f J u d g e Mi ll er hi red

Dep pe r as a la w c le rk

. On Apr il 17 , 2 01 4, Ro bi ns on fil ed a m ot io n req ue st in g th at

Ch ie f Ju dg e Mi ll er recu se be cau se Dep pe r’s st at us as Ro bi ns on ’s fo rm er de fen se

co un se l an d Ch ie f Ju dg e Mi ll er’s cu rren t la w c l e r k rai se d th e ap pe aran ce of

im pr op rie ty. Ro bi ns on ’s m ot io n was de ni ed wit ho ut a res po ns e fro m th e go ve rn m en t

an d wi th ou t a h eari ng

.

W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n to recu se fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. See Uni te d

St at es v. Ruff

, 47 2 F.3d 10 44 , 10 46 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) . A j ud ge m us t re cu se when hi s

“ im pa rti al it y m ig ht reas on ab ly be qu es ti on ed by th e av erag e pe rs on on th e st reet who

kn ows al l th e rel ev an t fact s of a cas e.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Mo ran v. Cl ark e, 29 6 F.3 d 63 8,

64 8 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (en ba nc )). In Ru ff, we fo un d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e

di st ric t co ur t ’s r e fu sa l to recu se whe n th e co ur t’s la w cl erk —t he fo rm er fed eral

pr os ecu to r who ha d pa rti ci pa te d in th e de fen da nt ’s pr os ecu ti on —was sc reen ed fro m

th e de fen da nt ’s cas e an d di d no t di sc us s it wit h th e di st ric t co ur t. See id

. at 10 46 ; se e

a l s o Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti ne z, 44 6 F.3 d 87 8, 88 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (rejec ti ng s a me

arg um en ts in vo lv in g sa m e co ur t an d la w cl erk ). W e co nc lu de d t h a t “ an av erag e

ob se rv er i nf

or m ed of t he [] facts an d of [th e la w cle rk ’s] lac k o f in vo lv em en t i n t hi s

cas e co ul d no t reas on ab ly qu es ti on [th e co ur t’s] i mp a rti al it y .” Ru ff, 47 2 F.3 d at

10 47

.

The go ve rn m en t fil ed a m ot io n to su pp le m en t th e reco rd

, whi ch we no w gr an t,

se e id

. at 10 47 n.4

. See al so Dak ot a In du st rie s, In c. v. Dak ot a Sp or ts wear, In c., 98 8

F.2 d 61 , 6 3- 64 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). The m ot io n in cl ud es a le tt er fro m th e Hon or ab le J.

Tho m as Ray, Ch ie f Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of

Ark an sa s, whi ch ex pl ai ns th at

, whi le Dep pe r te ch ni cal ly oc cu pi es on e of Ch ie f Ju dg e

Mi ll er’s la w cl erk po si ti on s, he r su bs ta nt iv e le ga l wor k in vo lv es on ly So ci al Secu rit y

m at te rs an d is pe rfo rm ed fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s m ag is tra te jud ge s, who

in te rv ie wed Dep pe r an d reco m m en de d he r t o C h i ef Ju dg e Mi ll er fo r em pl oym en t.

-8

-Sh e pe rfo rm s on ly ad m in is tra ti ve fu nc ti on s for Chi ef Jud ge Mi ll er and pe rfo rm s no

wor k on hi s cri m in al cas es

. In li gh t of “ al l th e rel e va nt fact s” reg ard in g Dep pe r’s

em pl oym en t, th e di st ric t co ur t’s im pa rti al it y can no t be reas on ab ly qu es ti on ed

, an d it

di d n ot ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he m ot io n t o re cu se

.

Ro bi ns on ne xt arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t pr od uc e su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

to es ta bl is h th at an y fal s e s t a t em en t he al le ge dl y m ad e to th e FBI du rin g it s

in ve st ig at io n was al so m at eri al

, a req ui red el em en t in a pr os ecu ti on un de r 18 U.S.C.

§ 10 01 (a)( 2)

. W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le

to th e ve rd ic t, acco rd in g th e ev id en ce al l reas on ab le in fere nc es te nd in g to su pp or t th e

ve rd ic t. See Uni te d St a t e s v. Ro be rts on
, 32 4 F.3 d 10 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). W e wil l

rev ers e on ly if no reas on ab le ju r y c o ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t. See id

.

Sect io n 10 01 pr oh ib it s an in di vi du al fro m “ kn owi ng ly an d wil lfu ll y

. . .

m ak [in g] an y m at eri al ly fal se
, fic ti ti ou s, or frau d u l en t st at em en t or rep res en ta ti on ”

in an y m at te r wit hi n th e juri sd ic ti on of th e fed eral go ve rn m en t. “ [I]n ge ne ral

, a fal se

st at em en t is m at eri al if it ha s a na tu ral te nd en cy to in flu en ce, or [ i s ] cap ab le of

in flu en ci ng
, t h e d e c i s io n of th e de ci si on m ak in g bo dy to whi ch it was ad dr es se d.”

Ro be rts on
, 32 4 F

. 3 d a t 10 30 (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. It is no t ne ces sa ry fo r th e

go ve rn m en t t o p ro ve th at it act ua ll y rel ie d on th e fal se st at em en t for it to ha ve be en

m at eri al . See Un it ed Sta te s v . Mit ch el l, 3 88 F.3d 11 39 , 11 43 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

W he n Ro bi ns on was in te rv ie wed by th e FBI, he in it ia ll y de ni e d p a r k i n g hi s

po li ce car an d wait in g a t t h e c o rn er of Co lo ne l Glen n Ro ad an d Sh ack le fo rd on

Mar ch 22

, ack no wled gi ng th at fact on ly aft er be in g to ld by th e in te rv ie win g FBI

ag en t th at vi de o su rv ei ll an ce pl aced hi m at th e in te rs ect io n. Ro bi ns on al so de ni ed

th at he le ft th e in te rs ect io n to fo ll ow a va n tra ns po rti ng m ari juan a al on g Sh ack le fo rd

to a st or ag e fac il it y , and he co nt in ue d t o den y th is co nd uc t d es pi te th e fac t t ha t FB I

su rv ei ll an ce ph ot os al on g th e ro ut e sh owe d Ro bi ns on fo ll owi ng th e va n in hi s po li ce

-9

-car. Ro bi ns on al so de ni ed rece iv in g m on ey fro m hi s co -co ns pi rat or fo r pr ov id in g th is

pr ot ect io n, ev en th ou gh au di o an d vi de o reco rd in gs of th e co -co ns pi rat or es ta bl is he d

th a t he ha d req ue st ed two se pa rat e sh rin k- wrap pe d bu nd le s of $5 ,00 0 cas h as

pa y m en t fo r th e pr ot ect io n, an d Ro bi ns on was ob s e rv ed m eet in g wit h hi s co

co ns pi rat or sh or tl y

aft er t he pa y m en t was m ad e.

Ro bi ns on co nt en ds th at th is ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at hi s al le ge dl y

fal se st at em en ts were m at eri al

, be cau se th e FBI ag en t who te st ifi ed at Ro bin son ’s tri al

di d no t sp eci fic al ly de sc rib e th e fal se st at em en ts as “ m at eri al ” in hi s te st im on y

. W e

di sa gr ee. Ro bi ns on m ad e th es e fal se st at em en ts to th e FBI in an effo rt t o i nf lu en ce

it s in ve st ig at io n by de fle ct in g su sp ic io n fro m hi m se lf. And be cau se Ro bi ns on ’s fal se

st at em en ts were, at th e ve ry lea st , “ cap ab le of i nf

lu en ci ng ” th e FBI ’s in ve st ig at io n,

th ey were “ m at eri al ly fal se
, fictit iou s, or fr au dul en t sta te m en t[s ] or rep res en ta ti on [s ], ”

as req ui red un de r § 10 01

. Viewe d in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury’ s ve rd ic t, th e

ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt R ob in so n’s fa ls e-s ta te m en t co nv ic ti on

.

Ro bi ns on ne xt arg ue s t ha t t he fal se -s ta te m en t cou nt

, whi ch was fir st ch arg ed

in th e se co nd su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, was m ot iv at ed by pr os ecu to ria l vi nd ic ti ve ne ss

. Ro bi ns on di d no t fil e a m ot io n to di sm is s fo r pr os ecu to ria l vi nd ic ti ve ne ss ei th er th e

se co nd su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t or th e th ird su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, whi ch of co ur se

al so in cl ud ed th e fal se -s ta te m en t c o u n t. It was on ly aft er th e se co nd -tr ia l jury

ret ur ne d it s gu il ty ve rd ic t on th at co un t th at Ro bi ns on fil ed a m ot io n req ue st in g th at

th e di st ric t co ur t “ gr an t a ne w t r i a l a n d di sm is s th e co nv ic ti on ” be cau se th e fal se

st at em en t co un t “ was on ly pur su ed as a res ul t o f pr os ecu to ria l v in di ct iv en es s.” On

ap p e a l

, t h e pa rti es fram e th e arg um en t as a ch al le ng e to th e de ni al of a m ot io n to

di sm is s th e in di ct m en t o n th e ba si s of pr os ecu to ria l vi nd ic ti ve ne ss
, an d th ey arg ue

th at th e st an da rd of r ev ie w is ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

W e rece nt ly ad dr es se d li ng eri ng “ co nf us io n” reg ard in g th e pr op er st an da rd of

rev ie w fo r di st ric t co ur t ru li ng s on vi nd ic ti ve pr os ecu ti on

. Uni te d St at es v. Ch ap pe ll

,

-1 0-77 9 F.3 d 87 2, 87 8 (8t h Cir. 20 15 ) (d is cu ss in g clai m of pr os ecu to ria l vi nd ic ti ve ne ss

whe n su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t secu red aft er su cces sf ul ap pe al in cl ud es bo th or ig in al

an d ne w ch arg es ), cert

. de ni ed

, 20 15 W L 50 32 38 1 (U.S. Oct. 5, 20 15 ) (No

. 15 -5 78 5)

. W e rev ie w for ab us e o f di sc ret io n a di st ric t co ur t’s d is cret io na ry de ci si on s, su ch as

whe th er to al lo w di sc ov ery or ho ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on a vi nd ic t i v e n e ss

al le ga ti on

. See id

. at 87 9. Bu t fo r ch al le ng es un rel at ed t o t h e s e d i sc ret io na ry

de ci si on s, “ we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo a n d i t s fact ua l

fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r.” Id

. Bec au se Ro bi ns on is no t ch al le ng in g a d i s c r e t io na ry

de ci si on by th e di st ric t co ur t, ou r re v i ew wou ld typic al ly be go ve rn ed by th e de

no vo /c le ar-e rro r st an da rd

. B u t be cau se Ro bi ns on fai le d to rai se hi s vi nd ic ti ve ne ss

as se rti on pr io r to hi s se co nd tri al by ob jecti ng to ei th e r t h e se co nd or th ird

su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t in a m ot io n to st rik e th e fal se -s ta te m en t ch arg e or in a m ot io n

to di sm is s th e en ti re in di ct m en t, we rev ie w on ly fo r pl ai n erro r. See Uni te d St at es v.

W as hb ur n, 4 44 F.3 d 10 07 , 1 01 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ap pl y in g pl ai n- erro r rev ie w wh en

di st ric t c o u r t gr an te d de fen da nt ’s m ot io n to di sm is s se ve ral co un ts of se co nd

su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, m is tri al was en te red on rem ai ni ng co un ts

, th ird su pe rs ed in g

in di ct m en t rei ns t a t e d di sm is se d co un ts

, an d de fen da nt fai le d to ob ject to th ird

su pe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t b efo re re tri al ).

“ Alt h o u g h t h e go ve rn m en t m ay ta ke act io n to pu ni sh a de fen da nt fo r

co m m it ti ng a cri m e, pu ni sh in g a de fen da nt fo r ex erci si ng h i s va li d le ga l rig ht s is

im pe rm is si bl e pr os ecu to ria l vi nd ic ti ve ne s s

. ” U ni te d St at es v. Cam pb el l, 41 0 F.3 d

45 6, 4 61 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). The d efen da nt be ars th e “ he av y ” b ur de n t o s ho w th at th e

pr os ecu ti on was vi nd ic ti ve
, i n l i g ht of th e di sc ret io n pr os ecu to rs are gi ve n in

pe rfo rm in g th ei r du ti es

. Uni te d St at es v. Leat he rs
, 35 4 F.3 d 95 5, 96 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ).

A de fen da nt m ay pr ov e p ro se cu to ria l vi nd ic ti ve ne ss th ro ug h ob jecti ve ev id en ce or,

in th e a b s e n c e of su ch ev id en ce, “ a de fen da nt m ay
, in ra re in st an ces
, rel y up on a

pr es um pt io n of vi nd ic ti ve ne ss if he pr ov id es su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to sh ow [th at ] a

reas on ab le li ke li ho od of vi nd ic ti ve ne ss ex is ts .” Ch ap pe ll

, 77 9 F.3 d at 87 9 (ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h th e pr es um pt io n “m ay ari se whe n pr os ecu to rs in crea se th e

-1 1-nu m

be r or sev eri ty of ch arg es ,” it “ do es no t ar is e jus t beca us e act io n d et rimenta l t o

th e de fen da nt was ta ke n aft er th e ex erci se of th e de fen da nt ’s le ga l rig ht s; th e co nt ex t

m us t al so pr es en t a reas on ab le li ke li ho od of vi nd ic ti ve ne ss .” Cam pb el l, 41 0 F.3 d at

46 1, 46 2. Ro bi ns on arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t ad de d th e fal se -s ta te m en t co un t in

th e se co nd an d th ird su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en ts on ly be cau se he in vo ke d hi s rig ht to a jury at hi s fir st tri al an d ev en tu al ly ob ta in ed a m is tri al on th e m os t se rio us co un ts

ch arg ed in t h e su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t. He as se rts th at be cau se th e fal se -s ta te m en t

co un t was ba se d o n t he same un de rlyin g fa ct s an d c ou ld ha ve be en ch arg ed earl ie r,

he ha s sh own a reas on ab le li ke li ho od of vi nd ic ti ve ne ss an d i s e n t i tl ed to th e

pr es um pt io n t he reo f.

W e ha ve no te d th at th ere is “ no real is ti c li ke li ho od of vi nd ic ti ve ne ss

. . . whe n

a jury is de ad lo ck ed an d bo th pa rti es ag ree t h at a de cl arat io n of m is tri al is a

ne ces si t y.” Uni te d St at es v. Ro dg ers
, 18 F.3 d 14 25

, 14 30 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). Nor is

th ere a pr es um

pt io n of vi nd ic ti ve ne ss “wh e n t he go ve rn m en t ch oo se s to in di ct a

de fen da nt on in di vi du al act s th at aro se ou t of th e sa m e nu cl eu s of fact s whi ch res ul te d

in an earl ie r acq ui tt al .” Id

. (ad op ti ng reas on in g in Uni te d St at es v. Esp os it o, 96 8 F.2 d

30 0, 30 3- 07 (3 d Ci r. 19 92 )). Thi s is so be cau se
, “ [w]ith ou t m or e, ad di ng ne w ch arg es

ba se d on in de pe nd en t act s, ev en whe re th e se pa rat e act s th at pr om pt ed th e ne w

c h a r g e s o c cu rred in th e sa m e sp ree of act iv it y , do es no t crea te a pr es um pt io n o f

pr os ecu to ria l vi nd ic ti ve ne ss .” Ch ap pe ll

, 77 9 F.3 d at 88 1 ( c i t at io ns om it te d)

. Fo r

ex am pl e, in Uni te d St at es v. Rod ge rs
, aft er a jury acq ui tt ed th e de fen da nt s on dr ug

po ss es si on ch arg es an d fai le d to reac h a ve rd ic t on a co ns pi racy ch arg e, th e

go ve rn m en t fil ed two su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en ts

, rech arg in g th e co ns pi racy an d ad di ng

fir earm
, ai di ng -an d- ab et ti ng
, an d m ul ti pl e di st rib ut io n ch arg es

. 18 F.3 d at 14 27 -2 8.

W e reject ed th e de fen da nt s’ cl ai m s of vi nd ic ti ve ne ss
, no ti ng th at th e “ ad di ti o n a l

ch arg e s

. . . were br ou gh t by rei nd ic tm en t fo ll owi ng a m is tri al on th e co ns pi racy

ch arg e, an d no t be cau se th e de fen da nt s el ect ed to pr oc eed in it ia ll y by jury tri al .” Id

.

at 14 30

.

-1 2-The fal se -s ta te m en t co un t in th is cas e was no t ad de d in res po ns e to Ro bi ns on ’s

as se rti on of hi s rig ht to a jury tri al

, bu t on ly aft e r t h e ju r y h a d de ad lo ck ed an d a

m is tri al was de cl ared

. The m is tri al was no t de cl are d u po n Ro bi ns on ’s m ot io n an d

ov er th e go ve rn m en t’s ob jecti on
, no r was it th e res ul t of Ro bi ns on ’s as se rti on of an y

l e g al rig ht

. See id

. (n ot in g th at “ [c]ou rts wil l no t fin d pr os ecu to ria l vi nd ic t i v e n e s s

whe n th e rei nd ic tm en t was no t a reac ti on to th e de fen da nt ’s as se rti on of so m e rig ht .”

(ci ta ti on om it te d ) ). And al th ou gh th e fal se -s ta te m en t co un t aro se fro m th e sa m e

ge ne ral nu cl eu s of fact s refe ren ced in th e earl ie r in di ct m en t th at res ul te d in a m is tri al

, th e fal se -s ta te m en t co un t was ba se d on Ro bi ns on ’s se pa rat e an d in de pe nd en t ac t o f

lying to th e FBI ab ou t th os e fact s. In su m
, Ro bi ns on ha s fai le d to pr ov id e su ffi ci en t

e v i de nc e to rai se a pr es um pt io n of vi nd ic ti ve ne ss
, an d so th e di st ric t co ur t di d n o t

co m m it pl ai n e rro r in reject in g R ob in so n’s cl ai m for rel ie f on th at gro un d.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

I res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t fr om th e co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at th e ev id en ce o f fo rm er

Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t (LRPD) Dete ct iv e Ch arl es W eav er’s m is co nd uc t was

no t m at eri al to th e de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on fo r m ari juan a di st rib ut io n. W eav er was th e

m ai n wit ne ss who te st ifi ed fo r th e go ve rn m en t on th is ch arg e, an d hi s m is co nd uc t was

st ro ng ly im

pe ach in g ev id en ce. The de fen da nt

, fo rm er LRPD po li ce of fic er Ran da ll

Ro bi ns on , was d ep riv ed of a fai r tr ia l b y no t b ei ng ab le to us e it

.

W eav er was th e arch it ect of th e st in g op erat io n ag ai ns t Ro bi ns on
, an d he was

th e go ve rn m en t’s pr im ary wit ne ss on th e m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti on ch arg e. Bu t he was

fir ed by hi s de pa rtment two m on th s aft er Ro bi ns on ’s tri al fo r ta ki ng m on ey fro m th e

de pa rtment’s pr op ert y ro om an d fo rg in g th e si gn at ur es of th e rig ht fu l own ers
, jus t a

few m on th s be fo r e h e t e st ifi ed at Ro bi ns on ’s tri al

. Thi s type of ev id en ce go es

di rect ly to a la w en fo rcem en t o f f i c er’s cred ib il it y ; an d gi ve n th e na tu re of th e

-1 3-ev id en ce pres en te d gen eral ly ag ai ns t Ro bi ns on , it is li ke ly to h av e go ne a lo ng way

to ward di sc red it in g Weav er’s t es ti m on y if t he jury ha d h eard it

.

A n o t h er LRPD Dete ct iv e, Ri ck Kis er, di d te st ify th at he sa w Ro bi ns on se l l

dr ug s to a co nf

id en ti al in f

o r m an t (CI)

. Bu t ev en if Kis er’s te st im on y al on e wou ld

ha ve be en en ou gh to su pp or t Ro bi ns on ’s m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti o n co nv ic ti on
, th at

do es n’t m ean th at ev id en ce of W eav er’s m is co nd uc t was no t m at eri al

. “ A de fen da nt

ne ed no t de m on st rat e th at aft er di sc ou nt in g th e in cu lp at or y ev id en ce in l ig ht of th e

un di sc lo se d ev id en ce, th ere wou ld no t ha ve be en en ou gh le ft to co nv ic t.” Ky le s v.

W hi tl ey
, 51 4 U.S. 41 9, 43 4– 35 (1 99 5)

. Thu s, “ [t]he qu es ti on is no t whe th er th e

de fen da nt wou ld m o r e l i k e l y th an no t ha ve rece iv ed a di ffer en t ve rd ic t wit h th e

e v i d e n c e
, 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 a l

res ul ti ng in a ve rd ic t wo rth y of c on fid en ce.” Id . at 4 34

.

Kis er’s t e s t i m on y was pr ob le m at ic ev en be fo re ev id en ce of W eav er’s

m is co nd uc t was un co ve red

. W eav er di d no t wit ne ss th e dr ug tra ns act io n be twee n th e

CI an d Ro bi ns on ; Kis er was th e on ly pe rs on who te st ifi ed at tri al who cl ai m ed to ha ve

do ne so

. Yet, Kis er’s te st im on y fo u r ye a r s aft er th e fact was in co ns is te nt wit h a

po li ce rep or t W eav er wro te on ly a week aft er th e co nt ro ll ed bu y

. On cro ss

ex am in at io n, W eav er ag reed th at hi s r e p or t in di cat ed in st ead th at Kis er si m pl y

sh owe d up
, sa w “ Ro bi ns on at th e ba ck of a pi ck up w i t h t w o o t h er m en ,” an d th en

dr ov e away. The rep or t wen t on to st at e th at th e CI con ta ct ed W eav er an hou r aft er

Kis er ex it ed th e co m

pl ex to rep or t th at th e tra ns act io n was co m pl et e. W eav er sa id at

tri al th at he “m a de a m is ta ke ” whe n writ in g hi s rep or t, bu t ad m it te d “ [t]ha t’s wha t

[th e rep or t] says.”

At t ria l, Weave r tr ie d t o c le ar u p t hi s i nc on si st en cy by t es ti fy in g th at he on ly

le arn ed th at Kis er wit ne ss ed Ro bi ns on ’s ha nd in g th e in fo rm an t a pa ck ag e aft er he ha d

typed up hi s re po rt, wh ic h was sev en da y s aft er th e tra ns act io n. Bu t Kis er te st ifi ed

di ffer en tl y

. Kis er cl ai m ed he was in co nt act wit h W eav er du rin g th e co nt ro ll ed bu y

-1 4-an d to ld hi m in real -ti m e th at he ha d ob se rv ed th e ha nd -o ff. Giv en t h e se

di sc rep an ci es
, if a jury ha d be en al lo wed to he ar ab ou t W eav er’s m is co nd uc t, it m ay

ha ve di sc ou nt ed no t on ly W eav er’s te st im on y , bu t Kis er’s as well

. Evi de nc e th at th e

ke y wit ne ss ag ai ns t a fel lo w po li ce of fic er in a cri m in al cas e was hi m se lf pu rp or te dl y

in vo lv ed in cri m in al act iv i t y in co nn ect io n wit h po li ce bu si ne ss m ig ht eas il y ha ve

refl ect ed ba dl y

on th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t as a who le , a nd by ex te ns io n,

on Kis er’s cred ib il it y as a m em be r of th a t de pa rtment. See Ky le s, 51 4 U.S. at 44 5

(“ [T]he effe ct iv e im

pe ach m en t of on e ey ewit ne ss can cal l fo r a ne w tri al ev en th ou gh

th e at ta ck do es no t ex te nd di rect ly to o th ers

. . . .”).

Evi de nc e of W eav er’s m is co nd u c t w a s m at eri al no t jus t be cau se of th e

weak ne ss es in Kis er’s test im on y , bu t als o bec au se th e go ve rn m en t’s case de pe nd ed

on W eav er’s te st im on y to a la rg e ex te nt

. Mu ch of th e ev id en ce co nc ern in g th e st in g 3

op erat io n ag ai ns t Ro bi n s o n c am e in th ro ug h W eav er’s te st im on y – an d co ul d on ly

ha ve co m e in th ro ug h h is tes ti m on y . W eav er was th e on e who ha d t he co nf id en ti al

in fo rm an t cal l Ro bi ns on
, th e on e who id en ti fie d Ro bi ns on ’s vo ic e ov er th e ph on e, th e

on e who se arch ed th e in fo rm an t an d hi s car to m ak e su re th ere was no co nt rab an d

th ere pr io r to th e co nt ro ll ed bu y , an d th e on e who pr ov id ed th e cas h fo r th e in fo rm an t

to us e in th e tra ns a c t i o n

. He al so te st ifi ed th at he was th e of fic er who ha d vi su al

c o n t a c t w i t h th e CI “ whe n [h e] m et wit h hi m
, fo ll owe d hi m to th e sc en e, an d th e n

aft erwar ds whe n [h e] fo ll owe d hi m b a c k t o th e m eet in g lo cat io n.” In ot he r wor ds

, W eav er was th e of

fic er who m on it or ed th e CI’s whe reab ou ts to en su r e h e d id no t

en ga ge in wron gd oi ng or s tra y fro m th e sc rip te d p la n.

Not in si gn ifi c a n tl y , W eav er al so te st ifi ed th at he was th e of fic er who to ok

cu st od y of th e pa ck ag e fro m th e CI. W eav e r t h en tra ns po rte d it to th e po li ce

de pa rtment a nd “ lo gg ed , tag ge d, an d s to red it in th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t

No ph ot og rap hs or ot he r ph y si cal ev id en ce of th e co nt ro l l e d bu y , li ke th e 3

cu rren cy no te s t ha t wer e al le ge dl y us ed , were ev er i nt ro du ced by the go ve rn m en t.

-1 5-pr op ert y syste m .” W eav er te st ifi ed th at he “ se al ed th e ev id en ce wit h ev id en t ta m pe r

ta pe ,” an d “ in it ia le d an d da te d” acro ss th e ta pe “ to en su re th at if it was ta m pe red wit h,

it ’d b e ob vi ou s to [h im ]. ” Yet th e im pe ach m en t ev id en ce wou ld ha ve su gg es te d t o

th e jury th at W eav er was no t a tru st wor th y c u st od ia n of th e de pa rtment’s pr op ert y

ro om
, an d th at he was no t ab ov e ta m pe rin g wit h ev id en ce hi m se lf. In sh or t, W eav er’s

te st im on y was cen tra l to th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e. And it is h a r d t o se e ho w th e

in tro du ct io n of ev id en ce si gn ifi can tl y im pe ach in g hi s cred ib il it y wou ld no t “ pu t th e

who le cas e in su ch a di ffer en t li gh t as to un de rm in e co nf id en ce in th e ve rd ic t.” Id

.

at 43 5.

Bec au se I be li ev e th e ev id en ce of W eav er’s m is co nd uc t was m at eri al

, I th in k

we can no t av oi d th e qu es ti on of whe th er t h a t ev id en ce is su bjec t to Brad y ’s

di sc lo su re ob li ga ti on s in th e fir st pl ace. In m y vi ew, it is

. Fi rs t

, t h e a p p l i cat io n of

Brad y do es no t de pe nd on th e pr os ecu to r’s cu lp ab il it y fo r th e no n- di sc lo su re, bu t

rat he r on whe th er th e no n- di sc lo su re de pr iv ed th e de fen da nt o f a f a i r tri al

. See

Uni te d St at es v. Agu rs
, 42 7 U.S. 97

, 11 0 & n.6 (1 97 6) (h ol di ng th at th e pr os ecu ti on ’s

“ co ns ti tu ti on al ob li ga ti on [to di sc lo se ] is [n ot ] m eas ur ed by th e m or al cu lp ab il it y , or

th e wil lfu ln es s, of th e pr os ecu to r.”); se e al so St ric kl er v. Green e, 52 7 U.S. 26 3, 28 8

(1 99 9) (“ [U]nde r Bra d y a n i na dv ert en t no nd is cl os ur e ha s th e sa m e im pa ct on th e

fai rn es s of the pr oc eed in gs as de li be rat e co nc eal m en t” ); Sm it h v. Phi ll ip s, 45 5 U.S.

20 9, 21 9– 20 (1 98 2) ; Brad y , 37 3 U.S. at 87 –8 8; Po rte r v. W hi te

, 48 3 F.3 d 12 94

, 13 05

(1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ The Brad y ru le th us imp o s e s a no -fau lt st an da rd of care on th e

pr os ecu to r. If fav or ab le

, m at eri al ev id en ce ex cl us iv el y i n t h e ha nd s of th e

pr os ecu ti on te am fai ls to reac h th e de fen se – fo r wha te ve r reas on – an d th e de fen da nt

is su bs eq ue nt ly co nv ic te d, th e pr os ecu ti on is ch arg ed wit h a Brad y vi ol at io n, an d th e

de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al .”); U n i te d St at es ex rel

. Sm it h v. Fai rm an
, 76 9

F.2 d 38 6, 39 2 (7 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (“ Brad y was ai m ed at en su rin g th at an accu se d rece iv es

a fai r tri al rat he r th an pu ni sh in g th e pr os ecu to r fo r fai li ng t o d i s c lo se ex cu lp at or y

ev id en ce”)

. Thu s, th e fact th at th e pr os ecu to r in th is cas e was
, by al l acco un ts

, in no

-1 6-po si ti on to le arn of an d di sc lo se W eav er’s al le ge d m is co nd uc t pr io r to tri al do es no t

co m pe l t he co nc lu si on th at no Brad y vi ol at io n o ccu rred

.

Seco nd

, “ Brad y su pp res s i o n oc cu rs whe n th e go ve rn m en t fai ls to tu rn ov er

ev en ev id en ce th at is ‘kno wn on ly to po li ce in ve st ig at or s an d no t to th e pr os ecu to r.’”

You ng bl oo d v. W es t Virg in ia

, 54 7 U.S. 86 7, 86 9– 70 (2 00 6) (p er cu ria m ) (q uo ti ng
Ky le s, 51 4 U.S. at 4 38 ); Kyles , 51 4 U.S. at 43 7 (“ [T]he in di vi du al pr os ecu to r ha s a

du ty to le arn of an y fav o r a b l e e v i d en ce kn own to th e ot he rs act in g on th e

go ve rn m en t’s be ha lf in th e cas e, in cl u d i n g th e po li ce.”) ; se e al so D’ Am br os io v.

Mar in o, 74 7 F. 3 d 3 7 8

, 38 9 (6 th Ci r. 20 14 ); Uni te d St at es v. Oso rio

, 92 9 F.2 d 75 3,

76 2 (1 st Ci r. 19 91 ) (“ Ult im at el y , reg ard le ss of whe th er th e pr os ecu to r is ab le to fram e

an d en fo rce di rect iv es to th e in ve st ig at iv e ag en ci es to res po nd can di dl y an d fu ll y to

di s c l o s u r e or de rs
, res po ns ib il it y fo r fai lu re to m eet di sc lo su re ob li ga ti on s wil l be

as se ss ed by the co ur ts ag ai ns t t he pro se cu to r an d h is off ic e.”). 4

It fo ll ows th at “ [t]he St at e’s fai lu re to di sc lo se ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce, in cl ud in g

im pe ach m en t ev id en ce, in it s po ss es si on co ns ti tu te s a Brad y vi o l a t io n, irr es pe ct iv e

of th e go od fai th or ba d fai th of th e pr os ecu ti on
, an d re g a r dl es s of whe th er th e

in fo rm at io n is kn own on ly by th e po li ce an d no t th e pr os ecu to r.” Lewis v. Co nn

. Co m m ’r o f Co rr., 79 0 F. 3 d 1 0 9

, 1 2 2 (2 d Ci r. 20 15 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. One co ul d

co nc ei va bl y carv e ou t an e x c e p t i o n t o th is ru le ba se d on th e fact th at in th is cas e,

pr es um ab ly on ly W eav er kn ew of hi s own m is co nd uc t. Bu t I se e no m ean in gf ul way

I qu es ti on whe th er ou r de ci si on in Uni te d St at es v. Kern

, 12 F.3 d 1 2 2

, 1 2 6 4
(8 th Ci r. 19 93 ), whi ch he ld th at Brad y do es no t ap pl y to cas es whe re th e un di sc lo se d

e v i d en ce was no t “ in th e pr os ecu to r’s fil es ,” can be reco nc il ed wit h th e S u p r e me
Co ur t’s deci si on two y ears la te r in Ky le s, 5 14 U.S. at 43 8, whic h reject ed th e cl ai m th at Brad y do es no t ap pl y to “ ev id en ce kn own on ly to po li ce in ve st ig at or s an d no t to

th e pr os ecu to r.” Kern al so su gg es te d th at th e kn owl ed ge of st at e of fic ia ls m ay no t

be im pu ta bl e to a fed eral pr os ecu to r; bu t at th e ti m e of tri al W eav er was as si gn ed to

th e FBI, an d th ere is no in di cat io n th at th is was no t th e cas e at th e ti m e of hi s al le ge d

m is co nd uc t a f

ew m on th s ea rli er. Kern , 12 F.3d at 1 26

.

-1 7-to di st in gu is h th is si tu at io n fro m on e in whi ch a si ng le of fic er i s t h e o n l y pe rs on

in vo lv ed wit h th e pr os ecu ti on who kn ows of an y ot he r typ e o f ex cu lp at or y or

im pe ach in g e vi de nc e. Tha t Detect iv e W eav er m ig ht ha ve to in cri m in at e h im se lf i n

or de r to sa ti sf

y Brad y pr es en ts a di le m m a fo r Dete ct iv e W eav er. Bu t th e Brad y

reg im e is no -fau lt

, an d fo cu se s on “ as su r[i ng ] th e de fen da nt a ‘fair tri al ,’ ” no t on

as se ss in g th e cu lp ab il it y of th e pr os ecu to r. Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 34 F.3 d 59 6, 60 0

(8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). The fact th at th e pr os ecu to r was no t at fau lt do es no t ch an ge th e fact

th at Ro bi ns on was co nv ic te d by a jury th at di d no t ha ve acce ss to m at eri al ev id en ce,

de pr iv in g h im

of h is rig ht to a fai r tr ia l. Ky le s, 5 14 U.S. at 4 34

.

I al so se e no reas on why im pe ach m en t ev id en ce in vo lv in g m is co nd uc t th at is

no t di rect ly cas e-re la te d can ne ve r be Brad y ev id en ce. Rat he r, th e ex te nt to whi ch th e

m is co nd uc t rel at es to th e cas e is a fact or – in de ed

, an im po rta nt on e – in de te rm in in g

whe th er th e u n d i s cl os ed ev id en ce is m at eri al

. Tak e fo r ex am pl e a ke y go ve rn m en t

tri al wit ne ss who ha s ad m it te d to lyin g un de r oa th to se cu re a co nv ic ti on whe n

te st ifyin g in nu m ero us pa st tri al s. W ou ld th at “ un rel at ed ” m is co nd uc t no t cas t se rio us

do ub t on th e f

a i r ne ss of th e tri al , s im

pl y be cau se th e m is co nd uc t oc cu rred in ot he r,

earl ie r tri al s? Alt ho ug h W eav er’s m is co nd uc t was no t pa rt of hi s in ve st ig at io n in to

5

Uni te d St at es v. Ro bi ns on ex pr es se s th e c o n c ern th at un le ss th e do ct rin e of 5

Brad y im pu ta ti on is na rro w e d

, it wou ld un de rm in e th e ru le s res tri ct in g ne w tri al s

un de r Ru le 33 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e. 62 7 F.3 d 94 1, 95 2 (4 th

Ci r. 20 10 ). Bu t a nu m

be r of Ru le 33 m ot io ns are ba se d on ne w l y- d i s c ov ered

ev id en ce t ha t wo ul d n ot gi ve ris e to a Brad y cl ai m be cau se th e ev id en ce was no t i n th e po ss es si on of an y go ve rn m en t of fic ia l. Ru le 33 ’s res tri ct io ns on ne w tri al s wou ld

rem ai n in ta ct in su ch cas es

. And Ro bi ns on ’s co nc ern th at pa st Ru le 33 cas es “ sh ou ld

al l ha ve in st ead be en Brad y cas es ,” id

., is be li ed by th e fact th at a nu m be r of Ru le 33

mo t i o n s ba se d on ne wly-dis co ve red ev id en ce ha ve of te n be en br ou gh t as Brad y cl ai m s. See, e.g
., Uni te d St at es v. Tate

, 63 3 F.3 d 62 4, 62 8, 62 9– 31 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 );

Uni te d St at es v. Dit tri ch

, 20 4 F.3 d 81 9, 82 1

– 2 2 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 00 ); Kern

, 12 F.3 d at

12 5– 26

.

-1 8-Ro bi ns on
, th e fact th at it oc cu rred jus t m on th s be fo re tri al whi le W eav er was act in g

in th e co ur se of h is off

ic ia l d ut ie s m ak es it hi gh ly pro ba ti ve of h is cred ib il it y

.

St rai gh tfo rward ap pl ic at io n of th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s Brad y cas e la w wou ld no t

pl ace pr os ecu to rs in an im po ss ib le po si ti on

. It is li ke ly a rare cas e whe re un di sc lo se d 6

m is co nd uc t so cl earl y affe ct s th e cred ib il it y of a wit ne ss cen tra l to th e go ve rn m en t’s

cas e, or is m at eri al to th e co nv ic ti on

. Bu t as t h e f a c t s o f th is cas e sh ow, rare is no t

ne ve r. I wou ld th eref

or e fin d th at W eav er is en ti tl ed to a ne w tri al on hi s co nv ic ti on

fo r di st rib ut in g a pp ro xi m at el y ha lf a po un d o f m ari

juan a o n Au gu st 4, 2 00 9. 7

I al so res pe ct fu ll y di sa gr ee wit h th e co ur t’s de ci si on to gr an t th e go ve rn m en t’s

m ot io n t o s up pl em en t t he reco rd wit h a let te r fro m Ch ie f Mag is tra te Ju dg e Tho m as
Ray ex pl ai ni ng th e type of wor k Ann ie Dep pe r pe rfo rm s as a la w cl erk

. The Fed eral

Ru le s o f App el la te Pro ced ur e pe rm it su pp le m en ti ng th e reco rd on ap pe al on ly “ [i]f

an y th in g m at eri al to ei th er pa rty i s om it te d fro m or m is st at ed in th e reco rd by er ro r

or acci de nt .” Fed

. R. App

. P. 10 (e)( 2)

. Ch ie f Mag is tra te Ju dg e Ray’ s le tt er was no t

om it te d fro m th e reco rd by e r ro r or acci de nt ; it di d no t ex is t whe n th e ap pe al was

I di sa gr ee th at “ fu ll in te rv ie ws an d ba ck gr ou nd ch ec k s o n e ve ry on e who 6

to uc he d th e cas e” wou ld be ne ces sa ry – or ev en effe ct iv e. Ro bi ns on
, 62 7 F.3 d at 95 2.

In st ead

, a pr os ecu to r co ul d po te nt ia ll y m it ig at e th e ri sk of a ret ria l by al lo win g

go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es who were cl os el y in vo lv ed in th e pr os ecu ti on to si m pl y recu se th em se lv es fro m a cas e su ch as th is on e wit h ou t fu rth er co m m en t. Cf. Ky le s, 51 4

U.S. at 43 8 (“ In th e S ta te ’s fav or it m ay be sa id th at no on e do ub ts th at po li ce in ve st ig at or s so m et im es fai l to in fo rm a p ro se cu to r of all th ey kn ow. Bu t nei th er is

th ere an y se rio us d o u b t th at pr oc ed ur es an d reg ul at io ns can be es ta bl is he d to carr y [th e pr os ecu to r’s] bu rd en an d to in su re co m m un ic at io n of al l rel ev an t in fo rm at io n on each cas e t o e v ery la wy er who de al s wit h it .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al )).

How th e gr an ti ng of a ne w tri al on th e m ari juan a-d is tri bu ti on c h a rg e wou ld 7

affe ct Ro bi ns on ’s co nv ic ti on on th e fal se -s ta te m en t ch arg e is a qu es ti on I wou ld le av e fo r th e d is tri ct co ur t o n re m an d.

-1 9-ta ke n. It wou ld th eref or e be in ap pr op ria te fo r us to co ns id er it at th is st ag e. In st ead

, I wou l d h o l d t h at ev en wit ho ut co ns ul ti ng th e in fo rm at io n co nt ai ne d in th e le tt er,

Ch ie f Ju dg e Mi ll er di d no t ab us e hi s di sc ret io n in de cl i n i n g to recu se hi m se lf aft er
Dep pe r was hi red

. See Uni te d S t a t e s v

. Cas as
, 37 6 F.3 d 20

, 23 (1 st Ci r. 20 04 )

( “J u d ge s are un de r no ob li ga ti on to pr ov id e a st at em en t of reas on s fo r rec u s a l

. ”

(q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ).

I ot he rwis e joi n t he op in io n o f th e co ur t.

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

-2 0-