T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. DO N E L L I NG F OR D, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 30280 D . C . N o. 4: 10 -c r- 00 02 4-B L W -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

I da ho B . L y nn W i nm i l l , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r7, 2012

P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , M cK E O W N , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D o n E llin g f

o r d w a s c o n v ic te d o f

tw o c o u n ts o f

p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to de l i ve rm e tha m phe t a m i ne unde r21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) . H e appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on f

orane w tr i a l unde rF e d. R . C r i m . P . 33 a nd hi s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, a nd 

# FI LED NO V 23 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

w e a f f i rm. I E l l i n g fo rd arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred i n d en yi n g h i s m o t i o n s b ecau se hi s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol at ed un der B r adyv . M ar y land , 37 3 U . S . 83 (196 3), a nd N a p u e v . I llin o is , 3 6 0 U . S. 2 6 4 ( 1 9 5 9 ) . Be c au s e h e d i d n o tr a i s e th e s e c l a i ms in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, w e r e v ie w th e m f o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni te d State s v . H

ous ton , 648 F .3 d 8 0 6 , 8 1 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 3 2 S . C t . 1 7 2 7 (2 0 1 2 ). T o est ab l i sh p la in e rr o r , E llin g f

o r d “‘m u s t s h o w ( 1 ) a n e rr o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts , a n d ( 4 ) th a t s e r io u s lya f f e c ts th e f a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic re pu t at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ’ ” U n ite d S ta te s v . Za la

p a , 509 F . 3d 1060, 1064 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U n ite d S ta te s v . Sm ith , 42 4 F . 3d 99 2, 10 00 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ) . II E l l i ngf or d c ont e nds tha tthe G ove rnm e ntvi ol a t e d B r adybynotdi s c l os i ng th e e v id e n c e o f

th e I d a h o S ta te P o lic e L ab ’s ( “I S P L ab ” ) v io la tio n o f lab p o lic y . H e a lso ar g u es th at th e G o v ern m en t’ s f ailu re to co rr ec t R o ck lan M cD o w ell’ s t e s t i m ony vi ol a t e d N

apue be c aus e the e vi de nc e s how e d tha tabox of un do cum ent ed drug s c on tra di ct ed M cD ow el l ’ s t es t i m on y thathe and o thers w orki ng i n the l ab di d notl e a ve a nye vi de nc e outuna tt e nde d.3

E l l i n g fo rd ’ s B r adya nd N ap ue cl ai m s f

ai l because, even as sum i ng there w as error, he cann otes t abl i sh prej ud i ce . “ [W ] e m ustanal yz e B rady a nd N apue vi ol at i on s ‘ col l ec t i vel y. ’ ” J a c k s o n v . Br o wn , 5 1 3 F .3 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 7 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) .

“ T he m at er i al i ty anal ys i s proce eds di ff er ent l y f or B r adya nd N

apue cl ai m s. ” I

d.

“ [W ] e f i rs tconsi der the N

ap ue vi ol a t i ons c ol l e c t i ve l ya nd a s k w he the rthe r e i s ‘ a ny reaso n ab l e l i k el i h o o d th atth e fal se t est i m o n y c ould ha ve a f f e c t e d the j udgm e ntof the j ury. ’ ” I

d. ( quot i ng H

a y e s v . Br o wn , 3 9 9 F .3 d 9 7 2 , 9 8 5 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 )) . “ [I ]f the N ap ue errors ar e notm at er i al st andi ng al on e, w e c on si der a l l of the N apue a nd B r adyv io la tio n s c o lle c tiv e lya n d a s kw h e th e r‘th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ility tha t , butf

orc ouns e l ’ s unpr of

e s s i ona l e rr or s , the r e s ul tof the pr oc e e di ng w o u ld have been di ff

er ent . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U

ni ted Stat es v. B ag ley , 473 U . S . 667, 68 2 (19 85 )) . “ A tbo th st ages , w e m ustas k w hether the defendant‘ re ce i ved a tri al re sul t i ng i n a verdi ctw orthy of confi dence. ’ ” I d. ( a l t e r a t i on om i tt e d) ( quot i ng K yles v. W hi t ley , 51 4 U . S . 41 9, 43 4 (19 95 )) . E l l i ngf or d ha s f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe r e i s a nyr e a s onabl e l i ke l i hood tha tM c D ow e l l ’ s f

a l s e t e s t i m ony abouthi s a nd othe ra na l y s t s ’ ge ne r a l ha ndl i ng of ev id en ce in th e I S P L ab co u ldh av e a ff ec ted th e ju d g m en t o f th e ju ry . T h e ju ry ’s gui l ty ve r di c ti s w orthy of c onf i de nc e i n l i ghtof

the i nde pe nde nte vi de nc e i n the r e c or d i m pl i c a t i ng E l l i ngf or d. T he c onf

i de nt i a l i nf

orm a ntt e s t i f

i e d a ttr i a l tha ts he4

kne w E l l i ngf

or d f ory e a r s pr i ort o the tw o c ontr ol l e d buy s , ha d bought m eth am p h et am i n e fro m h i m o n n u m ero u s o ccasi o n s, an d h ad setu p th ese b u ys w i th h i m for the pu rpose of purchasi ng m etham ph et am i ne. T he confi dent i al i nf orm a ntw a s unde rpol i c e s urve i l l a nc e on he rw a yt o a nd f r om the s e buy s , a nd bo th b uys w er e r ec orded. In these re cordi ng s, E l l i ng ford as ked the confi dent i al in f o rm a n t f o rd ru g s c a le s a n d e x p r e s s e d h is f e a ro f b e in g c au g h t a n d g o in g to pri son. D et ec t i ve R on al d K i m M ar shal l t es t i fi ed thathe re ce i ved the subst ance s pur c ha s e d by the c onf

i de nt i a l i nf

orm a nta nd tha tthe yappe a r e d t o be m etham ph et am i ne. I n l i ghtof

thi s i nde pe nde nte vi de nc e , E l l i ngf or d ha s f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty , e ve n c ons i de r i ng a l l of the a l l e ge d N

ap ue a nd B r ady v io la tio n s c o lle c tiv e ly , th a t th e r e s u lt o f th e p r o c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. B e c aus e E l l i ngf

or d ha s nots how n pr e

j udi c e , he ha s f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h N

ap ue a nd B rady v io la tio n s , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t c o m m it p la in e rr o r . See U ni ted Stat es v. W

i lkes , 66 2 F . 3d 52 4, 53 5 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( t o d em on stra t e a B rady c la im u n d e rth e p la in e rr o rs ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w , p r e

ju d ic e m u s t b e s h o w n ) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 3 2 S . C t. 2 1 1 9 ( 2 0 1 2 ) . AF F I RME D.