Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/917/607/351429/
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 19:35:38
Document Index: 84535497

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2255', '§ 851', '§ 851', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 3161', '§ 2', '§ 851']

United States of America, Appellee, v. Edwin Sanchez, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Gregorio Rosario, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Rafael Sanchez, Defendant, Appellant, 917 F.2d 607 (1st Cir. 1990) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › First Circuit › 1990 › United States of America, Appellee, v. Edwin Sanchez, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America,...
United States of America, Appellee, v. Edwin Sanchez, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Gregorio Rosario, Defendant, Appellant.united States of America, Appellee, v. Rafael Sanchez, Defendant, Appellant, 917 F.2d 607 (1st Cir. 1990)
US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - 917 F.2d 607 (1st Cir. 1990) Heard March 8, 1990. Decided Oct. 24, 1990
"The gist of conspiracy is an agreement to disobey or to disregard the law," United States v. Drougas, 748 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1984), which the government may prove by direct and circumstantial evidence, United States v. Rivera-Santiago, 872 F.2d 1073, 1079 (1st Cir. 1989). The evidence must establish that the defendants intended to agree and that they intended to commit the substantive criminal offense which was the object of their unlawful agreement. Id.; accord United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566, 580 (1st Cir. 1981). Due to the clandestine nature of criminal conspiracies, the law recognizes that the illegal agreement may be either "express or tacit" and that a " 'common purpose and plan may be inferred from a development and collocation of circumstances.' " Rivera-Santiago, 872 F.2d at 1079 (quoting Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S. Ct. 457, 469, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942)); see also Drougas, 748 F.2d at 15. The government need not establish that the defendants knew or agreed upon every detail of the conspiracy. "All that is required is to show 'the essential nature of the plan and their connections with it.' " Rivera-Santiago, 872 F.2d at 1079 (quoting Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557, 68 S. Ct. 248, 256, 92 L. Ed. 154 (1947)); see also United States v. Hinds, 856 F.2d 438, 443 (1st Cir. 1988).
Without weighing witness credibility, United States v. Serrano, 870 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1989) (citing Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 16, 98 S. Ct. 2141, 2149, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1978)), we assess the sufficiency of the evidence, including all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to the government, United States v. McNatt, 813 F.2d 499, 502 (1st Cir. 1987), with a view to whether a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus viewed, there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy convictions against Edwin and Rafael Sanchez.
Rafael Sanchez appeals from the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal under count II, which charged all three defendants with the substantive offense of possessing cocaine for distribution. Rafael argues that the district court committed reversible error by instructing the jury on "aiding and abetting" and on vicarious criminal liability under Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S. Ct. 1180, 90 L. Ed. 1489 (1946), inasmuch as count II did not provide fair notice that he was being charged under either theory.
Notwithstanding the fact that count II did not charge aiding and abetting, or mention 18 U.S.C. § 2, the jury was instructed that the defendants could be convicted if they aided and abetted the substantive offense of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.1 Rafael Sanchez contends that an "aiding and abetting" instruction in these circumstances violated his sixth amendment right to "be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" against him.
The contention fails, essentially because "aiding and abetting" is not a separate offense. United States v. Thirion, 813 F.2d 146, 151 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. McKnight, 799 F.2d 443, 445 (8th Cir. 1986); see also United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d 706, 756 (7th Cir. 1988). Title 18 United States Code, section 2, "simply makes those who aid and abet in a crime punishable as principals." Thirion, 813 F.2d at 151 (quoting McKnight, 799 F.2d at 445). Aiding and abetting is "an alternative charge in every ... count, whether explicit or implicit." McKnight, 799 F.2d at 445 (quoting United States v. Walker, 621 F.2d 163, 166 (5th Cir. 1980)). Accord United States v. Bullock, 451 F.2d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Lester, 363 F.2d 68, 72 (6th Cir. 1966). A defendant can be convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of a substantive offense "upon a proper demonstration of proof so long as no unfair surprise results." United States v. Galiffa, 734 F.2d 306, 312 (7th Cir. 1984); accord United States v. Tucker, 552 F.2d 202, 204 (7th Cir. 1977).
All courts of appeals which have considered the matter have concluded that an "aiding and abetting" instruction may be given even though the indictment neither alleges aiding and abetting nor adverts to 18 U.S.C. § 2.2 We, too, now hold that the government may rely on an "aiding and abetting" theory, although the indictment neither alleges nor adverts to it, except on a showing of unfair surprise.3
The Sanchezes base their "ineffective assistance" claims on two grounds. First, their counsel did not request that the court allow the jury to hear a tape recording produced by the government in response to a discovery request. Second, their counsel did not obtain daily transcripts with which to impeach government witnesses. Without a more developed factual record, we are unable to evaluate the merit of these claims. "If the defendant[s] wish[ ] to pursue th[ese] claim[s], [they] may begin a collateral proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2255." Paz Uribe, 891 F.2d at 398.
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court imposed 360-month prison sentences on Edwin and Rafael Sanchez. The Sanchezes challenge these sentences on five grounds: first, the district court should have departed downward from the guideline sentencing range; second, the district court erroneously denied their requests to compel the attendance of Albert Lagos, the government's informant, at the sentencing hearing; third, their sentences violated due process; fourth, their "criminal history" classifications as "career offenders" were based on erroneous evaluations of their prior drug conviction records; and, finally, their sentences as "career offenders" under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4B1.1, United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Sec. 4B1.1 (Nov.1987), contravened 21 U.S.C. § 851.
The Sanchezes attempt to appeal the district court's refusal to impose a sentence below the guideline sentencing range pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 5K2.10, p.s. In particular, defendants contend that the ten year hiatus since their last previous drug convictions suggests that the current transaction represents an "aberration," rather than an indication of their criminal proclivities. As we are without appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss their claims without discussion. United States v. Tucker, 892 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1989) (district court decision not to depart below guideline sentencing range, not appealable).5
First, they argue that the Sentencing Guidelines violate their due process right to a fair sentencing determination in that the district court was permitted to consider sentencing information not established beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Davis, 715 F. Supp. 1473 (C.D. Cal. 1989).6 The government need not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt every evidentiary consideration which enters into a sentencing determination under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437, 441 (1st Cir. 1989).7 Insofar as disputed factors were considered by the sentencing court, the present defendants were accorded a reasonable opportunity to rebut the challenged information. Due process requires no more. See United States v. Fogel, 829 F.2d 77, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (due process requires that sentence not be based on false information and that defendant be given opportunity to rebut challenged information); United States v. Collins Spencer Catch the Bear, 727 F.2d 759, 761 (8th Cir. 1984) (same).
The second due process claim the Sanchezes make is that the district court applied the Guidelines too mechanically and did not take adequate account of their individual circumstances. The present contention is foreclosed, however, as we, see United States v. Seluk, 873 F.2d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1989), like other courts of appeals,8 have held that the Sentencing Guidelines impose no unconstitutional constraints on individualized sentencing, considering the broad range of variables cognizable by the sentencing court and its discretion to depart in appropriate circumstances.
The Sanchezes contend that they were assigned erroneous "criminal history" classifications under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.2(e) on the basis of prior criminal convictions for possessing and distributing narcotics, for which each was sentenced to six years in the Massachusetts Correctional Institute at Concord but actually served less than "one year and one month," see U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.2(e) (1). Therefore, they argue, the district court erred by treating their "Concord sentences" as felonies.
Edwin and Rafael Sanchez claim that the district court violated 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) (1) and denied their right to due process by sentencing them as "career offenders" under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4B1.1.
Section 851(a) (1) requires the prosecutor to file an information particularizing the prior convictions on the basis of which a defendant "convicted of an offense under this part," (emphasis added), i.e., under 21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq., is given an enhanced sentence.12 The section 851(a) (1) enhancement notice requirement applies "to situations in which a convicted defendant's statutory minimum or maximum penalty is enhanced under [21 U.S.C. §§ 841, et seq.], and not to situations in which the defendant is assigned a guideline base offense level and receives an increased sentence...." which remains within the statutorily prescribed minimum-maximum range. United States v. Wallace, 895 F.2d 487, 490 (8th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). Accord Hansen v. United States Parole Com., 904 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1990).
These Guidelines sentences were not imposed as a consequence of the enhancement of either the minimum or the maximum sentence prescribed by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (A). The government concedes that the defendants were subject to the statutory ten-year minimum sentence mandated by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (A), rather than the twenty-year minimum which would have been applicable on account of their prior felony drug convictions if the prosecutor had filed the section 851(a) (1) sentence enhancement information. Although their drug conviction records formed the basis for the Guidelines determination that the defendants are "career offenders," their 360-months' sentences were well below the life imprisonment term prescribed as the statutory maximum under section 841.
The Sanchezes finally contend that the district court erroneously denied their motion for new trial, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, which was predicated on their allegation that the government, throughout pretrial discovery and trial, failed to reveal payments which its informant, Albert Lagos, received from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for similar informant services in unrelated cases. The defendants moved during pretrial discovery for the production of "any material or information that can be used for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of any person the Government intends to call as a witness at the trial." The government responded with specific information concerning Lagos's criminal record and the large monetary payments and other non-monetary benefits received by Lagos from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration. At trial, Lagos was thoroughly cross-examined about this information.
After trial, the defendants learned that Lagos had received substantial payments from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as well. The defendants argue that the newly discovered evidence would have enabled them to further undermine Lagos's credibility with the jury. Since Lagos's credibility was important to the government's case, defendants urge that the government's nondisclosure deprived them of their right to a fair trial. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3379, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107-08, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 2399, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1976).
The government denies awareness, until after trial, that Lagos received payments from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Further, it contends that it was under no obligation to discover or produce information relating to payments Lagos received from the Commonwealth. The district court characterized the latter contention as "an invitation to very unpleasant consequences," but ruled, under our Wright-Martin standard, that the newly discovered evidence was merely cumulative and would not have led to the acquittal of any defendant. See United States v. Wright, 625 F.2d 1017, 1019 (1st Cir. 1980); United States v. Martin, 815 F.2d 818 (1st Cir. 1987).13
While Wright-Martin "ordinarily" provides the rule of decision governing motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, prosecutorial nondisclosure is subjected to a more stringent standard. See United States v. Imbruglia, 617 F.2d 1, 4 and n. 4 (1st Cir. 1980); Mains v. Butterworth, 619 F.2d 83, 86 (1st Cir. 1980); United States v. Walgren, 885 F.2d 1417, 1427-28 (9th Cir. 1989). "If the standard applied to the usual motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence were the same when the evidence was in the State's possession as when it was found in a neutral source, there would be no special significance in the prosecutor's obligation to serve the cause of justice." Agurs, 427 U.S. at 111, 96 S. Ct. at 2401. Prosecutorial nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence requested by an accused "violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215. Since impeachment evidence is "exculpatory" under Brady, United States v. Ingraldi, 793 F.2d 408, 411 (1st Cir. 1986), the question we ask in a prosecutorial nondisclosure setting is "whether the omitted evidence is of sufficient materiality to call for a new trial." Imbruglia, 617 F.2d at 4.14
The Supreme Court in Bagley formulated a uniform standard of materiality for general application in all nondisclosure cases. See Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682, 105 S. Ct. at 3383 ("The evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome."). See also United States v. Pandozzi, 878 F.2d 1526 (1st Cir. 1989) (applying Bagley standard to nondisclosure of evidence in government's possession).15
When determining whether newly discovered evidence is material, the "possibility" that the prosecutorial nondisclosure could have had an adverse effect upon the defense is assessed "in light of the totality of the circumstances and with an awareness of the difficulty of reconstructing in a post-trial proceeding the course that the defense and the trial would have taken had the defense not been misled by the prosecutor's incomplete response." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 683, 105 S. Ct. at 3384 (Blackmun, J.); see also Agurs, 427 U.S. at 112-13, 96 S. Ct. at 2401-02. Due to its "inherently fact-bound nature," Bagley, 473 U.S. at 685, 105 S. Ct. at 3385 (White, J., concurring), the district court's determination on the materiality of newly discovered evidence in prosecutorial nondisclosure cases is ordinarily accorded deference, see Pandozzi, 878 F.2d at 1528; Imbruglia, 617 F.2d at 7; Agurs, 427 U.S. at 113-14, 96 S. Ct. at 2402.
Finally, and most importantly, the newly discovered evidence was merely cumulative. Thus, under the Bagley standard, the motion for new trial was correctly denied as the availability of the newly discovered cumulative evidence could not undermine confidence in the fairness of the trial. Since cumulative evidence is not "material to either guilt or punishment," the unavailability of cumulative evidence does not deprive the defendant of due process.16 See United States v. Weintraub, 871 F.2d 1257, 1264 (5th Cir. 1989) (undisclosed evidence cumulative, therefore not material to conviction); Smith v. Kelso, 863 F.2d 1564, 1573 (11th Cir. 1989) (cumulative evidence fails to establish that nondisclosure undermined confidence in outcome of trial); United States v. Shelton, 588 F.2d 1242, 1248 (9th Cir. 1978) ("Impeachment evidence, even that which tends to further undermine the credibility of the key Government witness whose credibility has already been shaken due to extensive cross-examination, does not create a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist when that evidence is cumulative or collateral.") (Brady material suppressed by government) (citations omitted).
Second, Rosario asserts a Speedy Trial Act violation, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c), based on the 158-day delay between his indictment and trial. All but 31 days, at most, were excludable as delay occasioned by the pendency of motions filed by Rosario or by the Sanchezes, with whom he was joined for trial. See id. Sec. 3161(h) (1) (F); United States v. Noone, 913 F.2d 20, 26 (1st Cir. 1990).
Third, Rosario asserts that the district court deprived him of due process by refusing to allow him to attend the hearing on his pro se motion for new trial. There was no due process violation. As the district court noted at the consolidated hearing on defendants' motions for new trial, due process guarantees an accused's "right to be present at any stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if [the accused's] presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure." Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745, 107 S. Ct. 2658, 2667, 96 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1987). Since the issue under consideration at the hearing on the motion for new trial was the legal one whether the government's nondisclosure of Commonwealth payments to Lagos was sufficient to warrant a new trial, we are not persuaded that appellant's presence would have contributed to the "fairness of the proceeding." Compare Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(a) ("defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at the time of the plea, at every stage of the trial ..., and at the imposition of sentence....") with Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(c) (3) ("defendant need not be present.... (3) At ... argument upon a question of law.").
Finally, we are unable to discern any unconstitutionality in the district court directive that Rosario's counsel of record, retained after trial, represent Rosario at the hearing on the motion for new trial. Rosario informed the district court in advance of the hearing that he had dismissed post-trial counsel and wished to appear pro se. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Rosario's post-trial counsel appeared and advised the court that he had been asked by Rosario to withdraw; yet he had not withdrawn his formal appearance. As we have just noted, the district court, under Kentucky v. Stincer, 107 S. Ct. at 2667, denied Rosario's request to appear pro se and determined that Rosario's retained counsel was competent to represent him on the legal issues raised by the motion for new trial. Rosario asserts no claim that retained counsel's representation at the hearing on the motion for new trial was ineffective.17
See United States v. Taylor, 464 F.2d 240, 241 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1972); United States v. Forsythe, 560 F.2d 1127, 1136 n. 15 (3d Cir. 1977); United States v. Duke, 409 F.2d 669, 671 (4th Cir. 1969); United States v. Gordon, 812 F.2d 965, 969 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Lester, 363 F.2d at 72; United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F.2d at 756; United States v. Thirion, 813 F.2d at 151; United States v. Sannicandro, 434 F.2d 321, 324 (9th Cir. 1970); Lawrence v. United States, 357 F.2d 434, 438 (10th Cir. 1966); United States v. Martin, 747 F.2d 1404, 1407 (11th Cir. 1984)
We nevertheless consider it better practice, "whenever a basis for a charge of aiding and abetting is anticipated before trial, ... to have the indictment framed in the alternative or at least to have noted upon it a reference to 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2," United States v. Duke, 409 F.2d at 671; see also Galiffa, 734 F.2d at 312 ("preferable" to charge 18 U.S.C. § 2 in indictment)
We are not confronted with the sort of "marginal case" in which the Pinkerton instruction sometimes causes concern. See, e.g., Stackpole, 811 F.2d at 696; United States v. Sperling, 506 F.2d 1323, 1341-42 (2d Cir. 1974). In Sperling, 506 F.2d at 1341-42, the Second Circuit appropriately cautioned that a Pinkerton charge "should not be given as a matter of course," particularly where the jury is being asked to make the converse inference; that is, to infer, on the basis of a series of disparate criminal acts, that a conspiracy existed. In the present case there was ample evidence that Rafael Sanchez was a member of the alleged conspiracy to possess cocaine for distribution. The jury was instructed to consider whether Rafael belonged to the same cocaine conspiracy (independently established under count I) in furtherance of whose unlawful object either of Rafael's co-conspirators committed the substantive offense of possessing cocaine for distribution as charged in count II
Other courts of appeals are of the same mind. See, e.g., United States v. Colon, 884 F.2d 1550 (2d Cir. 1989); United States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Buenrostro 868 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Draper, 888 F.2d 1100 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Franz, 886 F.2d 973 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Evidente, 894 F.2d 1000 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Fossett, 881 F.2d 976 (11th Cir. 1989)
Defendants rely entirely on Davis, which held the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 unconstitutional because it "required" the court to consider sentencing information neither "introduced at trial [n]or proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Davis, 715 F. Supp. at 1476. We are aware of no court which presently follows Davis. See, e.g., United States v. Ross, 905 F.2d 1050, 1054 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Restrepo, 903 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Frederick, 897 F.2d 490, 493 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Candito, 892 F.2d 182, 186 (2d Cir. 1989)
See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 900 F.2d 1350, 1353 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing to appellate cases which hold that due process does not require the establishment, beyond a reasonable doubt, of facts underlying sentencing determinations under the Sentencing Guidelines.) The Guidelines require that the sentencing information which the sentencing judge considers bear "sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy." U.S.S.G. Sec. 6A1.3(a). All courts of appeals which have considered the issue, including our own, see Wright, 873 F.2d at 441, have held that due process is satisfied if the facts relied on in Guidelines sentencings are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Guerra, 888 F.2d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1989); United States v. McDowell, 888 F.2d 285, 291 (3rd Cir. 1989); United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, 1238 (4th Cir. 1989); Wilson, 900 F.2d at 1354
See, e.g., United States v. Vizcaino, 870 F.2d 52, 53 (2d Cir. 1989); United States v. Frank, 864 F.2d 992, 1009-10 (3d Cir. 1988); United States v. Bolding, 876 F.2d 21, 22 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Woolford, 896 F.2d 99, 101-02 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Jacobs, 877 F.2d 460, 462 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Pinto, 875 F.2d 143, 144-45 (7th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sciacca, 879 F.2d 415, 416 (8th Cir. 1989); United States v. Brady, 895 F.2d 538, 539 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Thomas, 884 F.2d 540, 542-43 (10th Cir. 1989); United States v. Erves, 880 F.2d 376, 379 (11th Cir. 1989)
The relevant part of section 851(a) (1) states:
21 U.S.C. § 851(a) (1) (emphasis added). There is no Sentencing Guideline requirement which makes the filing of an information a condition precedent to sentence enhancement under the Guidelines.
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 contrasts the materiality standard applicable to prosecutorial nondisclosure in response to a specific request from the defense, with the standard applicable when there has been no defense request or only a general one. In the latter circumstance, the Supreme Court concluded, on the one hand, that there was no constitutional requirement that the prosecution surrender its entire file to the defense. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 111, 96 S. Ct. at 2401. On the other hand, the Court rejected any standard which would impose on the defendant "the severe burden of demonstrating that newly discovered [nondisclosed] evidence probably would have resulted in acquittal." Id. Agurs "did not define the standard of materiality applicable to a [nondisclosure in response to a specific request for discovery], but suggested that the standard might be more lenient to the defense than in the situation in which the defense makes no request or only a general request." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 681, 105 S. Ct. at 3383. Thus, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the suggestion that Agurs had established that the materiality test for newly discovered evidence, not disclosed in response to a specific request, was whether the evidence "might have affected the outcome of the trial." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 681, 105 S. Ct. at 3383. See, e.g., Imbruglia, 617 F.2d at 4-5. According to Bagley, 473 U.S. at 681 n. 12, 105 S. Ct. at 3383 n. 12, the Agurs language does not establish a standard, but "merely explains the meaning of the term 'materiality.' "
Before Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 we expressed reservations whether the "probable acquittal" standard would apply to newly discovered evidence useful only for impeachment purposes, see United States v. Strahl, 590 F.2d 10, 13 (1st Cir. 1978), and cases cited therein, but left the matter open, see United States v. Imbruglia, 617 F.2d at 7; Mains v. Butterworth, 619 F.2d at 86. Of course, the matter has been resolved by Bagley, which involved impeachment evidence