Opinion ID: 223510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to review the pre-sentence investigation reports of two of the government's witnesses

Text: Lastly, Huggans argues that the district court erred in failing to conduct in camera review of the PSRs of cooperating government witnesses Curtis Rice and Debra Rice to determine whether they contained exculpatory evidence or impeachment material within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). [8] We review a district court's decision to provide or deny a criminal defendant access to another person's PSR for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Jewell, 614 F.3d 911, 921 (8th Cir.2010). We have held that the district court abuses its discretion in failing to carry out such a review where ... the defendant has sought access to a coconspirator's PSR, the government has recognized the possibility that the PSR contains Brady/Giglio information and requested in camera review, and the district court fails to carry out such review. United States v. Garcia, 562 F.3d 947, 953 (8th Cir.2009). Here, however, neither Huggans nor the government invited the district court to conduct in camera review of Curtis Rice's and Debra Rice's PSRs. Although Huggans requested production of the PSRs pertaining to the government's cooperating witnesses prior to trial, he never moved the district court to require the government to disclose the PSRs. Cf. Jewell, 614 F.3d at 921 (noting that, in that case, the defendant brought a motion [in district court] to require the government to disclose [a cooperating witness's] PSR, or in the alternative, asking the district court to conduct an in camera review of the PSR to determine whether it contained material which should be disclosed). On appeal, Huggans contends that during a pre-trial conference on January 15, 2009, the government invited the district court to review the PSRs in camera to determine whether they contained Brady/Giglio information. But Huggans is mistaken. During that pre-trial conference, as part of a discussion related to discovery issues, counsel for the government informed the district court that the government had refused Huggans's informal request for the PSRs relating to the government's witnesses because the government was not at liberty to turn those over. Counsel for Huggans stated, I accepted that. Counsel for the government then clarified that if a judge tells me to do that, that's okay. However, Huggans did not pursue the matter. Neither party suggested the possibility that the PSRs at issue could contain Brady/Giglio information and neither party asked the district court to review any PSRs in camera. The record contains no other references to the production of PSRs pertaining to the government's cooperating witnesses. We conclude, therefore, that Huggans waived this issue. Consequently, we perceive no error in the district court's failure to review in camera PSRs of Curtis Rice and Debra Rice. See United States v. Rees, 447 F.3d 1128, 1130 (8th Cir.2006) (An argument not raised below cannot be raised on appeal for the first time unless the obvious result would be a plain miscarriage of justice. (internal quotation marks omitted)).